Voters Under Attack All Accross The Land

All you need to know about this highly illegal movement (the facts will later be proven correct) can be seen in this great investigative reminder on msnbc.msn.com presented by Rachel Maddow, who does great excellent reporting.

This guaranteed constitutional right to vote is under attack from the "right" who happens to be wrong.

I urge you to take notes and confront each GOP office holder and candidate about this. They are determined to win any way possible. This way must not stand.

A Post Begging For An *Explanation

* Explanation (n): A set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.

Here we have a picture worth a few million words, none of which Mr. Romney will talk about. I wonder why not.

Why won't he talk about his record as Gov. of Massachusetts. He says he is a rock-solid businessman who created jobs for over 25 years.

Whoops.

Issues That Should Matter — Will They

What the Voters Say is Important to Them

How the GOP (all across the country) are Acting and Enacting Laws

These two charts reflect the deep divide in our country's political process (if we can all it a process or a mess) — what the voters (who should count) see as important issues vs. the reality in GOP run House and GOP filibustering Senate, and in many states run by GOP legislators. How they are acting and proposing and in fact, doing that goes against what the people say they want. Therein lies a the disconnect and divide. Why? Or more so, why does the public ignore it, or are they? That is the $64,000 question and we may not know until November in the final analysis.

Along the way, however I draw your attention to the next post below about the God-ugly amounts of big money in this race. This from the 2008 and 2004 races from The George Washington University.

"Total Cost of 2008 Presidential Campaign: About $2.4 billion. Presidential campaigns are expensive, but none was more expensive than the 2008 campaign. The Center for Responsive Politics estimated the cost of the 2008 presidential race at $2.4 billion, and reported that fundraising by the presidential candidates was double that of 2004. By comparison, the Center put total spending on the 2004 presidential election at $1.2 billion while noting that this figure includes a very conservative estimate of spending by advocacy groups."

Are we about to see the flood of millions or more that will keep chart #1 out of sight while chart #2 remains the standard? This is a critical election and the the question is just as critical: Do the voters want the GOP in control of government at all levels that they say they need to reverse everything that Obama has done or proposes to do (even what they say he intends to do if his gets a second term).

The choices are clear, but who or what will prevail in the end: The issues that should matter, or money to distract from the issues that should matter for those that do not, except in narrow cases as shown above?

Hounds from Hell — Billionaires and this Election

How did we get to this point where a small handful of billionaires can try to buy their own government and thereby, try to own our country.

This short video (8 minutes) sets the scene. It is a visual look back at that awful USSC "Citizens United (5-4)" ruling.

Then, the rest of the (continuing) story updated here (13 minutes).

So, I ask, "Are we a coin-operated democracy, or are we what we profess to be: a representative democracy where the majority rules, each vote counts, and people, not corporations matter like people are supposed to count and matter?"

Not a hard question to answer at all is it.

Banking Rules Paramount Now More Than Ever

New Wall Street Banking Mess: JPMorganChase Loses $2 billion - Says Sorry

Story all over the networks and their CEO admits that they made lousy decisions and that some of the new Federal rules would have prevented this. Some their top executives are stepping down. How this will impact the Market next week (week of May 14, 2012) remains to be seen.

Second Update (May 14, 2012): Shareholders have lost more than $15 billion as the stock has plunged more than 11 percent since the bank announced trading losses of $2 billion and counting. The leading question remains: Is not whether the bank is too big to fail, but perhaps too big to regulate.

First Update (May 14, 2012): LONDON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co Chief Investment Officer Ina Drew retired on Monday, the first casualty after the bank suffered trading losses that could reach $3 billion or more and that have tarnished the reputation of high-profile Chief Executive Jamie Dimon.

SWAG Says: While this story is still unfolding, it does not diminish the idea about the need for full implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act (Senate summary) and especially the so-called "Volker rule" and with no loopholes. A loophole big enough to drive a semi-truck through allowed this to happen by all accounts.

However, the GOP and their side (e.g., the Chamber of Commerce and a few others) keep resisting any change and/or full implementation of Wall Street that could stop this crap, all the while the crap continues saying any rules will hamper "the job creators." Um... how many jobs could be started with that $2 billion one ponders? (More on this follows).

The following is my composite from several sources, including TPM and the NYTimes. Any editing therein is my responsibility - it's long, but needs to be posted for historical reasons, if nothing else.

Mitt Romney will probably have a harder time defending his intent to repeal the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law in the wake of recent JP Morgan’s stunning disclosure that it lost at least $2 billion betting on the economy. That loss also raises important substantive questions about the effectiveness of the new financial reforms themselves, particularly the one provision specifically intended to end just this sort of trading.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) criticized regulators (see below) for writing a major loophole into the so-called Volcker Rule — which was meant to prevent banks from betting with depositor funds — at the behest of financial interests. That kind of major loophole goes against the intent of the reforms Congress passed under Dodd-Frank, said Levin. Dodd-Frank was designed to restrict banks from gambling with customer funds under the guise of “hedging,” while still allowing banks to make proprietary trades as hedges against specific investments.

That law tasked Obama administration regulators with writing the restrictions. Those regulations would allow banks to hedge against broad losses by placing bets, such as JP Morgan’s, on things like economic growth and inflation.

Impact:

1. This exception will allow banks to hide a vast amount of proprietary trading.
2. The draft rules at this point are way too lax.
3. They do not have the bright lines that are needed.
4. Both senators identified this loophole and similar loopholes in early versions of the rule months ago.
5. That is exactly what happened at JP Morgan recently and is one the reason why the company’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, claimed on the Sunday TV shows that the losing bets wouldn’t have run afoul of the Volcker Rule if it had been operational.
6. The rule is intended to take effect in July, though Wall Street execs, including Dimon, have been pushing hard to delay implementation.
7. Merkley and Levin, along with outside reform advocates are seizing on the episode to strengthen the rule and bring greater scrutiny to Wall Street.
8. The so-called “too-big-to-fail banks like JP Morgan, with trillions in assets and trillions more in high-risk investments and trading,” require regulation and transparency.

Who are the Regulators and What is the Volker Loophole? Regulators have faced a barrage of complaints from lawmakers and financial industry lobbyists in their 14-month-long quest to constrain risky trading on Wall Street, an effort known as the Volcker Rule. Now, as regulators begin a push to produce a final draft of the rule, they face hurdles from an unexpected group: themselves.

For example:

1. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation pushed for tough language that would require bank executives to vouch for their compliance with the Volcker Rule.
2. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has been fiercely resisting, say people close to the regulators.
3. Some regulators even quarreled over which agency would vote first on the rule, according to one of the people close to the regulators.
4. Four regulators ultimately did vote; a fifth agency (the Commodity Futures Trading Commission) was conspicuous by its silence.
5. The Chamber of Commerce opposes the Volcker Rule has said, “We see a split. They might be trying to get to the same place, but it’s difficult to get there.”
6. The Volcker Rule bickering reflects broader tensions among financial regulators, who have amassed broad and sometimes overlapping powers in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the sprawling overhaul that spawned the Volcker Rule among 300 other regulations, transformed the regulatory landscape and is at the heart of the squabbling.
7. The rule would limit most proprietary trading, where a bank places bets for itself rather than for clients, a major money maker for the industry.
8. Wall Street has warned that the rule will eat into profits just as banks are trying to regain their footing.

Regulators have already fashioned multiple exemptions to the ban:

1. Allowing banks to place trades when hedging against risk.
2. Banks can also buy securities from one client with an eye toward later selling them to another, though the line is often fuzzy between that business and proprietary betting.

The proposal reflects the rule’s complexity, spanning nearly 300 pages and taking aim at some of the most arcane financial minutia. Davis Polk, a law firm that advises some of the nation’s biggest banks, has churned out multiple summaries of the proposal for clients and even started a Web site.

In recent weeks, the deepest divide centered on provisions that spelled out how regulators would enforce the Volcker Rule. One idea would require bank executives to promise compliance. In August, a confidential draft proposal included the “CEO attestation” clause in brackets, meaning it was “included for discussion purposes only, pending resolution at the principal level.” The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency objected, according to the people close to the regulators, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

The agency, which oversees national banks, flagged the executive compliance rule as a deal-breaker. Over the last month, regulators scrambled to draft a compromise. The agencies formed Volcker Rule working groups, which held weekly phone calls and regularly gathered in a conference room at the FDIC’s Washington headquarters, the people said. Treasury Department lawyers occasionally mediated the dispute. But in recent days only one compromise emerged: turn the CEO rule into a question. Ultimately, regulators asked whether the rule would “be a preferable approach.”

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, with support from the Federal Reserve, also opposed an FDIC proposal that would force banks to turn over a battery of trading data to independent warehouses where regulators could keep an eye on the trades. Again, the provision was demoted to a question.

Regulators are playing down their differences:

1. Elise Walter, a Democratic commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission, said at a public meeting last week that the Volcker Rule had “been a very effective exercise in cooperation.”
2. At the same meeting, however, the agency’s lone Republican commissioner, Troy Paredes, voted to approve the rule but warned that he had “significant reservations.”
3. At the Federal Reserve, which quietly voted by e-mail recently, one board member, Sarah Bloom Raskin, opposed the proposal, according to a person with knowledge of the vote. It is unclear why she voted against the rule.
4. The Fed and the FDIC declined to comment.
5. The agency is concerned that Wall Street will mount lawsuits against its policies, especially in light of a court decision over the summer that struck down a separate SEC rule. The latest draft of the Volcker Rule does outline the economic effects of the proposal.
6. The CFTC, smallest of the regulators, also says it feels it cannot currently spare the time and staff needed to review the Volcker Rule while it juggles dozens of other Dodd-Frank policies. It is unclear whether the agency will adopt a similar version of the rule.
7. Wall Street groups have already seized on what they see as a split among the agencies.

For example: The Chamber of Commerce sent a letter last week outlining its concerns Treasury Secretary Geithner, saying the rule had a lack of coordination and injects additional uncertainty into an already fragile economy, and threatens to further endanger the economic recovery.

For those who resist any rules, think hard about this latest massive banking loss.

Fortune 500 Flying High With New Records in 2011

Credit Illustration by Justin Mezzell at CNNMoney

The CNN Money headlines pretty much says it all: "Fortune 500: The year of living profitably." It's not if the general public does not already know that the big Corporations and Companies are doing quite well and so are the financial services.

According to the article, for example, the financials are experiencing a comeback for 2011. That sector posted $150 billion in earnings, which were up 19% over 2010. That is a big increase from the massive $213 billion losses they suffered in 2008.

Funny, in a ironic way, even as the GOP right wingers and their media-based pundits bash Obama for his actions (and everything else about the man) since 2009, and lots of good news is out there, too, even though slow, I agree, they just can't fess up to the past *unless it's to blame the DEMS* that took us down that dark path where now there is now a bit brighter without a ton of ugly politics, practically on a daily basis.

Not to mix a lot of metaphors here, but we are making gains and we are improving, and that is what the public should focus on. Even so, over 46 Americans are at or below the poverty level. That is not encouraging.

However, we are people are who at times are very wise and strong (despite the nastiness in DC), and I believe they know that even in bad times that we will come out the other side much better. The automobile industry illustrates that better than anything. And, now with this CNN Money report, there are other big indicators of movement forward. It will take both sides of the political aisle to accomplish better things, but with one side pulling in the opposite direction, or filibustering everything in the Senate, it will move us backwards (back to the future as some of us say), and then that progress is apt to remain in this ugly status quo.

Hopefully, this election year, the voters will see the GOP and their true colors and take the action that is needed to send a powerful message about cooperation and compromise and getting things done that need to be done and stop the nasty politics, or if they cannot, just go home and spend more time with your family and leave ours alone kind of message in November.

GOP and Romney — Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

Geo. H.W. Bush, Geo. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama: 3rd Year in Office Stats

As they say, tale of the tape. Or, if you choose: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Used to describe numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster one's weak argument, or to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point. A game for which the GOP is famous and without shame.

Case in point. The GOP hates big government, whether it's Union workers, local, state, or Federal employees, or at least they say they do. Now to the chart and a great 5-minute clip, mostly more nonsense from Mitt Romney.

Of course, getting the GOP or Romney to admit what the facts show otherwise would be tantamount to pulling hen's teeth.

But, the facts are what they - they can be disputed and regularly are, but they cannot be denied.

Bin-Laden Raid — KSM Torture Not Connected

McCain's Info on KSM Torture Leading to bin-Laden Raid

Who you gonna believe or trust?

The CIA guy who destroyed the torture tapes (water boarding tapes), or Sen. McCain's story from CIA Director Panetta in 2011?

First, the CIA guy's story - listen carefully - it's full of BS to the trained ear. Then read the statement above again.

Talk about duping the public — this about takes the cake.

Bottom line: Torture does not work. Plus, any info gleaned is highly questionable, and in most cases not trustworthy, or actionable.

GOP Hair Catches on Fire After This Post

Speech on the United States Senate Floor, September 16, 1981

Barry Goldwater was often referred to as "Mr. Conservative" even to this day. Still others compare him to Ronald Reagan - with Reagan coming out on top - but this there any comparison at all, really?

More from Mr. Goldwater here, in a condensed version - compared to Reagan here:

On March 8, 1983, addressing the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL, Mr. Reagan stated:

“Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they sought to protect churches from government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government and the concept of religious belief itself.”

See any differences? Um ... seems that even staunch conservatives can disagree? Try telling that to a staunch conservative about religion the next time you encounter one ... then get ready to duck.

GOP Plot Born on the Night of Obama’s Inauguration

The GOP Plot Against Obama from Day One

There is nothing like a good old-fashioned conspiracy, right ... unless it is true, it does not mean anything except a good movie plot. But if it true, or can be proven to be true, then it is serious stuff. Measure how much of this true or not. I post, you decide.

Here are some highlights from Robert Draper’s gripping and fast-paced narrative.

So, who is Robert Draper? He is the author of the New York Times bestseller Dead Certain, the definitive book about the Bush Presidency. Here, he offers a revealing and riveting look at the new House of Representatives, elected in the history-making 2010 midterm elections. The book is from Amazon here.

Introduction: On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, Republican leaders met in a private dining room at an expensive Washington, DC steakhouse to plot their comeback. It was a mix of congressmen and senators with three others added to diversify the gathering of white men.

Pollster Frank Luntz, right-wing journalist Fred Barnes, and former speaker Newt Gingrich. Gingrich gave the opening remarks and gave tactical advice throughout, including a suggestion for Republicans to target the tax problems of New York Democrat Charlie Rangel.

At the end of the night, Gingrich proclaimed, “You will remember this day. You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown.”

A very good 9-minute summary clip is here from msnbc.msn.com.

It has been non-stop anti-everything and anti-Obama ever since.

Show Me Your Papers, or Take Your Chances

USSC Will Rule on this AZ Law — It Could Change the Face the Country Forever

Interesting 6-minute segment here from msnbc.msn.com with Constitutional Professor, Jonathan Turley as a guest addressing the subject.

Turley's column on the subject can be seen here. His Blog is here, which is also an excellent source - FYI.

Sgt. Schultz would be proud: "Your papers please!"

Reminder here — We haven't reached that point yet, have we???

Consider this scenario: An Asian-American born in the U.S. is stopped by AZ police for a minor infraction; or an Indian-American born here is stopped, too; or, any person of color born in the U.S., or naturalized here is stopped in AZ for something minor, whether they are while driving or walking.

Under AZ law, and for any infraction, the AZ police can question them about anything. They can demand that they prove who they are: U.S. citizen, or someone here legally, or both. Would a white person be compelled to do the same? Doubtful.

Think seriously about that scenario and answer: "Who in America carries any papers to prove who they are, or where they were born, or how they got here.

Sure, some people visiting here carry a passport, etc., but 99.9 percent of all Americans do not. We carry a driver's license, or perhaps a college student ID card, or something similar, but not papers to show our citizenship or reason for being here.

The USSC should make that point clear no matter how they rule on this law, in total, or in part: we do not unnecessarily profile people in the United States.

It is the Money: Are We Stupid or Not

Highlights and screenshot from The Dylan Ratigan Show - seen here.

• 94 percent of all candidates who won in 2008 had the most money.

• 196 donors today giving to the "Super PACs" are giving $4 out of every $5.

• one-half of all "Super PAC" money has come from just 46 big donors.

• 69 percent of the public says "Super PAC" money is tainting the process and that leads to corruption.

The worst part: 7 in 10 voters say they may sit out this cycle since the deck is stacked against the public.

By far, 2012 is going to be one huge expensive election auction.

The question is: What do you intend to do about it?

If we stay home and do not vote, then they (the billionaires) win.

Fat Cat Scat — Make Room for Sugar Daddy

Fat Cats ( passé ) — Sugar Daddies (a la mode)

Background:

Fat Cat: The campaign finance reforms following the Watergate scandal was to have greatly reduced the amount of money that individuals could contribute to a political campaign. In the words of Ben J. Wattenberg (conservative senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute), "The fat cats were driven from the temple..." Woe, were that true today. Thanks to the USSC and their "Citizen's United" ruling (don't you just love that term Citizens United?) changed all that, perhaps forever.

Sugar Daddy: Sugar daddy is a slang term for a man who offers money or gifts to a younger person in return for companionship or sexual favors. Those we see today (billionaires mostly) may not fit that definition exactly, but they are still screwing the public nevertheless.

What got my attention on this aspect (comparing the two) comes from msnbc.msn.com (the Rachel Maddow Show) and her guest, writer Frank Rich, seen in this short clip about "Sugar Daddies."

I added my own flavor (about the Fat Cat and Sugar Daddy comparison) from what Rich writes about at The New Yorker on the subject of Sugar Daddies. It is a very good read.

This is a bound to be a real crowd pleaser, I am sure, as Rich presents this little gem: The first 25 conservative donors to give $1 million or more to Super PAC's this cycle, either on their own, with their families, or with companies that they or their families control. Others have likely given millions more to 501(c)(4)s, “social welfare” groups that are not required to disclose their donors. (Based on FEC filings through February 29, 2012).

Buying their own government and President, too. What a novel idea!

Welcome to the new Amerika ... and you thought your small contribution, or maximum of $2,500, and vote really mattered?

Think again.

Can't Outlaw Abortions, then Hit the Doctors

Women Across America and Now in Wisconsin Hit Hard

This rundown comes from Wisconsin and the GOP ... the message is clear, the chips are falling. Are women awake and ready to act or not?

Fresh Water Disaster Maybe Coming to Midwest

Major Update on the Keystone XL Pipeline
More leaks in the Keystone XL pipeline route here and bingo: Lifetime Suffering

Original Post Follows this Update (April, 21, 2012): The House passed HR 4348 (293-127): "To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multi-year law reauthorizing such programs, and for other purposes..."

In this bill as reflected in the graph above, the GOP "mandates that the Keystone XL pipeline be built," thus skirting the White House, and an expected veto ... nasty politics again. Get what you (highway jobs) but what most states do not want (see the aquifer graph above). The GOP wants to get this pipeline anyway possible.

Original Post: A great analysis of the on-going nuclear mess in Japan is offered here from msnbc.msn.com at the same time we see more debris reaching our West Coast along with concern about major fresh water problems on-going in Japan should get our attention regarding the potential loss of fresh water supply that could become contaminated and impact six states as shown above.

No one wants to cry wolf, but common sense must be applied in this case. Keystone XL builders said their pipeline is safe, and that any leaks could be cleaned up in days and weeks, which is not true at all. Just ask the good people along Kalamazoo River in Michigan.

Then imagine a series of spills along the new proposed route to Texas? Kind of makes you stop and think a bit more serious, doesn't it???

Two-Faces: One, Big Donors; One, Plain People

Speaks in Two Different Worlds

Two important clips from msnbc.msn.com

Obama can relate to the people, Romney cannot.

Romney cannot relate to people, even face-to-face.

Romney told big donors (the real Fat Cats) what they wanted to hear (that he will cut, cut, cut, and BTW: cut some more), and also more recently here.

But with voters in PA (linked above), he just nods and says um, um, um, um, and um when they mention how government has helped, and how it needs to help more. He was uncomfortable and it showed — and for good reason: He cannot relate to people, except those in his pay grade.

Romney: Counterfeit, Spurious, Pretentious, and Fake

Romney in January 2012 during Campaign Remarks with McCain

All the fake GOP flack about Hilary Rosen's remarks about Mrs. Romney "never having worked a day in her life" brought this whole issue back into full view regarding Mitt Romney's own views about stay-at-home Moms, and especially poor Moms without a job.

Thanks to msnbc.msn.com and Chris Hayes for this reminder.

Will it matter? Probably not, but it should.

Buffett Rule Vote: April 16, 2012 (Tax Filing Day)

Revenues from the Buffett Rule and/or letting the Bush Tax Cuts Expire

The Senate takes up the Buffett rule bill tomorrow(Sen. Whitehouse bill sponsor).

The action will center on watching the GOP tie themselves up in knots trying to stop any vote on it — which means they will work hard to defend the top one percent and thus help them keep more of their millions and billions with more breaks for (now wait for it) jobs.

More after the vote is taken.

Impractical Ploy to Regain Trust of Women Voters

I will keep shakin' it until I get it right (or left or even the middle) ...

The Headline and Subtitle from Alternet.org reads:

"Mitt Romney's Plan to Woo Female Voters: Pretend Women Are Very Stupid" — Romney seems to assume that women don't care about sexual rights. But reproductive issues impact almost all women.

This post ties directly into the next post below (The GOP Can't Get Their Stories Straight). Once again, Mr. Romney will do, say, pay, try, or imply anything to win votes. His record is clear on that point, even as he feebly brushes aside all criticism of his past performance in office or on the GOP campaign trail, indicating the things he believes himself are true while expecting everyone (except women whom he now needs) to not remember, or if they do remember, to soon forget. We must not allow that to happen. He must be held to account for his words and deeds.

Memo to Mitt: "As a loyal purveyor of the facts, as much as possible (unlike you), may I ask: Have you not heard about Youtube, or the media archives, or old campaign sound tracks? It seems like you have not."

Footnote to the Romney Camp: I leave this short clip from msnbc.msn.com for you to review. I hope it has an impact on you, but doubt it will. Consider it a gift (but not a campaign contribution) from the millions of women all across America.

The GOP Can't Get Their Stories Straight

The Numbers are Real — Three strikes, or a heluva lot more???

The GOP can't even define war, except when they need to invade a country on false pretenses, then any old definition or reason will suffice (i.e., Iraq), but that's a different subject.

The War on Women by the Grand Old Party is real, despite their diversions otherwise. They even have said that even using the term "war" on this topic, or that issue, or whatever is in vogue (mostly by President Obama, of course) now borders on being un-American or un-patriotic. However, the facts are the facts: there is a clear cut war of women all across the country and in Congress. This is despite what the Senate Minority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) said recently that is is "... a manufactured issue and fiction." Boy, is he wrong.

First, is this great rundown from msnbc.msn.com (The Rachel Maddow Show) in this 17-minute clip. It is well worth your time to check it out here.

Second, is my compiled laundry list of documented harsh GOP policies and laws and attempts to infringe on women and their health care needs primarily reported in a variety of sources (linked to each entry below).

The total list is very long, but this list is what I call the "Dirty Dozen" — they are some of the most remarkable and well-known all across the country:

1. In May 2011, the House GOP passed a bill that would ban DC reproductive funding. House Republicans unanimously passed the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” which created a “ban on the District of Columbia using its own money to fund abortions for low-income women.” SOURCE: The Washington Post

2. “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion” another GOP bill originally included language restricting the definition of rape. The original version of the act also included language amended from the Hyde Amendment, which limited federal funding for abortion to cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger. The law would have removed all exceptions other than “forcible rape.” A January 28, 2011, Mother Jones article pointed out that this would have "rule[d] out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases." SOURCE: Mother Jones

3. The Virginia State GOP passed a measure to Require a medically invasive procedure that even a MD (Ob-Gyn) never ordered, called “Vaginal Ultrasound” before any abortion. It would have required women in the early stages of pregnancy to undergo the “trans-vaginal ultrasound” before an abortion. Following public pressure, they passed a modified version of the bill that still requires a medically unnecessary ultrasound. SOURCE: Mother Jones and all major media outlets

4. The Pennsylvania GOP Proposed a similar Vaginal Ultrasound bill. In February, Republicans in the Pennsylvania State House introduced legislation requiring that “medical professionals say women would have to undergo an invasive, vaginal ultrasound.” SOURCE: PennLive.com

5. The Alabama GOP attempted to Pass a similar trans-vaginal ultrasound bill. In February, Alabama GOP State Senate ended debate over a bill that would have required trans-vaginal ultrasounds before getting an abortion. SOURCE: The Huffington Post

6. GOP lawmakers in Idaho and their Trans-vaginal Ultrasound bill. In February, they unanimously voted to introduce a bill that would have required “an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound” procedure “before any Idaho woman could have an abortion.” SOURCE: The Spokesman-Review

7. The Georgia GOP cut option for abortion services after 20 weeks. In March, Georgia Republicans passed a bill that would have “cut by about six weeks the time women in Georgia may have an elective abortion” According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the bill would tighten medical exemptions for terminating pregnancies and require any abortion performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy be done in a way to bring the fetus out alive. No exemption is made for rape or incest.” SOURCE: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

8. The Arizona GOP promoted a law that restricts abortion to 20 weeks and requires am Ultrasound. The Republican-led state legislature in Arizona is promoting a bill that would ban most abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy. SOURCE: Reuters

9. Texas Republican Lawmakers Voted To Restrict Health Services To Low-Income Women. In March, conservative Republican lawmakers in Texas implemented a law that would cut off clinics with any affiliation to a[n abortion] provider, even if it's just a shared name, employee or board member. SOURCE: USA Today

10. House Republicans Voted To Cut Off Funding To Planned Parenthood. In February 2011, the House GOP approved an amendment to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. SOURCE: Politico

11. GOP Sen. Roy Blunt Introduced Amendment That Would Have Allowed Any Employer To Deny Reproductive Health Coverage To Women. Blunt introduced an amendment to a highway funding bill that would have allowed not only religious groups but any employer with moral objections to opt out of the coverage requirement. SOURCE: The Washington Post

12. The Indiana GOP Voted To Eliminate Funding To Planned Parenthood. In June 2011, a federal judge struck down a law passed by Indiana GOP state lawmakers that would have eliminated both state and federal matching funds from going to Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions. SOURCE: Reuters

Feast and Famine: The Two Faces of North Korea

Kim, Jong-un, or Kim, Jung-un, is the "Great Successor" of North Korea. He sure has not missed many meals.

The faces of his most-vulnerable subjects - the children in North Korea - tell a different story, that is if anyone bothers to pay much attention to starving kids.

This is a story the world must face head on. I'll leave it at that for now.

Back to the Future Redux for Romney from Bush

A picture worth a few trillion dollars and several million jobs, plus a lot of off-shore movement of jobs by the "job creators" in exchange for more tax breaks, and natch, more anti-Union/anti fair wage movement and attempts.

Obama & Reagan Side-by-Side on the Buffett Rule

President Ronald Reagan in 1985 (video clip is below)

Let's face it, the GOP hates taxes of any size and basically on anyone (to be honest most of us hate taxes).

However, the GOP has no qualms about sustaining tax cuts for the top while maintaining them on the bottom rung as it were.

A lot of talk is circulating these days ever since we heard Warren Buffett, a famous billionaire, say he paid less taxes that his office secretary.

Now President Obama is pushing a proposal that says the very top should pay more if they earn or have more money that the rest of us. That bill is known as the "Buffett Rule". And, right on schedule, the entire GOP hates and opposes the proposal tooth and nail.

At this point, I need to remind my fav opposition party, the GOPers, to review this .59 second video clip which shows Presidents Obama and Reagan side-by-side speaking on the topic: in words from then and now today.

More on this topic is here from ThinkProgress.org (source of the story).

Footnote: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s Buffett Rule proposal (at the White House link) is set for a vote on April 16, 2012. We need to watch and examine whether it passes or falls prey to the infamous 60-vote rule needed to shut off debate (from GOP blocking) and be voted on. This vote demands our attention.

GOP War on Women: Real or Political Hype

From a recent radio interview

From ThinkProgress.org: RNC Chairman Reince Priebus dismisses ‘War On Women’ as fictional, like "War On Caterpillars"

Um ... kinda weak analogy, Mr. Priebus. Shall we ask Senator Murkowski about the entire interview here or the recent actions of the GOP across the country, and in particular Gov. Scott Walker in WI who signed a string of bills that hit women pretty hard. I guess he wants them into law before he is recalled - his legacy as it were?

More of the Murkowski interview is here - FYI.

BTW: I note that the GOP has in the past (also shown in this same 7-minute clip) freely using the term "war" on this or that (vis-à-vis in their attacks on President Obama about various issues). However, now they say using that word like in the "war on women" is unpatriotic and thus, apparently un-American.

I don't know how much more hypocrisy the GOP has between now and November in their bag of tricks, but I hope they will run out and start addressing more serious issues that are critical to many Americans, and more so about their views and actions and words and deeds against women in America.

That is a fact, Mr. Priebus; it is not fiction like your asserted in your weak "war on caterpillars" comparison.

GOP Strategy to Stop Obama Second Term

Urban Dictionary: Rovian def: Employ incorrect, fake, and false info, or lies

The 2012 election season is just about in full swing. The GOP strategy is taking hold and it appears to be around the theme of "We must stop Obama and his secret, harsh, cold, callous second term ploy to destroy America by taking away our guns, cancel free enterprise, bash businesses, and implement his full socialist agenda." Or, words to that affect.

There is a very informative 18-minute segment here from msnbc.msn.com addressing this topic in much more enjoyable terms than my poor attempt here today. Take a few minutes and watch it — it is well worth your time.

The bottom line which is the base line for the GOP strategy is classic Rove: Take an opponent's strength and use it as a strength for your candidate who is weak on that aspect while deflecting it back the opponent as his weakness. Confusing? Think "Swiftboat" (Bush vs. Kerry in 2004, then it all comes home clearly) this way: " ... the tactic of lying through implying, but without actually lying; or leading listeners to a false conclusion without actually making a false statement..."

The best part of those tactics is if you are cornered on the facts, or caught red handed in a lie, or with your pants down (real or suspected), deny, duck, deceive, and dodge more strongly, but never admit your part in the event at hand that is misleading, fake, false, disinformation, or cleverly planted.

We are seeing it all over again this cycle. Do the research. Sadly, most people won't take the time — seems we are used to it and simply write it off as "politics as usual." Trouble is, it may be usual, but is certainly is not right.

GOP and Ryan Tax and Budget Plan

Take from Peter to pay Paul('s buddies at the Top)

The entire GOP is ready to sign on to this "plan." What it means, and for whom (*as if we didn't already know).

Romney's Lukewarm and Unsure Supporters

Take your pick: None of them are enthusiastically on board

Great rundown here on the GOP process. It is a show worth watching just to see all the big name GOPers reluctantly sign on to support Romney all the while being dragged by their heels to Tampa and the showdown for the long awaited coronation — the ceremony marking his formal investiture to the White House on the GOP ticket that he has pursued for many years and attempts. With friends like he has, who needs enemies.

Rising Gas Prices: Who to Blame? Start Here...

We all feel the pain at the pump ...

(Screenshot from South San Francisco, Wed. March 28, 2012)

Update (April 1, 2012). No foolin' - this part of the story comes comes from HuffPost here.

If we want to talk about the increasing gas prices, then we need to talk about being ripped off. It is a classic cases of them vs. the rest of us. A good chunk of the oil profits (well-documented profits) is coming right out the pockets of the public. That is in part due to the gas prices and the $4 - $8 billion a year in deficit-increasing tax subsidies that oil companies continue to get from Congress (read: the taxpayers).

Those "breaks" continue long after the incentives were designed to help the oil companies offset their costs and thus find more oil, produce more gas, and help reduce prices while decreasing imports and things we all rant about. Now those make no economic or common sense. Why?

Rather than invest their profits in such things as product development, new facilities, hot talent or research -- things that could create jobs, improve consumer offerings and accelerate alternative energy production -- three of the five big oil companies are spending large amounts of that money buying back shares of their own stock. So, may sure your aim is on target when you blame high gas prices - not on the DEMS or Obama or the driving public, but on the GOP who keeps blocking for them as they seek more tax breaks... remember all of this in November.

Original Post: "As gas prices rise, should the U.S. oil industry stop exporting?"

Sub-text: "U.S. gas prices are soaring and domestic demand is falling. The oil industry says it needs to export to stay in business and avoid layoffs. Others claim that keeps supply low and gas prices high."

What, can't believe your ears or eyes? If not, then read it one more time. The basic story comes from the CS Monitor click here to read the full piece.

All the while our Congress update here from the Senate refusal to cut oil subsidies keeps supplying the big oil giants with subsidies as gas prices go up, too. They are the ones who refine oil and produce gasoline, which they export to high-demand, fast growing markets around the world — mostly in China and India. Both those countries have a fast growing middle class that is buying cars like hotcakes; ergo: need for more gasoline and guess what? They are willing to pay any price and guess who that also affects? Yep, that's right. Mostly us right here in the good old US.

We then can watch our government give more and more tax breaks to big oil, which allows them to make more profits (Note: top 5 oil companies had profits of $32 billion and yet still get tax breaks). They in turn, of course, contribute lots of money to congressional PAC's for incumbents to stay in office, who in turn give more tax breaks. Some call this a too nice relationship. They would be correct. They make more money by exporting more gas and that, my friends keeps the price high and the politicians, apparently, in office.

It must be that free market thing that the GOP keeps telling us about. That is one huge major cause. Why do I say that? Well, there are a few more key factors. Like Iran's ugliness about cutting off oil.

Then, ironically, we import less oil. We produce more oil (we are #3 in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Russia). And, we rely less on foreign oil.

This is a perfect storm and it is a great benefit for someone — guess who that is? Hint: It is not the driving public.

Obama-care Okay When People Know Details

Romney has the lowest GOP unfavorable rating since 1984, and the GOP hates Obama-care

Given these two facts, it pretty clear that the GOP is pretty much in a pickle this election cycle with their ticket taking shape: Romney v. Romney. And, unless the USSC saves their bacon on the health care ruling against the ACA (Obama-care), they pretty much can't hang their hat on any big issue except gas prices, which no president has much control over.

One wonders whether or not the USSC will go against the new health care law in view of the public views on many main portions of it, like shown in this short clip from msnbc.msn.com (The Rachel Maddow Show) showing public opinion after the people know the bill in more details.

Those polls show graphically across all political lines the popularity of this bill when the details are understood vis-á-vis, how the impact individual and family lives directly, which is something the pols in office can't seem to grasp as they play politics for points in November.

The facts are pretty simple: we all live, we all die, and in between from time-to-time, we all need medical help and assistance and sometimes it is extensive. Saying "hey, I'm young or I'm healthy and I don't need government to tell me to buy health care insurance" may sound good, until that person needs it. Then who pays?

The bottom line is quite simple in my thinking and easy to comprehend, even though the law itself is very complex - that is this: If the USSC shoots down the health care law, in part or totally, then the GOP would dance in the streets. But guess what?

IT WOULD NOT SOLVE THE GROWING PROBLEMS WE STILL FACE

1. People would still be turned away for having a pre-existing condition.

2. Young people, up to age 26, would be dropped from their parents' insurance.

3. Women would continue to be charged more than men for the same coverage.

4. Millions would face a lifetime cap on what their insurance will cover.

5. Millions would not be able to afford and get preventive care.

PEOPLE SEEM TO FORGET THOSE POINTS, plus:

1. If you already have a health care plan, you keep it and nothing changes.

2. If you have an employer-provided plan, nothing changes – you keep it.

3. Having a policy means you are in total compliance with the new law applies and nothing
happens.

4. For those without a health care plan, or if they are poor, or if their employer does not or cannot provide it, then Uncle Sam will help.

Overall, it will help bring down the spending, cover those without care, help reduce the deficit, and expand the insurance industry by adding more people for coverage – a win/win for everyone and the country with the #1 thought in mind: IT WOULD COVER EVERYONE WITH EXCELLENT CARE AND REDUCED COSTS.

That is something we all should want and strive for, and that which has eluded us for decades.

GOP Then: No free lunch. Today: No lunch at all.

Clinton Health Care Debate Flashback: September 1993 and GOP laa-laa land

The GOP back then pushed for individuals to have health insurance to offset the Clinton idea that employers should provide the coverage. As we know, it was all shot down. The number of insured rose from then until now where it stands at an all-time high. Some would argue that it has gotten worse since. They would be correct.

Back then in the Senate, Sen. John Chafee (RI) sponsored the "individual mandate" along with co-sponsors: Sens. Dole, Bond, Hatfield, Hatch, Danforth, Brown, Gorton, Simpson, Stevens, Cohen, Kassebaum, Warner, Spector, Faircloth, Domenici, Lugar, Durenberger, and Grassely, who now said during the Obama-care debate, "There is no free lunch," meaning, government should not pay or provide health care.

Now the USSC is about to rule on the entire law, with a focus on the individual mandate provision as the entire GOP, who now hates their own provision, want to damage Mr. Obama for political gain by ensuring there are no lunches for anyone (free or otherwise) by seeing that provision and perhaps the entire law declared unconstitutional.

A great review is here from msnbc.msn.com (The Rachel Maddow Show) in this 16-minute video a reminder about how hypocritical the GOP is and has become on this very important issue. Lest, We Forget.

I predict the law will withstand this challenge, and then we can move on: One for all, and all for none.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: Mendacious Romney

Screenshot from msnbc.msn.com (Rachel Maddow Show)

Calling someone, anyone in fact, a liar directly or not in a political campaign has been pretty much a no-no for a number of reasons over the years. But, not any longer — and not in this race.

Willard Mitt Romney is a serial liar, and the proof follows in two versions (many more exist, but these two will suffice) ... one is a parody on Youtube (2:44 seconds).

However, the other highlighted from the Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc.msn.com is a bit longer (15-minutes) and seriously documented here.

Everyone likes a good joke, a funny line, and yes, even our politicians who can laugh at themselves at the same time others laugh with and at times, at them. However, we must keep the facts straight and be honest in this race for White House: we are electing a President of the United States. We are not choosing a stand-up comedian, or serial liar, or anyone with any kind of questionable character.

We also know that campaigns get heated and words are exchanged that in the end really don't matter and are usually forgotten after the election — we expect that in our elections. But, outright lies and damaging Ads like we've seen in the past that are untruthful and just plainly wrong are more than "free speech." They are ugly speech (i.e., Swiftboat Ads in 2004 against John Kerry). Now, we have flat out lies and distortion by Romney on many issues well documented. He lies with ease and impunity, and I wonder why? Is it natural for him to say things that are not true, or to twist the truth all the time? One hopes not, but the evidence is stark points to the fact that he is a serial liar. Sounds harsh, I know, but the facts (in his own words) cannot be denied.

As for President Obama: He has been tested and re-tested and continues to be tested daily. There is little doubt about who he is as the man inside.

As for Mr. Romney: We also know him well, too, that is if anyone takes him serious about his famous flip-flopping and changing positions practically on a daily basis. What does that say about him as the man, inside?

All I ask is for people to make their our assessment. I happen to think the msnbc.msn.com clip is worth watching and assessing what they ought to think and believe about Mr. Romney. It is raw, stark, and from what I know, truthful — something that Mr. Romney is not.

I may stand alone on this, but I firmly believe Mr. Romney is not fit to be President of the United States by any measurement or standard.

GOP War on Women — Cannot be Disproved

This screenshot (great logo for 2012???) snagged from msnbc.msn.com

This short clip illustrates the sustained "war on women" and their health care decisions all across the country. Those who deny this is happening are either blind to the facts, a rabid rightwing GOP partisan, or heck, maybe even both?

More evidence here from the timesfreepress.com.

Here on Youtube a short clip.

There is more, much more at the state levels - do the research - educate yourself, and the word.

Oh, yeah, the bottom line: The GOP is so screwed this upcoming election cycle. Call it a self-inflicted wound. The were aiming for votes but guess what - it will not be the votes they expected.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Fox and Romney

Fox Shot is Great Art Work Courtesy of John Sherffius

Romney-care Graph from msnbc.msn.com (Rachel Maddow Show)

I can't speak for everyone, natch, but I try and get as much news and political spin as I can. One of my golden rules is use as many sources (and as diverse) as possible. Then I make up my mind about whom or what to trust or believe. It's not easy.

Take Mitt Romney for example — he as good an example as anyone these days. I've never seen a man run from his record in office so fast and convincingly as he thinks he is as he runs for president. Sound confusing? Well if it sounds confusing, it's probably because it is and by design, too.

Romney and the entire GOP field for that matter constantly bash Obama-care as they pledge to repeal it, in part or totally. But the facts speak differently as people get used that brand of health care, just like they did in Romney's home state of Massachusetts with his Romney-care. (Romney-care success in the chart above)

Don't take my word for it. Watch this short 8-minute clip (link below) that highlights the man who helped Romney design the Massachusetts Health Care Reform bill and then who also advised on Obama-care: MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber (seen and heard here). He lays out the three main goals of the bill and shows how MA has accomplished them and how successful the plan has been.

My point is that Romney is not truthful. He is not truth on his very successful health care law in Massachusetts, which is a plan he should be bragging about. However, since the entire GOP hates Mr. Obama, and not just for the health care bill, but just about everything else, and Romney wants the GOP nomination so badly that he will do, say, pay, try, lie, or imply anything to get it, he ducks his own signature effective health care program and continuing bashing Obama-care as if the MA plan didn't even exist.

Thought you like to know (as if we didn't already know).

So, where does the truth lie these days? Sadly, it's just like in war: "The first casualty when war comes is truth," spoken by Sen. Hiram W Johnson, a staunch isolationist from California in 1918.

Fracking Out of Control Yes or No

Fracking News from Ohio ...

The GOP says Obama won't hunt for oil ...

Fracking - the details here: "Fracking (also often referred to as hydraulic fracturing or hydro-fracking) is a process stimulation procedure first used by the oil and gas industry in 1947 at a well in the Hugoton gas field located in Kansas. The premise is simple: fluids (combination water and chemicals) are forced under pressure into the formation surrounding the oil well bore. Once those fluids reach the fracture gradient of the surrounding rock the rock parts and fluid continues to flow further from the well bore. The fluid continues to propagate the fracture, and eventually proppant is added to the fluid stream in order to keep the fractures from naturally healing once the well bore pressure is released. Once the process is finished the now propped fractures provide conduits for fluids to flow to the well bore. To date hydraulic fracturing has been performed more than 1 million times in every oil and gas producing nation in the country. It is estimated that of the existing wells in the United States hydraulic fracturing has been performed in more than 70% of them."

Note: As of 2012, there are about 493,000 natural gas wells across 31 states. Nationwide, residents living near fracked gas wells have filed over 1,000 complaints regarding tainted water, severe illnesses, livestock deaths, and fish kills. * more on this later *

An excellent 16-minute segment on this subject is here from msnbc.msn.com (Rachel Maddow Show).

More evidence on the dangers of fracking:

From Forbes (Feb 2009 article)

From a Texas law firm (Amaro Law Firm)

A good list of other articles about the EPA admits fracking is not a good deal can be found here from the Boston Herald, ABC News, NPR, et al.

Not to get too far in the weeds on this subject; but the U.S. is the #3 oil producer in the world (behind #1 Saudi Arabia and #3 Russia). As the chart shows above, Mr. Obama is making an effort to expand our production (despite the GOP hype otherwise).

"Drill, baby, drill" is a clever political sound byte and campaign bumper sticker slogan, but it does not solve the problems we face on rising gas prices and everything tied to us becoming "oil independent" which has been the holy grail for the last eight presidents (since Nixon), so that argument is kinda of weak. We became hooked on cheap oil, got deeper into that routine since the first well was helping produce .30¢ a gallon gas, but those days are long gone, If the plug were pulled on the ME oil supply and the West stopped buying their oil, what would happen? Oil is their main source of income. I am not defending high oil or gas prices, but reality is reality.

We must find alternate fuel sources to oil. That is good for everyone and especially for the air we breath and the water we drink, and today more and more, both are suffering and will only get worse. Oil may be in short supply and high demand and cost a lot, but how far can we go with no air, or dirty air to breathe, and/or no safe water to drink?

Do the research, just don't rely solely on political statements and hype. Those two things never solve problems. I have always thought that's why we elected people to office: To solve our many problems, and not to keep them alive for political gain or oil profits and big money to stay in office.

Update: The USSC, The Money, The Rest of Us

Update Notes: Since this was posted, many people have come to realize that the Citizens United ruling (2010), discussed below, has been the worst ruling the USSC has ever made regarding money in politics. For example, the Democrats have this movement afoot - but the GOPers do not - um... wonder why?

History will prove, I strongly believe that if the ruling is not reversed or if it is to amended drastically, then we are witnessing the last days of our what say we love: our country and our way of life, which would change and be gone forever. The question is: What are you prepared to do to help in that regard?


Original Post (February 15, 2011): Justice Thomas and perhaps Justice Scalia are being challenged on their participation in the Citizens United v. the FEC ruling as stated below. Some say they should have recused themselves due to their link with the billionaire Koch (coke) brothers, who have ultra-strong ultra-conservative views the money behind it to prove it - which is the heart of the 5-4 ruling.

Here is recent coverage of this developing story. Run the videos, please (short clip here) and (here).

The basic story comes from the NY Times (here). This is a big story, or at least it should be. That story is based on an inquiry by Common Cause (seen here). Most Americans feel like the guy the left against those on the right, propped up by those in the middle. So what are the odds against us? I'd have to say 5 to 4. Headline of this story: The first anniversary of Citizens United v. the FEC (5-4) decision: Already Hundreds of Millions in Corporate Money Pouring into Elections.

Update Note: That was then now we have seen the effect by "the Candidate's personal billionaires like Sheldon Adelson, Foster Friess, Harold Simmons, and a few others).

Highlights: "After the January 2010 decision, many in the media reported that corporations may be skittish about fully exploiting Citizens United political windfall, but that proved premature. Millions of dollars began flooding into existing electioneering like Americans for Prosperity, backed by benefactors like the Koch brothers and North Carolina retail magnate Art Pope. New groups like Karl Rove's American Crossroads and American Crossroads GPS were quickly erected to funnel tens of millions of dollars into key congressional races. Effective or not? Let's take a look.

Four key points from this Public Citizens report [click here].

1. Outside groups are making record expenditures (more than four times as much spent in the 2010 midterm election cycle as in the last midterm election cycle in 2006).

2. Congressional staffs and lawmakers are intimidated by corporate lobbyists like never before.

3. Laws designed to protect the political system from the corrupting influence of money have been rendered dead in 24 states.

4. Power has shifted in dozens of congressional seats in races won with the help of undisclosed outside money. Still there are many those who falsely say, "It's just good access to our government."

Okay, I'm all for access to government, but easy access for whom? Look at it this way: Suppose you contribute the maximum allowed for individuals ($2,400). Then you see where a giant Corporation or some billionaire "donates" $100,000, or more. Then you try to place a call to your Representative or Senator at the same time the giant Corporation or billionaire calls on line two. Who do you think will get their phone call accepted?

Finally, this little tidbit: As Public Citizen notes, the cloak of secrecy surrounding corporate campaign spending goes against the Supreme Court thinking behind Citizens United, which was that massive corporate spending was acceptable as long as the public knew about it, or as Justice Anthony Kennedy in his opinion for the majority writes in part (and was based in part on the assumption that any dangers posed by the new flood of corporate spending in elections would be mitigated by disclosure) this: "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

I have three words about that transparency falsehood: "What a Crock." So, does it matter? Should it matter? Will it matter? 5-4 says nope. But, the USSC is flat out wrong and time will prove me correct, and hopefully you, too.

More Fake GOP-Generated Voter Fraud

Chart "borrowed" from msnbc.msn.com (Politics Nation show)

This chart, and please note the source, speaks for itself. Again, it is more proof about the GOP's fake issue — this example from Alabama.

Sole purpose: Suppress voter turnout that, they hope, will favor the GOP this cycle.

It must not be allowed to stand.

GOP-RW-TEA Voter Fraud Red Herring (Again)

Screen grab from msnbc.msn.com (3-minute clip here)

This story is an update from my early post (see below) on the same subject. Part from there follows here:

The GOP sees no way to win next year, so win anyway possible by stopping the vote, reducing the vote, suppressing the vote, and winning at any cost other than by fair and open elections as seen in this excellent 12-minute video from the ED Show on msnbc.msn.com.

There are key parts to this so-called "stop voter fraud" movement by the far right: (1) strict new voter ID laws that we now know millions of voters who have had no problems in the past, will now face this cycle, (2) fake movements to head off voter fraud where it does not even exist (see charts at my post: "Fair Voting: We Don't Need Any Stinking Fair Voting") posted below.

This latest as shown above is blatant and sick and phony for many reasons, those underlined are the main points like "...help stop corruption where it can start..." CAN START? Give me a break - this is voter suppression, raw and bold and right in our faces and everyone knows why.

Stopping any eligible American from voting is a criminal act. These fake "stop voter fraud before it happens" movements must be stopped - they are not needed. There is nothing more fundamental than the right to vote and the free exercise to vote. Just ask those countries and people that we say we are trying to help become free and get that right ... or are we hypocrites here at home? The question might answer itself.

Do the research and find out for yourself. I will continue to update provide links and references.

Stay tuned.

Judicial Appointees Matter a Great Deal

I post the entire story here. Followers of this issue should do more research. This is a critical matter and it will only get worse.

My views follow in part from the story (as noted below):

"Yesterday, a George W. Bush appointed judge declared unconstitutional a Washington state law that, among other things, requires pharmacies to dispense birth control and emergency contraception. While it’s not impossible that the law should be blocked on very narrow grounds, Judge Ronald Leighton’s opinion overreaches in ways that could undermine many efforts to protect women’s health and potentially render religious objectors immune to the rule of law."

More from the story at the link above.

Bottom Line: Who says the righties are not making progress on the issue of overturning Roe v. Wade. And, make no mistake about it — that is their bottom line and ultimate goal. They are making progress, one issue as a side issue and one election at a time.

However, what does it say for the sanity of the country? I hope the women of America are paying close attention — I suspect they are.

Finally, no one should be immune to the rule of law — not in America.