Sunday, September 25, 2011



Missouri lawmakers began a special session during which Republicans will try to pay for a business tax cut by eliminating a tax credit that benefits more than 100,000 senior citizens and disabled people.
Missouri Republicans are just the latest in a long list of state legislatures that are funding more corporate tax breaks on the backs of low- and middle-income residents. In this case, Republicans are targeting a property tax credit that helps offset higher rent for some of the state’s most vulnerable citizens:
At stake is a tax credit that provides up to $750 for lower-income elderly and disabled people. Called the “Circuit Breaker,” it is designed to be an offset for the property taxes included in the rent paid by people with incomes of $27,500 or less. The tax credit costs $53 million annually. Repeal is part of a package that also would impose limits and sunset dates on credits targeted to developers. The Circuit Breaker tax credit is the only credit slated for repeal.
The real issue is that many people with disabilities simply can’t own their own homes because they live on a subsistence income,” said Edward Duff of Joplin, a member of the Governor’s Council on Disability. “It really is a sort of parity to offer these renters this shelter.”
Once again, Republicans have shown they are not averse to raising taxes, as long as they are on the poor. The “circuit-breaker” tax credit is such an important aid for low-income residents that 29 other states offer property tax circuit-breakers or similar programs, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Killing the credit would raise taxes on groups including disabed vets and senior citizens by up to $750 a year.
The proposal has drawn criticism from a diverse range of groups, from conservative anti-tax crusaders to liberal groups. Opponents include the AARP, the Association of Retired Missouri State Employees, the liberal-leaning Missouri Budget Project and the conservative United for Missouri, as well as agencies that work with the disabled on the local level.
The Post-Dispatch reports that Republicans have faced such a backlash for trying to repeal the tax credit that the tax-credit package they crafted may be unraveling. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chuck Purgason (R), has prepared an alternative plan aimed at spreading tax credit cutbacks more equally among low-income residents and developers.
“Republicans are always portrayed as taking from the poor and giving to the rich, and we didn’t want to do that,” Purgason said. However, it’s unclear if there’s enough of a consensus to pass the alternative bill.

Saturday, September 24, 2011


Rick Perry's New Endorser: New Hampshire "Sold" Adopted Kids to Homosexuals

Meet the Texas governor's eyebrow-raising new allies in the Granite State.


These clowns think being gay cuts your lifespan by 20 years! Like anyone else, if you get real sick, you lose some years. And gay HIV is actually a minority worldwide. Heterosexual contact and IV drug use accounts for the vast majority of cases. So if they are consistent, they have to tell straights to change their lifestyle, too. No SMS, no IV drugs and NO SEX OF ANY KIND!!!!!

iN 2009. OVER 90,000 females contracted HIV using IV Drugs. At the same time, 131,000 were infected thru heterosexual transmission.

You can't tell those women it was being gay that got them infected. Wake up, people, its not being anything but a risk taker that makes a person at risk. Promiscuity of any kind is bound to make trouble.




Poll: Best way to fight deficits: Raise taxes on the rich


Poll: How to fix the deficit?
WASHINGTON — Alarmed by rising national debt and increasingly downbeat about their country's course, Americans are clear about how they want to attack the government's runway budget deficits: raise taxes on the wealthy and keep hands off of Medicare and Medicaid.
At the same time, they say that the government should not raise the legal debt ceiling, which the government must do soon to borrow more money, despite warnings that failing to do so would force the government into default, credit markets into turmoil and the economy into a tailspin.
Those are among the findings of a national McClatchy-Marist poll taking the country's pulse just as President Barack Obama and Congress launch what could be a multi-year debate on the role of government and how to finance it.
Obama heads to northern Virginia on Tuesday and California on Wednesday to pitch his long-term budget proposals, as lawmakers from Congress are taking a spring recess, with most in their home districts.
On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.
Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent.
Support for higher taxes rose by 5 percentage points after Obama called for that as one element of his deficit-reduction strategy last week. Opposition dropped by 6 points. The poll was conducted before and after the speech.
Americans clearly don't want the government to cut Medicare, the government health program for the elderly, or Medicaid, the program for the poor. Republicans in the House of Representatives voted last week to drastically restructure and reduce those programs, while Obama calls for trimming their costs but leaving them essentially intact.
Voters oppose cuts to those programs by 80-18 percent. Even among conservatives, only 29 percent supported cuts, and 68 percent opposed them.
Public views are more mixed on cutting defense spending, with 44 percent supporting cuts and 54 percent opposed.
One dividing line is education: College graduates want to cut defense spending by 63-36 percent. Non-college graduates oppose cutting the Pentagon by 61-36 percent.
No matter how the government tackles its deficits and debt, Americans don't want it to borrow any more. By 69-24 percent, voters oppose raising the legal ceiling for debt. That includes Democrats, who oppose it by 53-36 percent, independents, who oppose it by 74-22 percent, and Republicans, who oppose it by 79-16 percent.

Read more:


Romney claims Obama "addressed the United Nations in his inaugural address and chastised our friend, Israel, for building settlements, and said nothing about Hamas launching thousands of rockets into Israel."


Obama, describing those who pay the "greatest price" for the conflict,  spoke of an Israeli girl in the town of Sderot "who closes her eyes in fear that a rocket will take her life in the middle of the night." Sderot borders the Gaza Strip and has been the target of hundreds of rockets fired into Israel from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Pants on Fire, Mittens!


LOS ANGELES — Police said Friday they are investigating what appears to be a politically motivated attack on a newly opened campaign office for President Barack Obama in Los Angeles, only days before he's scheduled to arrive in Southern California.
Several campaign staffers were in a room at the back of the office Thursday night when they heard the sound of smashing glass at the front and side of the building, said police Cmdr. Andrew Smith.
They found three front-door windows and a side glass door had been smashed.
No rocks or projectiles were found, and police believe one or more attackers used a tire iron or something similar to break the glass, Smith said.
"Someone could have run by and hit it with an object," he said.
Detectives believed the attack was politically motivated because no other businesses in the usually low-crime area were targeted, Smith said. No threats were made before or after the attack.
Police notified the Secret Service and FBI officials said they are assisting Los Angeles police with the investigation to determine if the incident was motivated by hate or an act of domestic terrorism.
Katie Hogan, a spokeswoman for Obama's re-election campaign, declined comment.
The office housed in a three-story building is in the Playa Vista area on the suburban west side. Plywood boards covered the broken windows and door. It wasn't known whether staffers were going to return to work on Friday.
Obama is scheduled to visit Los Angeles on Monday to raise money for his campaign.


Friday, September 23, 2011


GOVERNMENT MANDATED HEALTHCARE BEGAN IN 1798 – "An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen"

The 5th Congress’ 1798 legislation. This same 5th Congress (see THE FIFTH CONGRESS AND THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI that ratified the 11th article of the Treaty of Tripoli that stated: 

 "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said states never have entered into an war or act of hostility against any Mohametan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce." 

CHAP. LXXVII – An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled -

That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship

or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any

port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be

admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the

number of seamen, that shall have been employed on board such vessel

since she was last entered at any port in the United States,-and shall

pay to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every

seaman so employed; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out

of the wages of such seamen.

SEC2. . And be it further enacted, That from and after the first day

of September next, no collector shall grant to any ship or vessel whose

enrolment or license for carrying on the coasting trade has expired, a

new enrolment or license before the master of such ship or vessel shall

first render a true account to the collector, of the number of seamen,

and the time they have severally been employed on board such ship or

vessel, during the continuance of the license which has so expired, and

pay to such collector twenty cents per month for every month such

seamen have been severally employed, as aforesaid; which sum the said

master is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

And if any such master shall render a false account of the number of men, and the length of time they have severally been employed, as is

herein required, he shall forfeit and pay one hundred dollars.

SEC3. . And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the

several collectors to make a quarterly return of the sums collected by

them, respectively, by virtue of this act, to the Secretary of the Treasury;

and the President of the United States is hereby authorized, out of the same, to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or

disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established

in the several ports of the United States, or, in ports where no

such institutions exist, then in such other manner as he shall direct:

Provided, that the monies collected in any one district, shall be expended

within the same.

SEC. 4. .And be it further enacted, That if any surplus shall remain

of the monies to be collected by virtue of this act, after defraying the

expense of such temporary relief and support, that the same, together ,

with such private donations as may be made for that purpose (which the

President is hereby authorized to receive) shall be invested in the stock

of the United States, under the direction of the President; and when,

in his opinion, a sufficient fund shall be accumulated, he is hereby

authorized to purchase or receive cessions or donations of ground or

provision for buildings, in the name of the United States, and to cause buildings,

when necessary, to be erected as hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.

SEC5. . And be it further enacted, That the President of the United

States be, and he is hereby authorized to nominate and appoint, in

such ports of the United States, as he may think proper, one or more

persons, to be called directors of the marine hospital of the United

States, whose duty it shall be to direct the expenditure of the fund

assigned for their respective ports, according to the third section of this

act; to provide for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen,

under such general instructions as shall be given by, the President of

the United States, for that purpose, and also subject to the like general

instructions, to direct and govern such hospitals as the President may

direct to be built in the respective ports: and that the said directors

shall hold their offices during the pleasure of the President, who is

authorized to fill up all vacancies that may be occasioned by the death

or removal of any of the persons so to be appointed. And the said

directors shall render an account of the monies received and expended

by them, once in every quarter of a year, to the Secretary of the Treasury,

or such other person as the President shall direct; but no other

allowance or compensation shall be made to the said directors, except

the payment of such expenses as they may incur in the actual discharge

of the duties required by this act.

APPROVED July 16, 1798.

The Thirty Year History Of Republicans Supporting the Individual Mandate

Over the course of the White House summit on health care reform, Republican members of Congress repeatedly reminded Americans of their opposition to the controversial individual mandate or requirement to purchase insurance. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said, “The high cost of this bill comes from a non-constitutional mandate.” Minority Leader John Boehner also attempted to bring up the constitutionality of the mandate in a discussion on the deficit.
In August, Grassley laid out a strong defense of the policy by saying, “through an individual mandate and that’s individual responsibility and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility.” A long time supporter of the policy, again in June he said, “there isn’t anything wrong with it [an individual mandate], except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom.”
Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980′s
In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. “It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.”…
“We called this responsible national health insurance,” says Pauly. “There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn’t be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.”
The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where “government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.”
More recently, the Heritage Foundation continued to support the proposal under the Massachusetts health care reform effort passed into law while Mitt Romney was governor. While the proposal did change over the course of the reform process in the state, and Romney and Heritage tried to walk back their support, as Romney admitted this weekend it is, “the ultimate conservative plan.”
The questions raised by tenther individual mandate opponents have largely been debunked by constitutional law experts. Grassley and other Republican are appealing to conservative voters with their recent opposition rather than the constitutional questions. If there had been problems with the legality of the requirement, the argument would have been raised at one point in the last thirty years.
By Emma Sandoe


Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum


Bachmann Vows To Save Successful Gov’t-Funded Factory From Itself
Hoo-wee, Michele Bachmann is back in Waterloo, Iowa where she was hatched, spouting as usual just “the complete opposite of whatever is actually the case in reality.” So what this time? Bachmann rambled a righteous yarn about the devilry and downfall of government spending and regulation Monday as she stood promising growth in front of a booming traffic-signal factory, one that is just doing really super well for itself because of the surge in infrastructure repair projects, which, oh hey, who pays for infrastructure projects? Who knows, probably the mystery billionaire fairy nymphs that go around financing public works projects when government red tape isn’t tangled in their wings. Whoever they are, Michele Bachmann is on their team to save this factory (that, again, is doing well despite the downturn).

The company that owns the factory, OMJC, receives about 80% of its revenues from the government, and the company’s chief executive told this to Bachmann. Her response, from the LA Times:

[OMJC CEO Alan] Yost, a conservative Republican, took pains not to spoil Bachmann’s event, playing down his company’s reliance on government spending in a conversation with the candidate.

“So you don’t get a government grant to do what you do?” she asked him.

No grants, he assured her. “I wish I could say we had great success in government funds, because everybody likes a handout,” he said.

“Oh oh oh, so you get government money. Just as long as you aren’t getting a government grant. We’re cool.” It’s from the book called How To Speak Republican, children! [LA Times]

By Michael Finnegan | McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Bachmann uses an example that appears to bolster Obama

WATERLOO, Iowa — On her visit to a traffic-signal plant Monday, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann called it an example of how President Barack Obama's policies are "continuing to dig us deeper into the hole toward another recession."
Standing before a row of shiny orange trailers carrying portable solar-powered traffic lights, she said her plans for a smaller government with fewer rules and lower spending would help OMJC Signal Inc. "grow, grow, grow, grow, grow."
"That's my goal - to see you succeed wildly," the Minnesota congresswoman told a gathering of OMJC workers on the plant floor here in the central Iowa town where she grew up.
But OMJC thrives on the kind of road and bridge spending that Obama has promoted as a key remedy to the nation's economic slowdown. As much as 80 percent of OMJC's revenue comes from government, according to the company's chief executive, Arlen Yost.
"It is government projects primarily that use our products," Yost told Bachmann after showing her how a crane on one of the orange trailers rises to display temporary traffic signals at road construction sites.
Yost, a conservative Republican, took pains not to spoil Bachmann's event, playing down his company's reliance on government spending in a conversation with the candidate.
"So you don't get a government grant to do what you do?" she asked him.
No grants, he assured her. "I wish I could say we had great success in government funds, because everybody likes a handout," he said.
But in an interview later, Yost acknowledged that his company has profited from the infrastructure spending promoted by the president.
While thousands of other companies have scaled back during the economic downturn, Yost says OMJC's business has been stable, apart from a costly contract dispute with the state of Texas over a road project in the Fort Worth area.
"There's been a lot of money into infrastructure repair; I have no idea how that affects us," he said. "It doesn't do it directly. But it surely does help us."
Bachmann campaign spokesman Eric Woolson said he did not know whether any of the public works spending that Obama is pressing Congress to approve would benefit OMJC. But he cast the president's overall agenda as damaging to the economy.
"The president's health care package, excessive spending, government that's saddling business and individuals with the higher cost of government, that's not helpful to anybody," he said.
OMJC, owned by Yost's family, does government work throughout the U.S., but business has been best recently in East Coast areas where infrastructure has rotted the most, Yost said. In addition to portable traffic lights, its products include solar-powered bus-stop lights and mobile camera systems to monitor traffic.
Michael Finnegan writes for the Los Angeles Times. Visit the Los Angeles Times at

Read more:


Joe Walsh is just too important to go to a inconvenient court hearing. Fiscally responsible Joe Walsh owes over $117,000 in child support. The court rebuked Walsh, telling him he was no different than anyone else.

Joe Walsh Financial Disclosure Forms Show No Delinquent Child Support: Ethics Probe Coming?

Over the weekend, freshman Tea Party Congressman Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) vowed to "privately and legally" fight claims by his ex-wife that he owes more than $100,000 in child support. He insisted that he wasn't a deadbeat dad, but as Talking Points Memo reported Tuesday, if he owes even a fraction of that amount, he could be in hot water with the House Ethics Committee.

According to TPM, Walsh did not include any child support debt on his financial disclosure forms, which require politicians to list any liability worth more than $10,000. To avoid the probe, Walsh could file amended forms including the child support, but owning up to the charges could be a political nightmare.

"I have been accused of not being a wonderful dad, and I am going to fight that charge," Walsh told a crowd at a town hall meeting in suburban Barrington over the weekend. (Scroll down for video) "But I am going to fight that charge privately, quietly and legally. "

Walsh's ex wife, Laura Walsh, filed the claim against him in December as part of their divorce case, saying he owed $117,437 to her and their three children, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in late July. She claims that Walsh loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took international vacations but said he couldn't afford child support payments because he was between jobs or out of work.

Walsh's attorney, R. Steven Polachek, denied that the congressman owed $117,437 in back child support and interest and said the amount was much less.

"I dispute that he owes the child support that she's claiming or anywhere near that amount," Polachek told the paper. "Joe Walsh hasn't been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently - he's had no more problems with child support than any other average guy."

Before the child support story came to light, Walsh was making rounds on cable news shows speaking out against the president and accusing him of lying about the impact of not raising the national debt ceiling. He also consistently accuses Democrats of being unable to manage their finances.

"Technically, he could be taken to task by the Ethics Committee or even the Justice Department for failure to file proper disclosure forms, but in all likelihood the Ethics Committee and Justice would be satisfied if Walsh were to file amended forms," Public Citizen's Craig Holman told Talking Points Memo.

The congressman's alleged financial problems made headlines while he was campaigning last year, when former campaign field director Richard Cape claimed he would "spend, spend, spend uncontrollably." His campaign manager quit and sued for $20,000 in nonpayment, and two other staffers who quit accused him of not properly disclosing a 2008 home foreclosure and traffic citations to the public, taking their grievances public. Walsh also bounced checks, including one to a Republican fundraiser.




Crashing the Tea Party

GIVEN how much sway the Tea Party has among Republicans in Congress and those seeking the Republican presidential nomination, one might think the Tea Party is redefining mainstream American politics.
But in fact the Tea Party is increasingly swimming against the tide of public opinion: among most Americans, even before the furor over the debt limit, its brand was becoming toxic. To embrace the Tea Party carries great political risk for Republicans, but perhaps not for the reason you might think.
Polls show that disapproval of the Tea Party is climbing. In April 2010, a New York Times/CBS News survey found that 18 percent of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of it, 21 percent had a favorable opinion and 46 percent had not heard enough. Now, 14 months later, Tea Party supporters have slipped to 20 percent, while their opponents have more than doubled, to 40 percent.
Of course, politicians of all stripes are not faring well among the public these days. But in data we have recently collected, the Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.
The strange thing is that over the last five years, Americans have moved in an economically conservative direction: they are more likely to favor smaller government, to oppose redistribution of income and to favor private charities over government to aid the poor. While none of these opinions are held by a majority of Americans, the trends would seem to favor the Tea Party. So why are its negatives so high? To find out, we need to examine what kinds of people actually support it.
Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later. We can also account for multiple influences simultaneously — isolating the impact of one factor while holding others constant.
Our analysis casts doubt on the Tea Party’s “origin story.” Early on, Tea Partiers were often described as nonpartisan political neophytes. Actually, the Tea Party’s supporters today were highly partisan Republicans long before the Tea Party was born, and were more likely than others to have contacted government officials. In fact, past Republican affiliation is the single strongest predictor of Tea Party support today.
What’s more, contrary to some accounts, the Tea Party is not a creature of the Great Recession. Many Americans have suffered in the last four years, but they are no more likely than anyone else to support the Tea Party. And while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.
So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.
More important, they were disproportionately social conservatives in 2006 — opposing abortion, for example — and still are today. Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.
Yet it is precisely this infusion of religion into politics that most Americans increasingly oppose. While over the last five years Americans have become slightly more conservative economically, they have swung even further in opposition to mingling religion and politics. It thus makes sense that the Tea Party ranks alongside the Christian Right in unpopularity.
On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history.

David E. Campbell, an associate professor of political science at Notre Dame, and Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, are the authors of “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us.”


Op-Ed Contributor: Peace Now, or Never