In “Chasing Shadows: The Nixon Tapes, the Chennault Affair and the Origins of Watergate,” [historian Ken] Hughes recounts that Nixon ally Anna Chennault was suspected of having interceded with South Vietnamese leaders to keep them from attending the late 1968 Paris peace talks, with or without Nixon's knowledge and approval. When President Lyndon Johnson confronted Nixon with the report, Nixon flatly denied having anything to do with any such sabotage. But Johnson had the FBI put a tap on the South Vietnamese embassy that caught Chennault telling Ambassador Bui Diem that her “boss” wanted the nation's leaders “to hold on, we're gonna win” — implying they would get a better deal under a victorious Nixon.Hughes heads up the Nixon team of the center's Presidential Recordings Project; presumably, he knows what he is talking about, and this is not some questionable headline-grabbing half-invented folly. It's a pretty serious charge, given how long the war lasted afterwards, and how many people were killed. And it would kind of be a violation of U.S. Law, the Logan Act to be specific. To the level of treason. Strangely, at least a few articles going around the web now are claiming that George Will “confirmed” the claim—however, a read of Will's article seems to be nothing more than a retelling of the claim, and not a confirmation. Will just recounts what Hughes claims, and then ends up by making it seem like Obama's now-completely-debunked IRS “scandal” is somehow analogous. That seems to be in line with the reaction by many right wingers—even if it did happen, it didn't go as high as Nixon, and it was justified because Johnson was the one perpetrating the dirty trick by trying to end the war in tim for an election. I would not at all be surprised if Hughes' claims are real. I would be just as unsurprised to hear in 20 or 30 years that Reagan did the exact same thing with Iran and the hostages, or that Bush's team was involved in the use of Florida felon's list to disenfranchise Gore voters. On the other hand, I will be more surprised to hear any evidence of Reagan doing that, and shocked if I hear evidence about Bush—not because I don't think they did these things, but because I am pretty sure they would not have left any evidence tying any of it to anyone near the presidents involved.
After years of slow economic growth and high unemployment under President Obama, they are still asking, 'where are the jobs?' The House has passed more than 40 jobs bills that would help. But Washington Democrats, led by the President, just ignore them.Wow! More than 40 jobs bills! Why haven't we heard of this before? Must be the Liberal Media just trying to make the Republicans look bad. So, what were the bills he's talking about? There's a list of 46 “pro-growth jobs bills” on this page. One thing you notice right away is that six of the bills listed here were either signed into law or are supported by Obama. We know that because Boehner's list itself makes this clear. So, exactly how are “Washington Democrats, led by the President” just ignoring them? But hey, that's still 40 jobs bills that Democrats haven't approved! They must be anti-jobs! Let's look at the list, starting at the top. Right there is the Keystone pipeline bill that Democrats refuse to pass in the Senate. They're preventing oil from being more easily delivered from Canada! Umm, wait. That's a jobs bill? Ah. A piece of legislation called a “jobs” bill should be first and foremost focused on creating jobs. If it is focused on a very different task, even though it results in some jobs being created, then it's not a “jobs” bill. For example, let's say I write a bill proposing that all businesses must submit 100 extra pages of forms every year for some purpose or another. Those businesses will obviously need to hire more people to collect that information, confirm it, and submit the forms. Arguably tens of thousands of new jobs must be created to accomplish this task. Did I just write a “jobs” bill? No. No, a “jobs” bill is one that is at the very least mostly about creating jobs, and should be directly about creating jobs. For example, in 2012, Obama was pushing strongly to pass a bill that would give tax incentives to companies which would bring jobs now outsourced overseas back to the United States. That's clearly a “jobs” bill, as creating jobs in the United States is the primary objective. Republicans opposed it because it would make it less advantageous to hire cheap foreign labor. Then there was the “American Jobs Act” in 2011, which Obama was also pushing, and Republicans also blocked; Obama split the bill up and got a few elements passed, but Republicans stopped most of it. The bill called for suspending some payroll taxes for employers and employees; unemployment benefits and jobs training; spending for creation of infrastructure, construction, teacher, firefighter, and police jobs; prohibiting discrimination against the unemployed; and loosening regulations on creating capital for new business projects. Again, the theme of all of this is clearly to create jobs, both directly and by economic stimulation. So, how is the Keystone pipeline a “jobs” bill? The primary objective for the Keystone pipeline is to support the production and sale of controversial tar sands oil. It's kind of hard to argue that approving an oil pipeline to profit oil companies—one of which is not a United States firm—is somehow primarily an American “jobs” bill. It is, however, part of a distinctly partisan pro-corporate agenda. In fact, an estimate of the impact of the project says that the project would create only 2,000 short-term construction jobs over two years, with as many as 40,000 “indirect” jobs (providing food services for workers as one example) which are just as if not more temporary. That's a job increase worth just 15% of last month's job increases—and those are temporary jobs that would expire after two years, creating a jobs lurch whenever that happens. Remember back in 2009 when Obama was really pushing the economic stimulus, and a big part of that was to create jobs on infrastructure projects? At the time, Michael Steele and the GOP claimed that these weren't “jobs” because they were not permanent:
Steele: “You've got to look at what's going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.” Stephanopoulos: “But that's a job.” Steele: “No, it's not a job. A job is something that a business owner creates. It's going to be long term.” Stephanopoulos: “So a job doesn't count if it's a government job?” Steele: “Hold on. No, let me finish. That is a contract. It ends at a certain point, George. You know that. These road projects that we're talking about have an end point. As a small-business owner, I'm looking to grow my business, expand my business. I want to reach further. I want to be international. I want to be national. It's a whole different perspective on how you create a job versus how you create work.”So, if Keystone passes, how many “actual,” that is to say, permanent, jobs would be created in America? About 50. More jobs that that would be created—but in Canada. The real profit from this would not be in jobs, it would be in the source of oil. This oil must be refined, but there is no new refining going on, we're just using a different source. Which means no more new jobs on that end, not in the United States. But wait a minute. The pipeline delivers oil, but is not the only delivery method. Is this oil that would never be delivered without the pipeline? No. It's not like we're not getting the oil—we're just transporting it by less cost-effective measure, namely rail, truck, and/or barge. Which creates jobs for people running those lines of transportation. Which are currently well-paying, permanent, full-time jobs—which will be killed by the pipeline. Then there is the fact that the pipeline will lead to higher fuel prices in the midwest, which will have a negative impact on jobs. Oil spills kill jobs over time. The costs for the pipeline will have an opportunity cost on investment in green energy, an industry which has been a true job creator and source of economic value for the United States. According to various reports, Canadian oil companies would be the biggest winners for this project, with a few jobs spilling over to the American side, which will probably be offset by job losses created by the pipeline. Oh, and tar sands oil is incredibly polluting. In contrast, look at clean-energy car technology initiatives—which created 150,000 long-term manufacturing jobs in the United States. But that's the kind of industry Republicans mock and deride. So, no, Keystone is obviously not a “jobs” bill. It's an oil-industry bill, aimed to mostly profit oil producers and refiners, mostly in Canada, with a minimal or negative jobs impact.
But hey, maybe they just really like the Keystone project, so they topped the list with it. Maybe the 39 other bills on the list are actually “jobs” bills. How about the “Offshore Energy & Jobs Act” which will “revitalize manufacturing, create jobs, and restore our nation of builders”? That's offshore drilling with the word “jobs” attached to it. There are other bills for “onshore drilling,” and for deregulating fracking, and other general “drill anywhere” and “get rid of all environmental protection regulations.” Essentially, most of the energy-related jobs bills are “drill & pollute as much as you like” legislature—which, like the Keystone project, is about energy interests making tons of money, and oh yeah, some jobs may be created in the process. Those are not jobs bills. In fact, nearly half of the “jobs” bills are actually let's-give-billions-to-morbidly-profit-rich-energy-corporation giveaways, mostly bills which attack Democratic policies to keep air & water clean and not completely wreck the environment.
But hey, maybe the other two dozen or so bills on the list are actually “jobs” bills. The first non-energy bill listed: kill Obamacare. Which would result in millions losing the first affordable healthcare they have seen in a long time, and in many other greatly beneficial policies getting struck down. But hey, the CBO said 2 million jobs would be lost! No, the CBO said that the equivalent of 2 million jobs in hours worked would be reduced, mostly from people working themselves half to death to pay for pre-ACA health care, which now they don't need and so can work less but still get the same benefits. Overall, the ACA is probably more job-neutral than anything else—primarily because it's not a jobs bill. Killing it will not create jobs, that's GOP fantasy politicking. So, what's next on the list? Oh, the next three “jobs” bills are also about killing Obamacare. Go down the list, and you'll see that they are mostly of this stripe: partisan laws trying to get Republican political agendas signed into law and Democratic political agendas repealed. Privatization of schools, half a dozen limits or prohibitions on government regulation, importing cheaper labor in high-tech industry, more attempts to get rid of the ACA, defunding welfare, spending cuts (which ironically fund jobs), cut food stamps (which are actually job-stimulative due to increase sales business), tax cuts & credits for corporations—stuff like that. You can read it on the list. Once you get past the hyperbolic “jobs, jobs, jobs!!” titles & language adorning the proposals, you will see that none of these bills are in fact focused on creating jobs, but depend on side effects (many of them fictional) to create the jobs. But the bills themselves are all about something other than jobs.
So, essentially, John Boehner and the Republicans are complaining that Obama is not passing their partisan legislative agenda which is not about jobs, but instead is about rewarding Republican constituents and breaking down Democratic ones. Of course, since then, the Republican “justification” behind the alleged lawsuit has been revealed as a delay in enforcement of the ACA for some businesses—a move which Republicans not only approved of at the time, but actually pressured the president to do in a different form—until they realized they could use it as a way to attack Obama, at which point they suddenly opposed such delays. I can imagine that a lot of Americans who are not favorably inclined towards Obama will believe that there is something to the lawsuit, but only because they do not listen, think, or study the issue seriously. They will hear Boehner and other conservatives saying something like, “Obama blah blah blah failed blah blah blah killing jobs blah blah blah shameful blah blah blah destroying America blah blah blah gerbils blah blah blah fluoridation blah blah blah therefore we must [ sue / impeach ] him.” Apparently, in conservative politics nowadays, this is what is referred to as “Thursday.”
Republican charge: Obama rules by decree. Evidence: Has issued 180 executive orders. George W. Bush: Supposedly not ruling by decree. Evidence: Issued about 210 executive orders by the same time in his presidency.
Republican charge: Obama lied when he said you could keep your health care plan if you liked it. Evidence: Undetermined number of Americans forced to change health care plans; some got somewhat worse plans, many more got more advantageous plans. Obama made a formal apology for his statements, saying that his assurances had been wrong. George W. Bush: Bush lied about Iraq having ties to al Qaeda and terrorism, about Iraq working on a nuclear program and having massive stockpiles of WMD, about how an invasion would be short-termed and not costly, how we would be greeted as liberators, and how sectarian concerns would not be a problem. Evidence: A decade-long was costing trillions of dollars, 4489 American soldiers killed, 32,000 wounded, Iraq destabilized and sent plunging into a sectarian civil war. Bush never admitted doing anything wrong, said he would make the same decision again if he could go back; Republicans blamed Obama for anything bad happening concerning the war, including costs and outcome.
Republican charge: Obama's “Imperial Presidency” via executive orders and end-runs around Congress is “Unprecedented.” George W. Bush: from an article in 2007:
As he tries to end-run a balky Congress, Bush is taking a page from Bill Clinton's playbook by adopting a series of mini-initiatives to change policy through executive orders and administration actions that don't require legislation.
Let's face it, this is just a media stunt. According to Republicans, every Democratic president is “the most corrupt ever,” or “the most imperial president ever”—just like every single Democratic presidential nominee is immediately and automatically labeled as “the most liberal nominee ever.” It's a knee-jerk political attack, similar to how every domestic mass murderer or terrorist suspect is automatically labeled as a “Registered Democrat” in Freeper forums. This is not about Obama doing anything even remotely controversial. It's about Republicans running out of ideas about how to attack Obama and still make it look serious somehow.
“It’s not obvious what laws may have been broken,” says Stuart Green, law professor at Rutgers School of Law-Newark in New Jersey. “I mean, there was undoubtedly an abuse of power, but in the federal context, there’s no general prohibition on abuse of power.”Maybe there should be. Unfortunately, as with a lot of other good ideas, it is one that conservatives would instantly begin to abuse, wielding it as a political weapon to spark fishing-expedition investigations, begin witch hunts, and generally harass their political opponents. Which is what conservatives tend to do. They're definitely Slytherins to the liberals' Hufflepuffs, intent on the acquisition of power and completely comfortable with use any means to achieve it.
As an American company, you have every right to air programming of your choice. But as American citizens, certainly you recognize why many are astounded at your actions. which appear to be a major networks' thinly-veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election. ... I find this disturbing and disappointing. NBC cannot purport to be a neutral party in American politics, and the credibility of NBC News, already damaged by the partisanship of MSNBC, will be further undermined by the actions of NBC Universal executives who have taken it upon themselves to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton's nascent campaign. ... If you have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC's Summer Meting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor.Like both networks did in 2006, right? Oh, wait, they didn't. Hillary was also known to be a candidate then, was also seen as the inevitable front-runner, etc. etc.—so if NBC and CNN are so “in the tank” for her, why nothing on her back then? The answer, of course, is that right now a program featuring Hillary is most likely to gain viewers. That is always the bottom line, of course. But the GOP isn't doing this for nothing. They get several benefits:
- They get to paint themselves as victims; victims always get vaulted status and special breaks
- They get to perpetuate the myth that the media is liberally biased, when the most-watched “news” network is essentially their 24-7 propaganda machine
- They get to cry “election theft” way in advance, even as they set up the largest number of laws which amount to thinly-veiled election theft
- They get to influence people's reactions to the programming and smear Hillary, putting forth the assumption that any TV show about her will put her in a better light than reality
- They get to “play the ref” with the networks, a tried-and-true technique whereupon accusation of liberal bias will shift network bias sharply to the right; in this case, either getting said networks to tone down any positive view of Hillary, and/or getting them to play up negatives so as to achieve “balance”
- They get to hold fewer debates without looking like that's what they intended all along
- They get to avoid having debates on any network that won't make them into softball beauty pageants, without looking like they are—as they indeed are—deathly afraid of any debate moderator actually acting like a real journalist and pointing out the GOP insanity oozing from their candidates.
Dear Mr. Greenblatt: I'm writing to you to express my deep disappointment in your company's decision to air a miniseries promoting former Secretary Hillary Clinton ahead of her likely candidacy for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. As an American company, you have every right to air programming of your choice. (Unless we disapprove, of course.) But as American citizens, certainly you recognize why many are astounded at your actions, (and by “many,” we mean “us”) which appear to be a major networks thinly-veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election. (Only Fox is allowed that, you should know that by now.) This special treatment is unfair to the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2016 who might compete against Secretary Clinton (including Vice President Biden (like he'll actually have a chance!), Governors O'Malley, Cuomo, and Hickenlooper, Senator Klobuchar and others (because all of those are serious contenders who have a real chance to… HAR! COuldn't keep a straight face here, sorry.)) and to the Republican nominee, should Clinton compete in the general election. There's ample cause for concern. Executives and employees of Comcast, NBC's parent company, have been generous supporters of Democrats and Secretary Clinton. David Cohen, Comcast's EVP, raised over $1 4 million for President Obama's reelection efforts and hosted a fundraiser for the president. (Funny, they had no problem when Comcast CEO Neil Smit was a big Republican donor.) Comcast Corp. employees have donated $522,996 to the president and donated $161,640 to Secretary Clinton's previous campaigns. (How much went to Republicans? And if we surveyed Fox employees, what would we see?) Your company has expressly stated that your choice to air the miniseries in the near future would avoid concerns of running afoul of equal time election laws. (Because we are really in favor of equal-time laws!) This suggests a deliberate attempt at influencing American political opinion in favor of a preferred candidate, not to mention a guilty conscience. (Again, that's Fox News' job!) Liberals complained noisily when Citizens United sought to air a pay-per-view documentary on Hillary Clinton prior to the 2008 election, and yet they're conspicuously silent now that NBC is launching 2 miniseries on network television. (Because that is exactly the same thing—a political smear job by a Koch-funded conservative campaign group is equal to a non-affiliated TV network making a mainstream miniseries.) I find this disturbing and disappointing. (That's my job.) NBC cannot purport to be a neutral party in American politics, and the credibility of NBC News, already damaged by the partisanship of MSNBC, will be further undermined by the actions of NBC Universal executives who have taken it upon themselves to produce an extended commercial for Secretary Clinton's nascent campaign. (Remember, Fox News is fair and balanced—no hypocrisy here!) Secretary Clinton has been in the public eye for well over two decades, so you certainly cannot claim that a series about her political career is any sort of public service or informational docudrama on an unknown individual. (Because TV networks never make dramas about people who are well-known!) Quite the opposite is true: it would be most accurately described as an in-kind donation. (Which is really different than having your own 24/7 news channel.) Out of a sense of fairness and decency and in the interest of the political process and your company's reputation, I call on you to cancel this political ad masquerading as an unbiased production. (Or, make it about how Hillary killed Vince Foster. We'd love that!) If you have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC's Summer Meting on August 14, I will seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2016 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor. (Which is what we plan to do anyway, unless you agree to partner in name only while we control everything.)I love the part where they state that such programs would be unfair to Governor Hickenlooper and Senator Klobuchar. It is actually hard to tell if they are trying to make fun of Democrats or are seriously positing these candidates as serious primary threats to Clinton.
… Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said interviews with workers in the Cincinnati IRS office show targeting of conservative groups was “a problem that was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters - and we're getting to proving it.” “My gut tells me that too many people knew this wrongdoing was going on before the election, and at least by some sort of convenient, benign neglect, allowed it to go on through the election,” he said. “I'm not making any allegations as to motive, that they set out to do it, but certainly people knew it was happening.”Now, read that carefully: “in all likelihood,” “getting to prove it,” “My gut tells me.” When you factor all of that in, you are left with, semantically, nothing. Zero. But after reading it, you get the strong impression that this is real and true. After all, “people knew it was happening,” and there can't be “motives” for something that was not happening, right? And the excerpts of testimony? They seemed to consist of every time that “Washington D.C.” was ever mentioned, so as to give the impression that D.C., and therefore Obama personally, was involved. But again, a close inspection shows that no one piece of testimony showed any actual evidence of direction from D.C., and that references to “requests” for information from D.C. were likely of a simple procedural nature. The sixth clue: an IRS manager, this time making clear statements, said that the focus on “Tea Party” groups did not originate from D.C. (not that originating from D.C. in any way means that Obama was involved anyway). And this official claiming it was his idea was a conservative Republican. That was kind of when the ongoing firestorm of conservative-media outrage ebbed quite a bit. But today, we have one last piece of the puzzle:
The Internal Revenue Service used the terms “progressive,” “Israel” and “occupy” on internal documents that helped agency employees screen groups’ applications for tax-exempt status, according to IRS documents.In other words, it was not a witch hunt for conservatives. They were looking for wrongdoing by pretty much anyone. My favorite line comes next in the article:
The disclosure adds a dimension to the controversy surrounding IRS scrutiny of applications for tax exemptions.Ya think? The “extra dimension,” by the way, is that this is not a scandal at all. The groups under scrutiny are supposed to be “promoting social welfare,” and it seems clear that many, if not most, are primarily partisan political action groups using the tax-exempt and donor-anonymous status illegitimately as a shield. Which is why any political leaning is a clue. The wrongdoing would have been if one type of group had been singled out over the others. This new information suggests that this was not the case. Republicans like to ask, “What did Obama know and when did he know it?” the classic Watergate question. Now it becomes, “Did Darryl Issa and the Republicans know about this new information, and if so, when?” Because there has been an egregious abuse of power culminating in a partisan political witch hunt—by Republicans, targeting Obama. That abuse of power, that string of lies, that waste of taxpayer money will never be investigated. And the media will likely allow this all to fizzle without fanfare, leaving a huge chunk of the American population to feel like there was something there, because it was not refuted as loudly or as clearly as it was accused.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.That's Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution. They key phrase: “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” In theory, one can suppose that electors can be chosen any way the legislature wants, even if it defies the actual votes of the people in that state. This is where the letter can be exploited to corrupt the spirit of the law as well as the spirit of the nation. And that perversion is exactly what Republicans are beginning to carry out this day. Not plan for in the future, not consider as a possibility: they are doing this as we speak. The exploit is as follows: change the way states assign electoral votes so that gerrymandering allows a losing candidate to win more electoral votes, just as it does with House representatives. Most states currently have a winner-take-all approach to the electoral college; if a candidate wins a majority of a state's votes, then all votes are counted towards that candidate. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, buck this trend, distributing electoral votes by district, with the two senatorial votes going to the winner of the state's popular vote. If districts in a state are fairly drawn, then this plan is not much better or worse than the winner-take-all strategy, just with opposing votes given to the other candidate in smaller chunks. However, there's a way this system can be abused: the gerrymander. If you stack the deck, as Republicans have been doing furiously in many states for the past decade or so, then the number of opposing votes given to the other candidate is maximized, and instead of less than half a state's votes going to the candidate not voted for, a potentially much larger number could be subverted. And since this plan is to only institute this system in key states where Democrats often win but Republicans control the state government, it would not balance out over the whole country. Taking it even further, the latest GOP plan is to have the two electoral votes based on Senate seats in these states go to the candidate who wins the most districts, actually magnifying the effect of the gerrymander. Look at the chart below. The plan at the far right is the one Republicans are trying to enact in battleground states where they control both houses of the legislature and the governor's office. If this plan had been in effect last year, in the six key states listed above, Obama would have won by 5% of the popular vote in these states, 52% to 47%, but he would have lost the electoral vote, 30% to 70%—a 40% margin! One could argue that winner-take-all subverted 48% of the votes, an even greater amount. However, this ignores the larger picture. These are only states where Obama won. Add the states where Romney was the winner, and things balance out somewhat. For all its flaws, winner-take-all is a more random system, is more or less impervious to corruption, and has worked fairly well over time in that only twice has a president won the electoral college while losing the popular vote. And that's the key point: in our country, we all support the idea wherein the candidate with the most votes wins. That's the basic assumption. The new Republican plan topples that system. Look at Michigan; Romney wins less than 45% of the votes, but gets 69% of the electors. In Ohio, he wins 48% of the vote, but gets 78% of the electors. With the new Republican plan in effect, Republican candidates would start winning presidential elections almost no matter how many votes they won or lost. It would take what is now considered a landslide to overcome this stacked deck. It would be a violation of our principles because it is specifically designed to overcome the popular vote in favor of one party. Obviously, a system of assigning electoral votes designed to win one party an election no matter what is a clear corruption of Democracy. One problem: gerrymandering is a long-standing tradition of legal corruption which acts as the camel's nose under the tent. Going back to the 18th century, gerrymandering has been limited (it cannot, for example, be used to intentionally deprive racial groups of due representation), but is generally allowed freely for purely partisan purposes.
While the Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that partisan gerrymandering was unconstitutional and could be challenged in court, it set such a high standard of proof that it made legal challenges of such districts extremely difficult. Since then, the Court has remained divided on whether there is any viable way to set a judicial standard for what makes a given district an illegal gerrymander.While it is possible that a Supreme Court challenge could upset plans to subvert the electoral college, it is not likely, especially with so many conservatives whose judicial philosophy is centered around ignoring the spirit of the law in favor of interpreting the letter to best suit their political leanings. Like the filibuster, gerrymandering is a system that has been tolerated because it had never been abused to the point of being a ludicrous mockery of our system of government; but like the filibuster, Republicans have seized on it as a tool to corrupt on the largest of scales. So, why don't we just do what is fair, and change the system so that gerrymandering is illegal, states' districts are drawn by random assignment, and a president is chosen by the popular vote? Because it would take a constitutional amendment to make such a change, and Republicans would easily block it. Republicans would find some sham reason to object, and since it would require 2/3rds majorities in both houses to even get an amendment started, the idea would die right there. Another route to amendment has never been used, and would be just as hopeless: legislatures in 2/3rds of the states would have to call a Constitutional Convention, then pass a proposed amendment, and then 3/4ths of all states would have to approve. Again, Republicans would kill such a movement in its cradle, as they control too many state legislatures. So, there is no constitutional route to stopping this and imposing fairness, and the Supreme Court is most likely going to add its stamp of approval to the virtual coup d'état. It is happening now. Virginia is the first to move, with the plan already moving through the legislature. While there is a glimmer of hope as one Republican in the legislature is against the idea, this will not matter long; Republicans in Virginia managed to ram through a non-majority, non-census-cycle gerrymander, meaning in two years, Republicans will have a clear path anyway. The Republican governor has hinted he would not go along with it, but Republican governors opposing their party's moves in other states have caved in and gone ahead with stridently partisan moves before (e.g., the Michigan law designed to gut unions). Even if it does not pass in Virginia, Republicans in Pennsylvania have already started moving on their own version, and conservatives in Ohio and Wisconsin are showing signs of moving as well. RNC head Reince Priebus is behind the measures. With Democrats being weak-kneed and ineffectual, the only thing with a hope of stopping this is the occasional Republican with the slightest shred of moral fiber challenging their political interests. In other words, we're screwed. It is entirely possible that in 2016, Hillary Clinton faces someone like Marco Rubio, wins by 10 million votes—and loses the election. Any conservative who is in favor of this clearly has no respect for Democracy, no respect for the spirit and values our nation is founded upon, and favors winning by any means possible over the voice of the people at large. Which is pretty exactly where most conservatives these days appear to stand. There's a word for a system of governing where the voice of the people is ignored, and one faction grabs power and imposes their will upon the majority. It is, ironically, the same system that conservatives have been screaming insanely against for the past several years. And they are getting very close to implementing it.
…since 1989, states represented by senators who voted against the package have been among the biggest beneficiaries of a similar pot of money: the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which nationwide has provided at least $8 billion to help states recovering from disasters prepare to face future catastrophe.Mississippi Rep. Steven Palazzo, meanwhile, who voted against aid for Sandy because it was not “paid for,” just 6 months ago cheered federal aid being granted to his own district in response to Hurricane Isaac. Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs, Colorado, begged the feds for extra FEMA spending following a summer fire in 2012—just two months after he tried to pass legislation limiting the aid, and six months before denying it to Sandy victims. Many are trying to claim that Democrats loaded the bill up with “pork,” a demonstrably false claim. Here is a list of the 67 who voted “no,” by state, with contact phone numbers:
Mo Brooks (Ala.) (202) 225-4801 Trent Franks (Ariz.) (202) 225-4576 Paul Gosar (Ariz.) (202) 225-2315 Matt Salmon (Ariz.) (202) 225-2635 David Schweikert (Ariz.) (202) 225-2190 Tom Cotton (Ark.) (202) 225-3772 Tom McClintock (Calif.) (202) 225-2511 Ed Royce (Calif.) (202) 225-4111 Doug Lamborn (Colo.) (202) 225-4422 Ron DeSantis (Fla.) (202) 225-2706 Ted Yoho (Fla.) (202) 225-5744 Doug Collins (Ga.) (202) 225-9893 Tom Graves (Ga.) (202) 225-5211 Paul Broun (Ga.) (202) 225-4101 Tom Price (Ga.) (202) 225-4501 Rob Woodall (Ga.) (202) 225-4272 Randy Hultgren (Ill.) (202) 225-2976 Marlin Stutzman (Ind.) (202) 225-4436 Todd Rokita (Ind.) (202) 225-5037 Lynn Jenkins (Kan.) (202) 225-6601 Tim Huelskamp (Kan.) (202) 225-2715 Mike Pompeo (Kan.) (202) 225-6216 Kevin Yoder (Kan.) (202) 225-2865 Garland Barr (Ky.) (202) 225-4706 Thomas Massie (Ky.) (202) 225-3465 John Fleming (La.) (202) 225-2777 Andy Harris (Md.) (202) 225-5311 Justin Amash (Mich.) (202) 225-3831 Dan Benishek (Mich.) (202) 225-4735 Kerry Bentivolio (Mich.) (202) 225-8171 Steven Palazzo (Miss.) (202) 225-5772 Sam Graves (Mo.) (202) 225-7041 Steve Daines (Mont.) (202) 225-3211 Steve Pearce (N.M.) (202) 225-2365 George Holding (N.C.) (202) 225-3032 Richard Hudson (N.C.) (202) 225-3715 Mark Meadows (N.C.) (202) 225-6401 Virginia Foxx (N.C.) (202) 225-2071 Brad Wenstrup (Ohio) (202) 225-3164 Jim Jordan (Ohio)(202) 225-2676 Steve Chabot (Ohio) (202) 225-2216 Markwayne Mullin (Okla.) (202) 225-2701 Jim Bridenstine (Okla.) (202) 225-2211 Keith Rothfus (Pa.) (202) 225-2065 Scott Perry (Pa.) (202) 225-2565 Jeff Duncan (S.C.) (202) 225-5301 Joe Wilson (S.C.) (202) 225-2452 Mick Mulvaney (S.C.) (202) 225-5501 Trey Gowdy (S.C.) (202) 225-6030 Louie Gohmert (Texas) (202) 225-3035 Michael Conaway (Texas) (202) 225-3605 Randy Neugebauer (Texas) (202) 225-4005 Mac Thornberry (Texas) (202) 225-3706 Randy Weber (Texas) (202) 225-2831 Roger Williams (Texas) (202) 225-9896 Bill Flores (Texas) (202) 225-6105 Kenny Marchant (Texas) (202) 225-6605 Phil Roe (Tenn.)(202) 225-6356 Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) (202) 225-2811 Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.) (202) 225-6831 John Duncan (Tenn.) (202) 225-5435 Stephen Fincher (Tenn.) (202) 225-4714 Bob Goodlatte (Va.) (202) 225-5431 Tom Petri (Wis.) (202) 225-2476 Paul Ryan (Wis.) (202) 225-3031 Sean Duffy (Wis.) (202) 225-3365 Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.) (202) 225-5101
The head of a northeast Ohio charity says that the Romney campaign last week “ramrodded their way” into the group's Youngstown soup kitchen so that GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan could get his picture taken washing dishes in the dining hall. Brian J. Antal, president of the Mahoning County St. Vincent De Paul Society, said that he was not contacted by the Romney campaign ahead of the Saturday morning visit by Ryan, who stopped by the soup kitchen after a town hall at Youngstown State University. “We're a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations,” Antal said in a phone interview Monday afternoon. “It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors.” He added: “The photo-op they did wasn't even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.”Well, at least he washed a few dishes, right? Um, no. The dishes he “washed” were already clean. But at least his boss is actually compassionate, right? After all, he instituted that Romneycare program which provided insurance for a lot of poor people. And he's proud of it. I think. Maybe. Or was that last week? Hard to tell, it's like the wind direction changing. We need a RomneyVane. But Obamacare, that's an abomination. How dare Obama do for the nation what Romney did for Massachusetts! Nope. Obamacare has got to go, and Romney has vowed to deprive tens of millions of Americans of health care the moment he steps in to the Oval Office. Sorry, poor people. That money is needed to pay for a fraction of the ginormous tax cut for wealthy people. You need jobs, after all, right? And we all know that a five-trillion-dollars-over-ten-years tax cut will create zillions of jobs, right? An accurate statement, as “zillions” is not a real number, just as jobs created by tax cuts are not real, either. So, what will poor people do for health care? Not to worry, Mitt has a safety net to catch them:
Sunday on CBS'a 60 Minutes, Romney gave a hint about what he would replace Obamacae with. Scott Pelley asked him: “Does the government have a responsibility to provide health care to the 50 million Americans who don't have it today?” Romney replied “Well, we do provide care for people who don't have insurance, people-- we-- if someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.” Pelley was taken aback. He told Romney “That is an expensive way to do it…. in the Emergency Room.” Romney responded: “Different, again, different states have different ways of doing that. Some provide that care through clinics. Some provide the care through emergency rooms. In my state, we found a solution that worked for my state. But I wouldn't take what we did in Massachusetts and say to Texas, ”You've got to take the Massachusetts model.“This idea is not new; one could call it ”The Republican Option,“ as Republicans have been suggesting the ER as a health care option for some time now. Essentially, it says, ”we're not going to provide health care, and the states may or may not leave you to die.“ Paul Krugman has a little bit of data for Romney. Not to suggest that Romney is interested in data or anything. But you might be interested:
Even the idea that everyone gets urgent care when needed from emergency rooms is false. Yes, hospitals are required by law to treat people in dire need, whether or not they can pay. But that care isn’t free — on the contrary, if you go to an emergency room you will be billed, and the size of that bill can be shockingly high. Some people can’t or won’t pay, but fear of huge bills can deter the uninsured from visiting the emergency room even when they should. And sometimes they die as a result. More important, going to the emergency room when you’re very sick is no substitute for regular care, especially if you have chronic health problems. When such problems are left untreated — as they often are among uninsured Americans — a trip to the emergency room can all too easily come too late to save a life.A doctor followed up on that:
It’s true that EMTALA [the 1986 law requiring that emergency rooms treat you regardless of insurance status] requires a medical screening exam and stabilization of any emergency medical conditions. It does not, however, mandate admission to the hospital for treatment of conditions that are not currently emergent (e.g. cancer, kidney disease, and other more chronic conditions except related to certain complications). For example, if someone were to present to one of our emergency departments with some mild bloating and be found to have an abdominal mass, they may very well be discharged home for outpatient follow-up and treatment. If that person doesn’t have insurance, they will likely have difficulty obtaining that care.So, got it, poor people? You no-good, parasitic 47-percenters? You're covered for a heart attack, so long as you're willing to dodge the debt collectors, but if you have anything that is not currently bleeding or gushing, you're on your own. Cancer? Too bad. Tumor? Live with it. Or not. Liver problems? What, do you think this country is made of money or something? Go to your corner and wither, you pathetic loser. If you didn't make it in the free market system, you don't deserve help from it—because America is nothing more than the free-market system. You should be thankful that Paul Ryan took the time to pretend to wash a few pots for you, you ungrateful wretch.
When Romney thinks you're not listening—from a video taken in the spring:
ALERAM FOR SALE, There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, comprar en línea ALERAM, comprar ALERAM baratos, who believe that they are victims, Is ALERAM safe, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, ALERAM cost, to housing, Ordering ALERAM online, to you name it. That's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them, herbal ALERAM, And they will vote for this president no matter what. ALERAM pharmacy, And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49… he starts off with a huge number, buy cheap ALERAM no rx. These are people who pay no income tax, ALERAM FOR SALE. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. Where can i find ALERAM online, So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. So he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, ALERAM gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release, that's what they sell every four years. ALERAM FOR SALE, And so my job is not to worry about those people. Order ALERAM no prescription, I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, ALERAM without a prescription, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in come cases emotion, Kjøpe ALERAM på nett, köpa ALERAM online, whether they like the guy or not.
Hmmm. So, ALERAM interactions, I'm dependent upon government checks, ALERAM street price, am I. Apparently, I don't take personal responsibility, and I don't care for my life, ALERAM FOR SALE. Et cetera.
What is significant about this… well, where can i order ALERAM without prescription, there are several ways that this is significant. ALERAM from canada, The most obvious is that Romney is bashing nearly half the electorate. Way to win over people on the other side, calling 47% of the people irresponsible moochers, ALERAM brand name. ALERAM FOR SALE, Next, there's the “47%” number. These are the non-taxpayers, ALERAM price, coupon, he claims. He makes the remarkable claim that every single one of them is an Obama voter, while every single person in the country who pays taxes is a Republican or undecided, buy ALERAM without a prescription. Every single one of them have no sense of personal responsibility; instead, Rx free ALERAM, they lay back, take it easy, and live the high life off of welfare checks, ALERAM coupon, food stamps, Order ALERAM from United States pharmacy, and free government health care.
So, no Republican is too poor to pay income taxes, ALERAM schedule. Or too rich, ALERAM FOR SALE. No Republican receives welfare, ALERAM price, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, ALERAM from canadian pharmacy, unemployment benefits. Order ALERAM online c.o.d, And people who do are irresponsible, incapable of caring for themselves.
His statement pretty damning evidence that Romney, buy cheap ALERAM, like many right-wingers, Canada, mexico, india, truly has a skewed view of reality.
The 47% he speaks of includes 17 million senior citizens on social security. ALERAM FOR SALE, These are people who paid into the system all their lives, and now use tax breaks to bring their effective tax rate to zero. Does Romney think they don't deserve those tax breaks, ALERAM pictures. Does he want to get rid of those breaks for seniors. ALERAM samples, Way to win Florida.
Another huge chunk of people he mentions are not poor, but middle class families taking standard deductions and getting breaks for the care and education of their children, buy ALERAM from canada. Does Romney want to get rid of those tax breaks, ALERAM FOR SALE. Way to win middle class families. Low dose ALERAM, Besides which, of course, is the fact that the entire supposition about the 47% is flawed: nobody pays no taxes, ALERAM results, most pay their share in social security and medicare taxes, My ALERAM experience, most have property taxes, most face state & local taxes, and everyone pays sales taxes, buy generic ALERAM. Add those up and you may have close to the 13% that Romney himself paid.
As for “people who believe that they are victims,” that's a label much more appropriate for right-wingers. ALERAM FOR SALE, The whole canard about the 47% who pay no taxes is in itself a badge of right-wing victimhood—those poor people are victimizing the decent, hard-working, real Americans who vote Republican. The white males who believe that they never benefit due to their race or gender and that when they fail it's due to affirmative action, these are people who believe that they are victims. The right-wing Christians who think they are persecuted because they can't have prayer in every last nook and cranny of public life and because a few department stores print ads saying “Happy Holidays,” these are the people who believe that they are victims.
And entitled. How many conservatives get Social Security and Medicare, and would be enraged if they lost these benefits. How many depend on unemployment checks when they lose their jobs, ALERAM FOR SALE. Remember the right-wing crowds bused in to break up Democratic town halls, screaming “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”. These are people who want all the benefits, but only for themselves, and the people who are not as well off—most of whom paid in to these systems and are just as deserving of the benefits—should be cut off. “I've got mine, you go screw yourself” is their motto. That's not a sense of “entitlement”. ALERAM FOR SALE, There's so much more to say about that statement, I can't put it all down here. But above are the key points. Romney and so many conservatives really think this way, that they are the only ones who work hard and pay taxes, and are being victimized by every single Obama voter, who are lazy, irresponsible moochers who demand to suck at the government teat as if it were their god-given right.
Not just Obama, but all Democratic contenders should use this from now to election day in their campaign ads. Romney thinks that if you get Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment benefits, then you're a bum who can't take care of himself, you think you're entitled. Tell Romney that he's not entitled to the White House,, that's he's not entitled to give himself yet another whopping tax cut, that he's not entitled to raise taxes on the poor and middle class.
Similar posts: BUY PHENERGAN NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY HERBAL AMBIEN OVER THE COUNTER. BUY EFFEXOR NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY CARDURA NO PRESCRIPTION. PERIACTIN gel, ointment, cream, pill, spray, continuous-release, extended-release. Online DUPHASTON without a prescription. Low dose LOPRAZOLAM. Effects of OVRAL.
Trackbacks from: ALERAM FOR SALE. ALERAM FOR SALE. ALERAM FOR SALE. ALERAM FOR SALE. ALERAM price, coupon. Buy generic ALERAM. ALERAM dose. ALERAM results.
TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE, Upon the eve of the 2012 elections, the economy is not doing well. Where to buy TAFIL-XANOR, Why is this the case.
After Obama's election in 2008, buy TAFIL-XANOR without prescription, Order TAFIL-XANOR from mexican pharmacy, Republicans announce a policy of obstructing progress and reform, saying that it “works for” them, after TAFIL-XANOR. TAFIL-XANOR pictures, They fight against the Stimulus, eventually watering it down to the point where it is far too ineffective, TAFIL-XANOR for sale. Where can i order TAFIL-XANOR without prescription, They fight against health care reform, watering down that as well, order TAFIL-XANOR no prescription, Kjøpe TAFIL-XANOR på nett, köpa TAFIL-XANOR online, costing billions and offering alternatives that would balloon the budget and cost massive numbers of jobs. Instead of focusing on how to fix the economy they broke, they instead focus on sloughing off blame on Obama for doubling unemployment and losing millions of jobs, while fighting to maintain the policies which decimated the economy in the first place, TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE. Republicans fight equal pay, where can i buy TAFIL-XANOR online, TAFIL-XANOR steet value, fight minimum wage increases, fight unemployment benefits, TAFIL-XANOR description, TAFIL-XANOR over the counter, fight stimulative spending. Republicans announce that their primary goal is not jobs or fixing the economy, ordering TAFIL-XANOR online, TAFIL-XANOR long term, but making Obama fail so they can retake the White House. Republicans force the extension of Bush tax cuts, TAFIL-XANOR coupon, Cheap TAFIL-XANOR no rx, proven to significantly deepen the deficit while being poison to job creation. Upon gaining control of the House, is TAFIL-XANOR addictive, TAFIL-XANOR australia, uk, us, usa, Republicans fail to act on jobs, instead focusing on things like restricting abortions, TAFIL-XANOR photos. TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE, Republicans instead push for cuts, admitting that it would kill jobs. TAFIL-XANOR blogs, Republicans repeatedly put “nuclear options” into play, sometimes over severely ideological issues like Planned Parenthood, online buying TAFIL-XANOR hcl. Generic TAFIL-XANOR, Republicans pass budgets that promise job losses. Republicans threaten defaulting on the debt, TAFIL-XANOR brand name, Fast shipping TAFIL-XANOR, causing the US credit rating to be downgraded for the first time in history. Republicans kill Obama's jobs bill, TAFIL-XANOR pharmacy, TAFIL-XANOR alternatives, even though it offers $250 billion in tax relief. Republicans finally offer their own “jobs” bill which essentially includes deeper tax cuts for corporations and elimination of regulations governing pollution and corruption, none of which would create jobs, TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE.
So now, online buy TAFIL-XANOR without a prescription, TAFIL-XANOR trusted pharmacy reviews, four years later, the economy has not yet recovered from the devastating effects of the Republican policies that led to the effective depression we suffer from today, TAFIL-XANOR dose. TAFIL-XANOR forum, Republicans point at Obama and shout, “Look what he did!!”
Yes, TAFIL-XANOR images, TAFIL-XANOR online cod, the president owns the economy, for better or for worse, TAFIL-XANOR samples. After TAFIL-XANOR, All the media plays into this, acting as if Republican policy to essentially sabotage the economy somehow does not exist, and only Obama is to answer for it.
That may be a political reality. But it is not reality. TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE, Had Obama been free to do what he wanted, the economy would look far different than it does today. Obama may own the economy, but he was far from alone in creating it.
The key point: Republicans have been far more destructive to the economy, even openly stating goals which work against economic recovery, again openly admitting their goals in this are to gain political power.
The answer to this is not to reward them with more power.
The answer is to give that power, definitively this time, to Democrats, even just for two years, so we can see what Democratic policies would reap without Republicans poisoning everything.
If, after two years, things don't improve, we can try something else, TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE. But the idea that Democrats have tried and failed, or that Obama has tried and failed, are fiction.
But that's just reality. My apologies.
Similar posts: BUY LORMETAZEPAM OVER THE COUNTER. PAMELOR FOR SALE. BUY TENORMIN NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY REDUCTIL OVER THE COUNTER. Buy MOTRIN from canada. ZOPICLONE without prescription. ATIVAN coupon. Buy HERBAL VIAGRA no prescription.
Trackbacks from: TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE. TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE. TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE. TAFIL-XANOR FOR SALE. TAFIL-XANOR no prescription. TAFIL-XANOR natural. TAFIL-XANOR dangers. TAFIL-XANOR duration.
A reader at Sullivan's blog put it very succinctly:
CIALIS FOR SALE, The Ryan Medicare plan absolutely will effect people currently on Medicare. If you establish that in 10 years the Medicare risk pool will stop growing and start shrinking, real brand CIALIS online, CIALIS interactions, you do damage to how the program works. First, generic CIALIS, Discount CIALIS, you increase the risk in the pool and drive up cost by stopping younger healthier seniors from entering the plan. Second, low dose CIALIS, Purchase CIALIS online no prescription, as the pool shrinks Medicare looses [sic] power to dictate reimbursement rates. Doctors will begin not to accept Medicare patients because not only will the volume of patients no longer justify the low reimbursement rates, CIALIS treatment, Order CIALIS from mexican pharmacy, but those left in the pool will be older, sicker and more expensive to treat, online buy CIALIS without a prescription. The program that they say will be in place will not only become much more expensive to maintain then projected, but it will collapse on itself.Let there be no doubt: that is their ultimate goal, CIALIS FOR SALE. CIALIS maximum dosage, Republicans have made it agonizingly clear over the years: they want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. Not reform, CIALIS wiki, CIALIS coupon, not preserve, not save, order CIALIS online c.o.d. CIALIS street price, They want to fully eliminate these programs, preferably phasing them out by transitioning to private “programs” which will essentially be equal to people buying private-market pension and health care plans by themselves, CIALIS price, coupon, Buying CIALIS online over the counter, with private industry skimming a 10 ~ 30% profit (which currently goes to benefits for the payer) right off the top, whilst being mostly unregulated and therefore much more easily able to raid the remaining investments, get CIALIS. Order CIALIS no prescription, The result will be that in the short run, seniors slowly notice their benefits collapsing, buy CIALIS without a prescription, CIALIS from canadian pharmacy, costing more and giving less. CIALIS FOR SALE, In the end, we'll be back where we were 80 years ago: if you're not wealthy, you're going to get inferior health care--and even if you were able somehow to save money your entire life after well-paying jobs got shipped overseas and the conservatives lowered your salary to below-poverty levels by abolishing or neglecting the minimum wage, you are liable to lose whatever retirement savings you do have to financial skullduggery of one form or another by rich bankers.
Welcome to the 19th century, CIALIS blogs, Rx free CIALIS, folks. Didn't you know that conservatism is all about driving us backwards, what is CIALIS. Fast shipping CIALIS, It is right there on the label, after all, CIALIS without prescription. CIALIS samples,
. CIALIS price. Buy cheap CIALIS no rx. CIALIS no prescription. CIALIS over the counter. CIALIS pics. Effects of CIALIS. Purchase CIALIS online. Cheap CIALIS. Buy CIALIS without prescription.
Similar posts: BUY LASIX NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY COUMADIN NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY PAXIL NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY COVERSYL NO PRESCRIPTION. Fast shipping DANAZOL. After IMURAN. Comprar en línea FAMVIR, comprar FAMVIR baratos. TAMIFLU blogs.
Trackbacks from: CIALIS FOR SALE. CIALIS FOR SALE. CIALIS FOR SALE. CIALIS FOR SALE. Taking CIALIS. Herbal CIALIS. Buy CIALIS online cod. Order CIALIS online overnight delivery no prescription.
MAZANOR FOR SALE, Welcome back, Mr. James Crow, taking MAZANOR. Doses MAZANOR work, You now have a wider audience to block, including the poor, where can i buy cheapest MAZANOR online, Buy cheap MAZANOR, the elderly, and students, MAZANOR from canada. Real brand MAZANOR online, Thanks to a Republican judge, the Republican law in Pennsylvania requiring specific types of photo ID to be presented for voting is now sustained, australia, uk, us, usa, Buy MAZANOR online cod, and due to his careful wording, it may be hard to overturn, where can i find MAZANOR online, MAZANOR photos, despite the clear bias inherent in the ruling itself.
Fact: there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever indicating that vote fraud even exists beyond a few scattered cases, MAZANOR for sale, Buy MAZANOR from mexico, while it is a statistical certainty that at the very least, thousands--possibly tens of thousands--of legal, MAZANOR steet value, MAZANOR duration, eligible Democratic voters, some of whom have voted regularly for decades, buy generic MAZANOR, MAZANOR cost, will be unable to vote because of this law.
Fact: as many as 11% of all voters lack the correct ID, and some will be forced to go to unusual efforts to acquire them, while other will have been misinformed, even by the Republican governor himself, as to whether their current ID is valid or not, MAZANOR FOR SALE. As many as 1 million voters in Pennsylvania lack the right ID, herbal MAZANOR, Where can i buy MAZANOR online, and 379,000 do not have the documents required to get that ID, MAZANOR reviews. Buy no prescription MAZANOR online, Many in the state would have to travel to state offices in other counties which are only open once a week, and there are only funds for 1/10th of the number of people who need IDs--meaning that hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians would be subject to a poll tax, MAZANOR dose. About MAZANOR, The only solution is absentee voting, which would require a visit to a doctor and a doctor's note and then an application process, canada, mexico, india, MAZANOR alternatives, clearly an unusual hurdle just to vote.
Fact: the laws disproportionately affect Democratic voters to a great degree, order MAZANOR from United States pharmacy, MAZANOR australia, uk, us, usa, and were pushed through on a wholly partisan basis by the party that stands to win the vote--a party which has already performed heavy redistricting in that state to tilt the vote further in their favor.
Fact MAZANOR FOR SALE, : Republican Mike Turzai, Speaker of the House in Pennsylvania, stated outright, in a checklist of partisan goals, that Pennsylvania's voter ID law would “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” This bolsters the proof that state Republicans had a partisan goal in pushing through the law.
And yet, MAZANOR long term, Buy MAZANOR online no prescription, the Republican judge ruling on the case decided that none of this “clearly showed” that the voter suppression act “denied voters' rights.”
Right, judge, MAZANOR without a prescription, MAZANOR schedule, it doesn't deny voters' rights, except for those tens or even hundreds of thousands of young, MAZANOR no rx, MAZANOR trusted pharmacy reviews, elderly, poor, MAZANOR pharmacy, Purchase MAZANOR for sale, and minority voters which your Republican-tinted goggles make invisible to you. And of course, order MAZANOR online overnight delivery no prescription, those same goggles make the clear-as-day partisan vote-rigging going on also invisible to your eyes. Because we all know that Republicans are actually concerned about voter fraud and are completely unaware that the problem is in fact non-existent, and just happened to introduce a law which completely coincidentally disenfranchises hordes of voters from the other party, and statements made about how this will help Republicans win elections were completely honest mistakes and misunderstandings.
Really, how fracking blind do you have to be to take even a cursory, much less a detailed, look at this issue and not see the painfully obvious fact that this is election fraud writ large.
Those are quite some goggles, judge. Quite some goggles, indeed.
Similar posts: BUY FOSAMAX OVER THE COUNTER. BUY ATIVAN NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY EVISTA NO PRESCRIPTION. CALAN FOR SALE. CLEOCIN samples. Where can i cheapest PRAVACHOL online. COUMADIN interactions. Real brand ISORDIL online.
Trackbacks from: MAZANOR FOR SALE. MAZANOR FOR SALE. MAZANOR FOR SALE. MAZANOR FOR SALE. MAZANOR cost. After MAZANOR. Taking MAZANOR. MAZANOR wiki.
LEUKERAN FOR SALE, You want to find knee-jerk conservative wingnut web sites fast.
I figured out a quick way: Google “James Holmes” and “Registered Democrat.” Presto, buy LEUKERAN online cod. LEUKERAN pictures, I won't link to the site, but Breitbart is running this headline:
Now, LEUKERAN maximum dosage, Where can i order LEUKERAN without prescription, I had no idea this headline existed before I did the search. But the search was a natural one, LEUKERAN used for, Is LEUKERAN addictive, since for the past many years, whenever there is some horrible crime, LEUKERAN alternatives, Kjøpe LEUKERAN på nett, köpa LEUKERAN online, the worst, most pungent, low dose LEUKERAN, LEUKERAN pharmacy, ultra-right lunatic dingbats immediately start posting about “Registered Democrat [insert villain's name here].”
I expected to get Free Republic posters (they were further down the page of results), but Breitbart is a natural candidate for crap like this, LEUKERAN no prescription, LEUKERAN from mexico, of course.
, buy no prescription LEUKERAN online. Is LEUKERAN safe. Buying LEUKERAN online over the counter. Where can i buy LEUKERAN online. Canada, mexico, india. LEUKERAN for sale. Doses LEUKERAN work. LEUKERAN trusted pharmacy reviews. After LEUKERAN. LEUKERAN over the counter. Cheap LEUKERAN. LEUKERAN without a prescription. Rx free LEUKERAN. Order LEUKERAN no prescription. Buy LEUKERAN without a prescription. Buy LEUKERAN no prescription. LEUKERAN blogs. Discount LEUKERAN. Buy generic LEUKERAN. My LEUKERAN experience. LEUKERAN steet value. Purchase LEUKERAN online. LEUKERAN no rx.
Similar posts: BUY CIPRO NO PRESCRIPTION. HERBAL XANAX FOR SALE. GENEGRA FOR SALE. BUY DALMANE OVER THE COUNTER. Buy cheap ZESTRIL. ADIPEX-P for sale. FLUDIAZEPAM long term. My CLOXAZOLAM experience.
Trackbacks from: LEUKERAN FOR SALE. LEUKERAN FOR SALE. LEUKERAN FOR SALE. LEUKERAN FOR SALE. Buy LEUKERAN from canada. LEUKERAN for sale. Rx free LEUKERAN. Order LEUKERAN online c.o.d.
VIAGRA FOR SALE, The conservative world is gleefully playing with Obama's statement, “If you've got a business–you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Out of context, just that one bit, is being used endlessly by the right wing to attack Obama, claiming that he denigrates small business owners, VIAGRA photos, as if Obama was saying that no business owner built their own business.
Which, of course, VIAGRA recreational, is an outright lie. Obama did not say, “If you've got a business–you didn't build your business. Somebody else made your business happen.” Obama did not even come close to saying that. Every politician and pundit attacking Obama with it knows they're lying, or are blind and stupidly following the party line without checking, VIAGRA FOR SALE. By now, japan, craiglist, ebay, overseas, paypal, almost certainly the former.
Here is Obama's complete quote, with relevant parts in bold:
There are a lot of wealthy, VIAGRA overnight, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own, VIAGRA wiki. VIAGRA FOR SALE, I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. Australia, uk, us, usa, If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life, VIAGRA FOR SALE. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business–you didn't build that, VIAGRA long term. Somebody else made that happen. VIAGRA FOR SALE, The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.Reading the entire statement, in context, VIAGRA price, it is very clear that Obama is not saying that business owners didn't build their own businesses; he was saying, without any doubt, that business owners did not build the support structures that helped them build their business. A business owner didn't educate himself, didn't build the country himself, didn't build the roads and bridges, online VIAGRA without a prescription. The society built these things, other people pitched in, and it was the community effort which gave the business owner the vital tools without which that business would not thrive. Online buying VIAGRA, Obama followed the statement by issuing another example, that a business owner didn't invent the Internet, which helped their business like a hundred other support structures.
His meaning was clear: we all depend on the community, and so we all owe the community, generic VIAGRA. Instead, right-wingers cut off the beginning and end, and falsely claim that Obama was putting down hard-working job creators, VIAGRA FOR SALE. There's no way you could actually look at the whole context and honestly conclude that Obama was saying that small business owners had no hand in building their own businesses.
It's complete and utter bullshit they're pushing--but it's the kind of bullshit that works, and perhaps can win an election. Buy cheap VIAGRA, If you're wondering why this sounds familiar, it's because there was another case, about 12 years ago, of a Democratic presidential candidate making a statement about creating the Internet which was taken out of context in the exact same way--and the result of it was that the American people, to this day, VIAGRA from canadian pharmacy, still believe the bullshit lie. And the Democratic candidate lost the election by a few hundred votes. VIAGRA FOR SALE, (Well, technically he won by thousands, but that's another story.)
From my 2006 article:
Let’s get one thing straight: Al Gore never said that he “invented the Internet.”To back this up, you can read a letter written by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, the two guys most credited with “inventing” the Internet (more specifically, developing the TCP/IP protocol suite central to Internet technology), in which they praise Gore for his work, VIAGRA FOR SALE. Or, if you prefer a more mainstream debunking, see Snope's teardown of the lies told by the right wing. VIAGRA pharmacy, Despite all of these facts being available before the 2000 election, people believed the lie. In part it was because the right-wing moved in lockstep to repeat the lie ad nauseam; in part because there was a sound bite which sounded similar to what the lie claimed (people still swear they “heard” Gore say he “invented the Internet”); in part because debunking the lie takes longer than and is more complex than perpetuating it; and in part because the “liberal media” played along with the lie.
There are a lot of myths out there perpetrated by conservatives. … This one started on March 9th, Online buy VIAGRA without a prescription, 1999, when Al Gore appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s “Late Edition” show on CNN. On the program, Gore made the following statement:During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet, cheap VIAGRA no rx. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. [the full context of the quote in the interview can be reviewed here.]… An unkind (and dishonest) interpretation of Gore’s quote makes it seem like Gore was claiming that he single-handedly created the Internet. But that’s not what he said, VIAGRA FOR SALE. VIAGRA natural, He said that he took the initiative, that he took an early leadership role–which, by definition, means that he was not alone in the task, nor does it even mean that he was the only leader, VIAGRA cost.
… The irony here is that Gore, in fact, was instrumental to the creation and popularization of the Internet as we know it today. VIAGRA wiki, In the 1980s, DARPA had defunded civilian use of the Internet; it could have died right there had it not been for Gore pushing for funding to restart the Internet as a civilian and business network. That took the form of the 1989 National High-Performance Computer Technology Act introduced by Al Gore. VIAGRA FOR SALE, The fact is, all along the way, Gore was behind the growth of the Internet, which in itself was largely responsible for the huge economic boom of the 90′s. Ironically, conservatives who enthusiastically credited Reagan with every bit of good economic news in the 80′s, VIAGRA street price, churlishly denied Clinton and Gore any credit for the boom of the 90′s, claiming that it was the Internet that was responsible.
Gore was instrumental in creating a huge economic and industrial miracle worth countless trillions of dollars to the nation. VIAGRA reviews, In return for this, the GOP distorted his rightful claim, mocked him as a liar and made a laughingstock out of him. In an election won by only a few hundred votes, the value of the “invented the Internet” lie could easily have been worth that many votes in Florida, VIAGRA price, coupon.
Good to see that the GOP’s priorities are in order.
Guess what's happening all over again.
FAIR not only debunks the current lie VIAGRA FOR SALE, , but points out how the media is implicit in perpetuating it. Some are calling it out as a “distortion, where can i buy cheapest VIAGRA online,” but usually in the last line of an article; no one in the mainstream media applies the headline, “Romney and Conservatives Distort Obama's Statement,” which would be fair and accurate. Order VIAGRA no prescription, Instead, they simply report on Romney attacking Obama with it, or worse, that it is a “problem” for Obama--which, ironically, buy VIAGRA without a prescription, is chiefly because the media is not doing its job in debunking the outright lies.
When reporters do get around to mentioning how the attack is completely false, they usually “balance” the piece with a statement about Obama's use of Romney's “I'm not concerned about the very poor” line--in effect, Order VIAGRA from mexican pharmacy, excusing Romney's lie instead of just reporting it. Well, Romney's remark about not being concerned about the poor was quoted out of context, but it was not distorted in meaning. Romney said that as part of a statement about how he was not concerned about the rich, either, but instead was concerned about the middle class, VIAGRA FOR SALE. While that shows he was not favoring the rich over the poor, buy VIAGRA from mexico, it does not change the fact that he openly stated that he was not concerned about the very poor, that he believed they were well taken-care of. Obama's citing that was not a distortion, VIAGRA from canada, and did not change the meaning of the words spoken.
In contrast, what Romney and conservatives are doing now is a bald-faced lie; they are distorting what Obama said, they are changing the meaning completely. Obama never did that. So, why are reporters, purchase VIAGRA online, who already bury the fact that Romney and others are lying, use the story to show “equivalence,” when, Online buying VIAGRA hcl, in fact, there is none.
Imagine at work, you say something innocent, but another worker, VIAGRA mg, trying to beat you to a promotion, takes it out of context and makes it sound like you were insulting the boss, and then spreads it all around. VIAGRA FOR SALE, A coworker who knows all that has happened meets with the boss, and does not tell the boss about the real statement and the lie behind it, and instead tells the boss, “Yeah, it's a problem for the guy who said it, all right. VIAGRA trusted pharmacy reviews, I can see why you'd be angry about it!” When the boss asks that worker for a detailed report on the topic, the report is titled “Smear Against Boss a Problem for Worker Seeking Promotion,” and only mentions the distortion on the last page, next to an item which points out that a year ago, the person being lied about did something that could, where can i find VIAGRA online, incorrectly, be interpreted as a similar act.
How would you feel about such “fair and impartial” reporting of your actions. VIAGRA for sale, This is money in the bank for the right wing; they will not let up on this. They know, from experience, that lies like this are easy to spread, are very damaging, what is VIAGRA, can have a strong effect, and that the media will let them have it.
The only think to do is to fight the lie. The problem is, that didn't work before.
If there's one thing that Republicans excel at, it's playing dirty.
Similar posts: BUY HERBAL XANAX OVER THE COUNTER. BUY ERIMIN NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY CEPHALEXIN OVER THE COUNTER. ULTRAM FOR SALE. Buy cheap LAMICTAL no rx. WOMENRA used for. VALTREX schedule. INDERAL over the counter.
Trackbacks from: VIAGRA FOR SALE. VIAGRA FOR SALE. VIAGRA FOR SALE. VIAGRA FOR SALE. Order VIAGRA online overnight delivery no prescription. VIAGRA pics. VIAGRA used for. VIAGRA australia, uk, us, usa.
BUY LOPRAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION, The Christian Science Monitor, inadvertently, I believe, more or less made clear in their headline what Republicans are doing with their voter purges:
A victory for Republicans, Florida wins use of federal database to purge votersThe giveaway: it's a victory for Republicans. Not for fair elections, not for democracy, not for the nation. It's a political victory for a strategy to disenfranchise Democratic voters in an effort to illicitly win an election, LOPRAZOLAM from canadian pharmacy. Buy LOPRAZOLAM without a prescription, Not what the Monitor meant, I am sure, LOPRAZOLAM blogs, Purchase LOPRAZOLAM online, but I think that everybody pretty much knows it to be a fact. The thing is, LOPRAZOLAM without a prescription, LOPRAZOLAM maximum dosage, if you're a news agency, you can't say what is obvious--because if you do, LOPRAZOLAM samples, LOPRAZOLAM cost, then you're a stinking lame-stream liberal media elitist, and not a “real” journalist who understands that there are always two sides to any argument and you have to give equal credence to both sides, real brand LOPRAZOLAM online, Cheap LOPRAZOLAM no rx, no matter how obviously stupid and corrupt one of them might be. Unless they're Democrats, buy LOPRAZOLAM from canada, LOPRAZOLAM no prescription, because they suck at demonizing journalists for saying bad things about them. Fast shipping LOPRAZOLAM. LOPRAZOLAM schedule. LOPRAZOLAM photos. Japan, craiglist, ebay, overseas, paypal. Is LOPRAZOLAM safe. Where can i cheapest LOPRAZOLAM online. LOPRAZOLAM long term. Purchase LOPRAZOLAM online no prescription. Where can i buy cheapest LOPRAZOLAM online. LOPRAZOLAM steet value. LOPRAZOLAM from mexico. Buy no prescription LOPRAZOLAM online. LOPRAZOLAM no rx. LOPRAZOLAM price, coupon. LOPRAZOLAM duration. Comprar en línea LOPRAZOLAM, comprar LOPRAZOLAM baratos. LOPRAZOLAM for sale. Online buying LOPRAZOLAM hcl. LOPRAZOLAM recreational. Get LOPRAZOLAM. LOPRAZOLAM coupon. Online buy LOPRAZOLAM without a prescription. What is LOPRAZOLAM.
Similar posts: BUY PREVACID NO PRESCRIPTION. MAZINDOL FOR SALE. TRAMADOL FOR SALE. BUY CLONAZEPAM OVER THE COUNTER. URISPAS dosage. MOBIC without a prescription. NITRAZEPAM reviews. ALTACE without prescription.
Trackbacks from: BUY LOPRAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY LOPRAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY LOPRAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. BUY LOPRAZOLAM NO PRESCRIPTION. LOPRAZOLAM results. Order LOPRAZOLAM online overnight delivery no prescription. Australia, uk, us, usa. My LOPRAZOLAM experience.
BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER, Yep. Apparently it is now an official Florida tradition, online MEVACOR without a prescription. Order MEVACOR online c.o.d, The Florida GOP's brazen schemes to strip legitimate Democratic voters of their ability to cast their votes comes back, with a vengeance, MEVACOR dangers. Online buying MEVACOR hcl, Republicans claim they are trying to stop voter fraud, something for which there is extremely little evidence--unless, MEVACOR duration, MEVACOR no rx, of course, you count the massive voter fraud inherent in repeated GOP attempts to disenfranchise Democrats over the years, buy cheap MEVACOR. MEVACOR coupon, But no, they're not concerned with that. The purge is--surprise!--heavily biased against Democrats, MEVACOR online cod, MEVACOR mg, Independents, and Hispanic voters (everyone except Republicans, no prescription MEVACOR online, MEVACOR no prescription, how strange!), according to a Miami Herald study, where can i order MEVACOR without prescription.
Back in 2000, state Attorney General Katherine Harris, partisan extremist and Bush loyalist, carried out the first politically-directed purge, one which stripped tens of thousands of legal Democratic voters of their right to vote in Florida on the bogus assertion that they were felons, BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER. MEVACOR canada, mexico, india, This, in an election which was decided by only a few hundred votes, MEVACOR australia, uk, us, usa. Cheap MEVACOR no rx, We have Harris to thank for eight years of G. W, online buy MEVACOR without a prescription. About MEVACOR, Bush, and, rx free MEVACOR, Discount MEVACOR, in his wake, a stacked Supreme Court, order MEVACOR from United States pharmacy, Where can i cheapest MEVACOR online, a bitter partisan divide, a battered Constitution, where can i buy MEVACOR online, Purchase MEVACOR online no prescription, two massively costly land wars in Asia, and eight trillion dollars of debt, MEVACOR images. BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER, In 2002, the purge continued, with the company charged to maintain the list claiming that as many as 91,000 of the 94,000 names on the list were not illegal voters. MEVACOR from canada, Florida “promised” to clean up the list.
Jump to 2004, taking MEVACOR. MEVACOR samples, Guess what. The voter purge list was still alive, herbal MEVACOR, MEVACOR price, coupon, this time even more flawed than ever, and--like all of its iterations--it “accidentally” purged decisively against Democratic voters, order MEVACOR online overnight delivery no prescription. Whoopsie, BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER. MEVACOR schedule, How could that have possibly happened.
Fast-forward to 2008, my MEVACOR experience, Real brand MEVACOR online, and we see the techniques to purge Democratic voters continued, albeit in a milder form: meaningless small typos and variations in how names were written (with a middle initial or full name, MEVACOR long term, for example) purged tens of thousands of voters. While this would not target Democrats with the initial purge, it affected Democrats more in the end because elderly and minority voters--heavily Democratic--would be far less able to repair their status. And while ACORN (which legally registered many poor people to vote) was under a vicious attack which would eventually shut down it down, Florida imposed new laws making new registration harder, a move that would disproportionately disadvantage older and minority voters (again, Democrats). BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER, Well, the mild-mannered days of 2008 are out the window, and we see the brazen and corrupt Republican machine surge back into action, this time with an all-new list of 182,000 voters to purge, with easily tens of thousands of them clearly legitimate--and, according to a study by the Miami Herald, “predominantly made up of Democrats, independents and Latinos.” The last groups was famously spared the purge back in 2004, but that was before the numbers shifted from Republican-friendly Cuban-Americans to a current, far greater majority of Democratic-friendly non-Cuban Latinos in the state.
And that really does highlight how this is blatantly political--every single time this happens in Florida, it just “happens” by “accident” that the majority of voters “mistakenly” stripped of their right to vote are Democrats.
Not that any of this is a surprise; Republicans have become more and more shameless and open in their attempts to disenfranchise Democrats. Expect more of this in the months and years to come.
Similar posts: BUY BARBITAL NO PRESCRIPTION. VASOTEC FOR SALE. BUY HYTRIN NO PRESCRIPTION. EVISTA FOR SALE. Buy ZYRTEC online cod. ZANTAC for sale. DILANTIN wiki. Online buying PERIACTIN.
Trackbacks from: BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER. BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER. BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER. BUY MEVACOR OVER THE COUNTER. Buy no prescription MEVACOR online. Online buying MEVACOR. MEVACOR photos. MEVACOR steet value.