If you’re interested, more examples of the younger generations taking interest in this issue during this election include this article about a video (again a product of YouTube) of a student who leads her high school’s LGBT group questioning former candidate Michelle Bachmann (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/student-challenges-bachmann-on-gay-rights/) and this article about gay rights being supported more by college students than Americans as a whole (http://chronicle.com/article/College-Freshmen-Approve-of/64685/)

To read the article about Mitt Romney, you can copy and paste this link which will lead you to the LA Times article

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-would-mitt-romney-be-the-first-mexicanamerican-president-20120125,0,2113449.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fpolitics+%28L.A.+Times+-+Politics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Michelle Bachmann: insanity. Rick Perry: stupidity. Herman Cain: profligacy. Ron Paul: paranoia. Newt Gingrich: gluttony/licentiousness/a dozen other things. And now Mitt Romney:

Immorality.

The immorality of Mitt Romney will be front and center for the next 10 months, as he and the Republican party ratchet up the rhetoric in a doomed attempt to defend vulture capitalism and intentional corporate destruction.

They will try to argue that there was nothing illegal, and, by extension, nothing really wrong with what Mitt Romney did as CEO of Bain Capital, and they will be partially correct. There was nothing, I suppose, surrounding Mitt Romney’s activities at Bain that could be actionable in a court of law. But for one seeking the presidency, the standards are, presumably, a bit higher.

For instance, there is nothing illegal about running a string of strip clubs and porn shops, in most American municipalities, but does one really think the magnate of such an empire would have the slightest chance of winning in a bid for the presidency? When his opponents pointed out the questionable morality of his actions, would party elders rush to his defense with arguments akin to what we’re hearing from Romney’s guard: “He is practicing free market capitalism!” “Nothing on the law books about what he did!” “You’re just envious!”

Newt Gingrich termed much of Romney’s rhetoric “pious baloney,” and we will get more of that in the GOP’s myopic attempt at defending practices that place their candidate outside the mainstream of contemporary politics. If the Republicans want to run a full-throttled defense of predatory capitalism, wealth-building at any cost, and the sacrifice of community values for the sake of a few shiny-suited raconteurs, then more power to them. The American people will reject their Robber Baron sensibilities wholeheartedly, and the November election will be a welcome referendum on the morality of Mitt Romney and, by extension, the practices that have led the middle class of this country to the brink of extinction.

While important, most of the discussion on what to do until the end of 2012 does not address America’s overall macro-economic problems.  Leadership in America has never been found in people who don’t understand the concept of public service.  It would be nice if political calculations of self-preservation were put aside, so that our problems could actually begin to be addressed.  Wishful thinking!  Someday, things will be so bad that politicians are forced to act.  Until then, let us consider the merits of the Republicans opposition to government spending, “On principle.”

The great tax cutter in chief, George W. Bush, used the threat of moving the Texas Rangers to get approval of a half-cent sales tax to build a new stadium.  To obtain the land they would build the stadium on, they had the city of Arlington use eminent domain.  George W. Bush and his fellow investors paid $86 million for the Rangers.  Nine years later, they sold the taxpayer subsidized asset for $250 million.  The prime location, a new stadium, and a sweetheart bond deal to finance this project, paid big dividends to Bush & Co.  On his 1998 income tax return, Bush reported a long term capital gain of $17 million from the Rangers sale.  Sweet!

What a far cry from the specious rhetoric on taxes Republicans have been repeating every election cycle.  How much of that taxpayer money ended up helping Bush succeed in the presidential run shortly thereafter?  As a businessman, Bush would be considered a failure if judged only on the ventures that were not subsidized by taxpayers. If only Republicans required their own to “pull themselves up by the boot straps,” we could have saved America from eight years of poor leadership.

In Milwaukee, Brewers owner Bud Selig needed to sell the public on the idea of a tax to build a new stadium.  Conservative radio talk show hosts, Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner, spent hours of WTMJ radio time voicing support for the tax, and fear of losing the Brewers without it.  WTMJ was owned by Selig’s good friend, Robert Kahlor.  Sykes later acknowledged, “I used up a lot of my credibility with my audience, and to be a conservative pushing a tax increase is a difficult thing.”  Former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson was upset at the opening of Miller Park for not being recognized for his role in getting the stadium deal, and vowed to never set foot in the park again.  Selig sold the team to Mark Attanasio in 2004.  Most of that $220 million value being accrued with Republican approval, at taxpayer expense.  The park actually cost $413.9 million, and 78% came out of the taxpayers’ pocket.  The team’s main financial contribution came from selling the naming rights to Miller Brewing Company.

Conservative political commentator George F. Will is one of Selig’s closest advisors.  He claims that the fifteen new or renovated ballparks that Selig has lobbied for, with $3.22 billion in public subsidies, are monuments to Selig’s status as the greatest baseball commissioner of all time.  Greatness, in the eyes of George Will, is measured in how much taxpayer money a person can divert into corporate welfare.

How many schools, roads, and bridges could have been built with that money?  Why do Republicans, who are so smug when lecturing on the vice of spending taxpayers money, feel so comfortable giving it away to millionaires who don’t need it?  They can’t resist their superficial sense of elitism, which is stroked whenever they shmooze and scheme with the filthy rich, who epitomize everything they wish they could be.  While much ado is made by Republicans about honoring God, their actions reflect a preference for paying homage to Mammon.

Republicans have no problem giving away land, money, or both for their projects: wars, stadiums, prisons, oil wells, and other macho items.  If you want money for education, health care, environmental protection or preservation, building infrastructure, why you’re a gosh darn communist.  Other than a difference in how to spend tax dollars, what exactly is their overall economic plan?  That’s just it, there’s no need for a plan.  If you would just listen, you’d realize that the “free market” will sort itself out.  But that can only happen if we just give rich people everything they want.

Stimulus is an economic tool, not an ideology.  It cannot be purely embraced or condemned.  The problem with Republicans is that they are so hypocritical in trying to score a political point on this issue.  Every tax dollar is a redistribution of wealth, if you want to be honest about it.  Rather than politicians trying to figure out what they stand for, and making all kinds of arguments on their own behalf, let’s focus on fixing the economy.  All I can see in this upcoming election cycle is an opportunity for politicians to really piss off a lot of people by showing how out of touch they are with main street America.

He believes Texas has the legal right to secede from the union, and feels it would be a good thing: At a Tea Party rally in 2009 he opined as much, stating that his state’s admission to the Union in 1845 included the proviso that it could extricate itself from its new marriage whenever it might choose.

Much chatter has surrounded the degree of loyalty to the Union of a so-called patriot who regularly plays the secession card, but the terms of the debate should frankly be flipped on its head: The question shouldn’t be whether Texas should be allowed to leave the Union, but rather — is there some way we can gracefully get rid of them?

To quote John Lennon: Imagine.

Imagine no more Texas…no more federal dollars disappearing into the rathole of those who turn all butternut grey at the mere thought of the federal goverment spending tax dollars — how much money is dumped into the state via the dozen or so major military bases it contains? If we were to force Texas to secede from the Union, those bases could be relocated to states that would more appreciate the federal stimulus generated by their presence.

If only we could have gotten this secession movement going prior to the 2000 election — it could have saved the country eight years of the worst president of all time, whose various messes the rest of us are still trying to clean up.

Imagine a House of Representatives without all those Texas Republicans running amok — no more manufactured crises, and the possibility of sense and sanity and justice for all.

Imagine the stain of Texas’ love of corporal punishment no longer soiling the flag of this republic.

Statistically, America’s numbers would drop in obesity rankings worldwide, and we would see a bump in overall I.Q.

After secession, I would propose a year-long time of relocation, where those who do not wish to live in the new nation of Texas (welcome residents of Austin!) can relocate to the Union, and those neocons and right wingers who want to move to Texas would be bid a happy farewell. After which, I would like to see a border fence be built around the length of the new nation to keep disgruntled Texicans from encroaching on the free soil of this fine democracy.

I announce the birth of a great movement, to be summed up in two words:

PLEASE SECEDE!

Image via Wikipedia

After coming in sixth place in the caucuses of her home state of Iowa Michele Bachmann has announced that she is ”Stepping aside, “ and there by ending her campaign for President of the United States. She had gotten 6,073 votes or just 5% of the caucuses vote.

Michele Bachmann has been a major opponent of President Obama’s policies in the House of Representatives and she promised to continue that fight in congress as she ended her campaign. She intends to work to get the additional republican senators needed to have the votes to overturn Obama Care and other damaging legislation.

Bachmann was the first Republican female candidate for President and only the second one in history.

Bachmann’s departure does have one positive aspect to it in that it further narrows the Republican field so as to concentrate the conservative vote against establishment darling Mitt Romney increasing the chances of having real conservative as GOP nominee and beating Obama in November.. 

Every four years the American people elect a president of the United States. For years a growing number if people have started to think that the notion that we the people have any real say in who becomes is myth. In theory and in law we do, but that does not mean that we do in fact have any real say on the matter. There exists a growing fear that the answer is no and that the president is actually selected by an un seen and uncountable elite and that chosen the possess is manipulated so that the chosen one wins even if most Americans hate the chosen person with a passion.

The idea is that through several methods the election process is manipulated so that the American people have no real choice in how to vote fore but still by and large think that they do. Further more it is the continued illusion of a choice that makes much of the manipulation possible.  While this manipulation can included election fraud, it is just one small part of it. The process also involves the press propping up chosen candidates while viciously attacking opponents that get too close. Examples, this can be seen in the fact the that the press has never actually vetted president Obama and that there is still much we don’t know about the man’s past and much of what has been learned but still ignored by the press is not good. Further to date the establishment candidate for the GOP nomination, Mitt Romney has not received the same level of scrutiny about his past as others have.

In this election there are an increasing fear people that fix is in place to get Romney the GOP nomination, and Obama a second term even if they are absolutely hated by the majority of American people. 

If this fear is true then any GOP caudate that poses a threat will be attacked in such a manner as to totally destroy politically so has to remove them has a treat and that once Romney gets the GOP nomination that all of his dirty laundry will be aired but that he will run such a weak campaign, evidence for this in his statement that he will not attack Obama personally, that a depressed GOP base fails to turn out giving Obama a second term.

If these fears are correct and if it is true that the American people have no real say in who wins the presidency in November then we can expect to see the following things happen.

1. Any GOP candidate that threatens Romney’s nomination will be attacked to the point of political destruction or more if needed.
2. Upon getting the nomination Romney will run such a weak campaign that a depressed GOP base fails to turn out giving Obama a second term.
3. In case fear of an Obama second term is enough to get the GOP base out for Romney a third party candidate will be ether manufactured or an exiting one propped up by the press to draw enough conservative votes to give Obama a second term.

If two of the three occur then it is quite certain the election is rigged, if all three occur it is absolutely certain that it is.

An additional possibility would be if one of the real conservatives gets the GOP nomination then than establishment third party candidate will be putt forth to the GOP   establishment a convenient way to not support the GOP nomination and still give Obama a second term but this would not be proof of election rigging but only proof the GOP   establishment is more opposed to conservative than Obama. 

It is hoped that these fears and their related predictions are wrong but if they do come true we will know what it means.

In mid-October, Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev announced their plans to exchange the task after the election. Medvedev, who will lead the United Russia party in parliamentary elections on 4 December is expected to become Russia’s new prime minister when his presidential term of office expires.

Three of the four parties in parliament announced their presidential candidate. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, LDPR leader of right-wing party, the Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov and would challenge Putin in elections. While the party Just Russia will decide on its participation at the party congress next December 10.

The 9% Business tax deducts purchases capital investments and exports. The 9% individual income tax has a deduction for charitable donations. Further more both of these have additional deductions for opportunity zones, which also has the effect of reducing individual income tax for those in poverty to zero.

This would relieve most of the burden of complying with the current tax code and as such it would be a huge boost to the economy. The resulting increase in economic activity would create millions of jobs and actually increase Federal revenue over the current system. It is a bold plan that would reveres the economic downturn of the last three years. The result would that the economy would bounce back like never before with more people working and keeping more of what they earn the economy would take off and thrive once again.