Monday, January 25, 2016

What I Would Like To Say to President Obama

I want to say to my president that I voted twice for, not because he was the black guy who happened to be smart, but because he was the smart guy who happened to be black. I am disappointed in some things.
Bill Clinton signed some of the maximum sentence bill into legislation that you are trying to undo. He bought into the Republican outsourcer's wet dream, the North American Foreign Trade Agreement. Since you stopped the XL pipeline go ahead, I salute you on that. The TPPA makes me skeptical. Foreign trade agreements haven't worked out for the United States. I leave it up to you, you are much smarter than I am and I concede to that.
BUT when it came to endorsing Hillary Clinton OVER Bernie Sanders, I thought that was a little too Nepotistic and was a matter of backing the wrong horse
When I first heard about Bernie, I too, thought, "No one who calls himself a socialist can get elected in the United States.:" Funny, I thought the same thing about you. I remember when all my black friends (I have many.) were telling me that, "America isn't ready for a black president." Oprah wasn't the only one who started crying when you got elected. I sensed the changing of America coming on. I got emotional then and still do at that thought. REAL PROGRESS is going to take, as you asked for, a congress that will work with you. Hillary Clinton has already made many enemies on the other side of the aisle. I know you haven't failed us we failed you because the GOP on state elections and midterms for congress has rigged the districts, suppressed voting and young people don't realize voting in the midterms matters. The same young people who voted you into office didn't come out in the midterms TWICE and so we have the Tea Party idiots in congress.
There are two other things that Bill Clinton let the GOP trick him into. He didn't veto NAFTA and he didn't oppose the Glass Steagall repeal.  As Elizabeth Warren has been very adamant in dressing down Right Wing "think tank" trumpeters, Glass Steagall was the premiere piece of legislation that kept us from having any more Bubble and Burst Cycles that are invented by Goldman Sachs and others every eight years to line their own pockets with tax payer money in a bailout after they intentionally bet on idiocy. Goldman Sachs is the leader of every financial crisis, INCLUDING the great depression  Hillary Clinton gets paid to give speeches there. Would you trust her after knowing that. Joe the "Average Guy" doesn't. I wouldn't step in their building on friendly terms, even if they paid me, because I despise what they stand for. Those people should have all gone to jail.
As you, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton have all said before, Wall Street bankers, not people on food stamps, not old people on Social Security and Medicare, created the recession and financial crises because they are considered TOO BIG TO be responsible for their own actions, and Hillary doesn't care, is what I am hearing.
Hillary Clinton has tried to label Bernie Sanders as someone who wants to "take away" healthcare when he is in fact the one person in congress who has tried to make sure EVERYONE has healthcare. Your goal in the ACA isn't going to be undone, it is merely going to be augmented. His tax plan doesn't effect the working class citizens, as is correct in my opinion. You have seen what the people like Mitt Romney do when given a tax break. They worm it into a huge profit and walk away with monies that will never see taxing and will never be given back to American businesses. If you give a tax break to a working class mom, she spends it on clothes and her children's education.
You yourself said, " Republicans have moved not just to the right but to a place that is unrecognizable. We need a healthy two-party system where both parties are contributing to a constructive vision of the country and help us make progress."  You are correct. Hillary Clinton, as most people know, started out as a Republican during the Goldwater years when they were sane. We had presidents I admired, like Ike Eisenhower who wrote his farewell address warning us about the military industrial complex. We, as you know, have been in several wars or at least confrontations since him, to support them. Vietnam and Iraq are black marks are American reputation. I hope GW, while walking you around and schmoozing you, didn't fall for his hogwash.
Mrs. Clinton also doesn't oppose the Citizens United ruling, which will be the destruction of our democracy. The majority of actual progressive Democrats view her as Republican Light and something to be feared and YOU instead, endorsed her with her financial institution pandering and war hawkish ways.
You HAVE, and I would like to thank you for this, ended the Iran controversy with dialogue. I salute you, and the Dalai Lama salutes you.
John Kerry made a phone call recently and got our ten Navy seamen home. You have used drones instead of boots on the ground. You use your brain instead of your mouth but I am afraid your emotional attachment to Mrs. Clinton has clouded your judgement and I want to see someone do more than attacks like she did against you in 2008. You were gracious enough to give her a job in your cabinet where she is best suited. She is a bulldog in a pants suit. That is a good thing. She needs to stay there.
Hillary Clinton isn't insane like Ted Cruz or Donald Trump but she isn't progressive the way this country needs because she has been drug too far to the right and she somehow doesn't see that, probably because of speaking fees and other soft bribes from banks and big businesses, that she is only a few morals above some Republicans. Please don't step on Bernie because some people follow you implicitly and would follow blindly wrong or right.
Thank You.

Sunday, January 24, 2016

Forbes Magazine Is WRONG For Most Americans

Actually, if you click on the meme and ACTUALLY READ IT, then you would see that most people's income wouldn't be effected at all. The lowest income level of Americans is in the $250,001 - $411,500 range and that would go up 4 percent. 
My first question is, how many average Americans are in that tax bracket? The median Household Income of the average American was Median household income was $53,657 in 2014, not statistically different from the 2013 median in real terms, 6.5 percent lower than the 2007 (the year before the most recent recession) median ($57,357), and 7.2 percent lower than the median household income peak ($57,843) that occurred in 1999. So we were actually making more on 1999 than in 2014. 
That is pretty sad for a supposedly progressive nation. So, my point is that this chart won't even effect the average middle class household. Most people I know living in Arizona would feel rich if they made $60,000 or more a year. During the Bush years, all of the richest Americans' tax burdens were lowered to 39.5 percent and that is what they OWED, but as scrutiny of people like Mitt Romney proved, with the right tax attorneys, even Mitt, who is in the top tax bracket, only paid 14 percent which he still hadn't paid yet for 2 years. 
But, let's look at the actual tax brackets proposed by Bernie Sanders and the progressive revolution. Ask yourself, if these people have been reaping huge tax breaks and the rewards of multiple loopholes (Owing 39.6 percent and only paying 14 percent) and not paying their fair share of taxes since Reagan and both Bushes (for 30 years), all the way up until now, how much are they whining and how much is real? 

Since the only people effected are the people who make over $411,449 a year, then it wouldn't effect most of Americans but since I am not what some people call conservative these days, I care about EVERYONE not just myself, so unfairness shouldn't happen to anyone. 
OK, let's go:
The people in the $411,500 - $464,850 range would go up 2 percent.
The people in the $464,851 - $50,000 range would ACTUALLY GO DOWN 2.6 percent.
The people in the $500,001 - $2 million range would go up 3.4 percent.
The people in the $2 million - $10 million range would go up 8.4 percent.
The people in the $10 million+ range would go up 12.4 percent.

SO, I ask you.  is this what you think is fair or not? During the Eisenhower administration, when we were the richest world in the nation and had full cooperation of almost everyone and so were considered "The Land of Opportunity", Eisenhower made sure the richest Americans (Earning over $1million a year) paid 78 to 90 percent of their income because we were paying off war debts and so on. So when stupid TV news commentators say, "I just don't know what happened to America since the fifties." they are refusing to mention that what happened is corporate welfare, greedy bankers, and politicians who give a handful of rich people whatever they want while the rest us have to struggle for each of those 30 years. 

So, when you start hearing any conservatives telling you that Bernie wants to "socialize" and RUIN our country, make them read  this. 

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Splitting The Actual Hairs of Ted Cruz's Citizenship

Meg Wagner of the "New York Daily News" blog <  > said, “no Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
I am not being picky just because I hate Ted Cruz, as a person. I am not splitting hairs, I am defining case law, since this has NEVER been decided in the United States, since no one other that John McCain, U.S. Senator in Arizona, has actually had an issue with this, as McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone while it was under our territorial protection and authority. He barely squeaks by, in my opinion, but that still doesn't make him eligible, per the constitution. Read on, you will understand.
Back to the case in point, Ted Cruz, U.S. Senator from Texas.
He is the son of Rafael Cruz, the dominionist minister, who used Ted as the object in his song and dance routines on stage, and said to his followers that his son is the second coming of Christ. Who, in their right mind, elected this guy as a U.S. Senator? Of course, the people of the great state of Texas. (Both my parents were from Texas so I know where of I speak. I will save that line of thought for another article, let's focus on Cruz.)
Ted Cruz is NOT ELIGIBLE for President or Vice President of the United States of America, because, even though it is inconvenient for lying politicians, we do have a constitution, even though the state of Texas seems to normally try to ignore it.
Now, let's get down to the facts.
A) Ted Cruz was not born in the United States, he was born in Alberta, Canada. He denounced his Citizenship to Canada in 2013, which means he was a Canadian Citizen up until then, no matter what his apologists want to argue.
B) To be a senator in the state, the constitution doesn't mention natural born citizen, BUT, to run for office in Texas, you have to be a citizen of the state for 9 years, which sounds to me like he isn't even eligible legally for the office he holds now.
C) No one mentioned his citizenship in Texas because like Greg Abbott, their recent governor, they seem to be usually hoping for more crazy and less rules.

"...The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional and legal scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States, and perhaps those born elsewhere if they meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". "
BUT, that is opinion and so is:
"...The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers' difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government." (Think about the George W. Bush election, tell me if you believe that one.) That hasn't happened, EVER, so Cruz's eligibility hasn't been decided by congress and that means that - the author of this article is either LYING OR MISINFORMED.
She might have been referring to British law antecedents but that doesn't apply in the United States.
The part that some try to misinterpret is the actual text and the different parts of the 14th Amendment. The actual text from those states that:
"...Constitutional provisions - (Part of the constitutional provision as it appeared in 1787)
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
The Twelfth Amendment states, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." 
The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are required to be U.S. citizens, but there is no requirement that they be natural born.
So, the words, "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" that the Meg Wagner tried to 'swiftboat' us into being distracted by - have nothing to do with Ted Cruz, since everyone living in the United States was born AFTER the "Adoption of this Constitution". He was not a natural born Citizen, or a citizen of the United States, UNLESS his mother applied for American citizenship for him as a U.S. Citizen in a foreign country and that document hasn't been discovered but may come out in discovery by the congress, although at this time hasn't been produced. So, at this time. he isn't a valid candidate, which I have been telling people since I first heard that he was running. 

Sunday, January 3, 2016

Today This Is What I Learned

When one listens to a "sermon" from the supposed clergy who sell their wares to the public, you begin to realize one undeniable fact. They contradict each other, they rationalize every facet of human character flaw, and then they just divide everyone. But the most important thing to remember is, that this is what divides America and most any society where people are constantly at war and have some of their society in poverty and some in wealth. That divide is caused by what is known as "exceptionalism". In the U.S., as a kid, I remember hearing about what made the United States the greatest country on earth. Anyone who has heard the Jeff Daniels speech on the television show from the series "Newsroom", knows we have fallen WAY BEHIND in all those things.
I want to explain my version of what has happened, as I see it. We all know that unlimited greed on the part of consumers was blamed on the recession at first. But later, when we looked at what really happened and investigated, we find that median income stayed the same while profits went through the roof. Who was holding most of the profits? CEOs and shareholders. PURE UNLIMITED GREED.
The idea we were taught as children (how to share) was that when we reached the mountain top, we would all get there together. But some aren't happy with that and it isn't just because of greed, they couldn't excuse their greed without help. So Wall Street Bankers and CEOs decided to take their share out now. I have heard it explained in an analogy like this:
"Imagine you have 3 Americans, one is a CEO and 2 middle class Americans, one of those being a union laborer. They are given 12 Twinkies. The CEO takes 11 Twinkies for himself and tells the other two, "You better watch out that Union Worker wants part of your Twinkie."  They are not totally at fault because some have been told that they DESERVE MORE than everyone else because of, you know, "GOD".
You might ask yourself, "HOW can people like that live with themselves?" They had help and that is what this article is about.
Today a friend of mine mentioned part of Calvinist doctrine that I will simply cut and paste some text from a website for description. He talked about the doctrine of "the elect".
< Taken from (citation follows) >
"The articles written on this site often use the term "the elect" which can create some confusion. Unless otherwise specified, the term "the elect" is used as Calvinists define the term. They define "the elect" as those people God chose before the foundation of the world and predestined for salvation. This includes both those people who were born again, who now are born again, and also includes those people who are not yet born again but whom God chose to be born again and are predestined to ultimately be born again. It is important that you understand this concept when you read these articles.
On this site, the true meaning of "the elect" is understood to be those people who become elect/chosen by virtue of their union with the Elect One, Jesus Christ, who was chosen before the foundation of the world. No one else was chosen before creation but Him, and no one is chosen unless they become united with Christ who is the Chosen One. Hence, you as a reader must know when we are referring to "the elect" as Calvinists define the term, and when we are referring to the elect as we define the term. Whenever, the term "the elect" is used, please assume it is being defined as Calvinists define it, and whenever you see the term "the chosen" used, please assume it is being defined as this site defines it.
The same is true with the term "Total Depravity." When the term is used on this site it refers to "Total Depravity" as Calvinists define it, and not as other groups who also use this term. The distinctive Calvinist trait is that Total Depravity is defined as the inability to believe the gospel message."

Basically what this means is that they believe God "gave men free will" as they always say. but then he decided who in the future was going to be deserving of being born again (he knew that because he knows everything that is going to happen from now on) and "blessed them with success and wealth" because they are hard working and deserve it. They seem to have selective memory about their own privilege and opportunity. You and I know of people like that and when you hear them speak in public, what it sounds like they actually SHOULD say is, "My dad gave me a million dollars, you can do it, too!" You and I know this is ridiculous. But the minister wants  them to come back and he wants LOTS of their money. So he tells them that they are rich because they are "chosen by God" and therefore they are hardworking and deserve it (even though it was predestined to happen to them) and everyone else is a lazy slob. Poor people are supposed to be the laziest.

SO, ...if you look closely at this, this is another variation on what L.B.J. said about racism being used for manipulation purposes:
"If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll even empty his pockets for you.” -
(And that guy became president when J.F.K. was assassinated. But meanwhile, back at the pulpit.)

So, here is the Arizona Mildman quote on that topic as it relates to this discussion:
"If you tell the richest greedy person that they are better than everyone else, then they won't notice you are advertising mythology and picking their pockets, while he watches the shiny stuff you are dangling in his mind. Hell, if you tell him everyone else is NOT chosen by God to be successful because they are predestined to be lazy, then he will empty his pockets out for you, almost whenever you ask him to. And he will never do another altruistic thing the rest of his life because that would be, in his mind, how you enable the lazy poor people."

So, once again we are dealing with people who are being told IN CHURCH that they are "chosen by God" to be privileged and successful and others don't matter because they were not chosen. That leads to a feeling of superiority and that type of exceptionalism will cause some to be greedy without realizing (except at those times when they are faced with social situations that smack them in the face with their own lives) that they are being greedy because this "MAN OF GOD" told them that they 'deserve more than everyone else' and it isn't a surprise that he tells them that. He also tells them that they need to give more because they are "growing a garden of faith" and the money is "seeds of prosperity" that will grow for the "Elect" to reap later on.

You know the kind of guy I am talking about. He clings to religious and fake religious precepts as his only argument, and when you try to point things out that are facts, he runs away.

That brings us to the point I want to make about something I heard today. Antonin Scalia, whom I consider delusional and unfit tor any public office, let alone the presidency of the United States. He recently said, while giving speeches, "The Supreme Court Justice told his audience that the constitution only prevented the government from showing a preference for one sect over another, not from actions that gave preferential rights to religious Americans over those who do not follow any religion.
“To tell you the truth there is no place for that in our constitutional tradition. Where did that come from? To be sure, you can’t favor one denomination over another but can’t favor religion over non-religion?”
This isn’t a new position for Justice Scalia, by any means. In October of 2014, he said essentially the same thing at a speech for students at Colorado Christian University.
In that speech, he essentially suggested that secularists (by definition, those who believe religion has no role in government) were trying to feed the public a lie by claiming that the First Amendment’s religious freedom clause offered the same protections for the rights of the nonreligious as for those of any religion.
According to Americans United, he also gave a similar statement in 2009, to a Jewish newspaper.
“It has not been our American constitutional tradition, nor our social or legal tradition, to exclude religion from the public sphere. Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion. My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition.”

He is saying that Religion is supposed to be favored over nonreligion. Who even would think to start an argument like this while supposedly representing ALL of the United States and it's citizens.

I will mention the statues that grace the front of the building for the Supreme Court, the very building this man works in and walks into every day he attends chambers.

Contemplation of Justice
Fraser described the female figure to the left of the main steps as “a realistic conception of what I consider a heroic type of person with a head and body expressive of the beauty and intelligence of justice.” A book of laws supports her left arm and a figure of blindfolded Justice is in her right hand.
(The significance of the blindfold worn by the statue of Justice is that the law/court is supposed to be blind to outside influence, not influenced through cultural conditioning as in ANY sort of preference, including religious or any other ideology.)

Authority of Law

Also called the Guardian or Executor of Law, Fraser described the male figure to the right of the steps as “powerful, erect, and vigilant. He waits with concentrated attention, holding in his left hand the tablet of laws, backed by the sheathed sword, symbolic of enforcement through law.” The Latin word for law, LEX, is inscribed on the tablet.
(No man of bias whose whole life is influenced by his own political leanings or policies of personality ideals can truly execute the law properly. This is not supposed to be a contest of right versus left, it is supposed be about reality and justice.)