"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"

President Obama weighed in on the tragedy of the Trayvon Martin killing early Friday morning during a Rose Garden news conference nominating a new head to the World Bank. Here's part of what he had to say:

"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin: If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we're going to get to the bottom of what happened."

Clear details have yet to surface as to why this 17-year old was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch member. The controversy really ignites over police handling of the case. With luck, the truth will be revealed, and those guilty will be brought to justice for this senseless crime.

Romney credits Bush for Economic Recovery?

Wow! Here's a case of the most virulent flip-flop in political history. Okay, it's probably not. But seriously! Mitt Romney has done nothing on the campaign trail but spoken of President Obama's failure to bring the economy out of the recession and that with Romney's business background, he's the best choice this fall to fix the economy. But, whoops! The economy is doing better now (though still a long way from recovery) and most economic projections are pointing to a sustained recovery from here on out. So, what do we get?

Mitt Romney: "I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."

Here's what Jonathan Chait at New York magazine has to say in response: "[T]he Wall Street bailout is actually a huge political liability for Obama because it’s incredibly unpopular and most Americans think Obama, not Bush, signed it. So having Romney run around reminding people that Bush bailed out Wall Street is actually Obama’s prayer answered..." continue reading here.

Not to worry though. This is all part of the Romney campaign's Etch-A-Sketch tactic. They'll just give Romney a little shake tomorrow and it'll be like it never happened!

How Obama Tried to Sell Out Liberalism in 2011

By Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine

"Last summer, President Obama desperately attempted to forge a long-term deficit reduction deal with Congressional Republicans. The notion that he could get the House GOP to accept any remotely balanced agreement was preposterous and doomed from the start, but Obama responded to the increasingly obvious reality by reducing his demands of the Republicans to virtually nothing..." continue reading article.

President Obama Weekly Address: High Gas Costs

Will Obama End Super PACs If Re-Elected?

Bill Burton, former White House Press Secretary, and current head of Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, discusses the notion that even if a super PAC helps President Obama win re-election, the President will not work to achieve campaign finance reform to rid the political system of inhindered money in politics.

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/bill-burton-defends-president-obama-stance-on-super-pac-funding-for-the-2012-campaign

Amreican LP News Brief March 2, 2012

American LP Daily News Briefing March 2, 2012

Republicans are begrudgingly coming to grips with the presidential candidacy of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Tuesday night, Romney won both the Michigan and Arizona primaries and it’s becoming clear that Romney should be able to secure the nomination. These wins though do not bode well for republicans when it comes to the general election. Republicans still seem hesitant to throw overwhelming support behind Romney, or any of the 4 remaining candidates. Romney has regained the lead in nationwide polls, but his support is sitting at an anemic 35%. His chief rival, Rick Santorum, has fallen quickly in the last two weeks, now sitting at 24%. The two have flip-flopped (much like Romney does on just about every policy issue) since the last major polls two weeks ago, where Santorum held 34% of voters’ support and Romney was at 24%. And speaking of flip-flops, Romney once again added another swift policy shift to his growing list, first by coming out and saying he opposed the Blunt Amendment in the Senate, and literally within the hour reverting to the most extreme position saying he was in support of the amendment.

The Blunt Amendment (at the 2:00 mark), a rider attached to a transportation bill in the Senate that would have allowed any employer to refuse health care coverage of any kind based on religious or moral reasons, failed in the Senate this week, a vote accurately reflecting public opinion polling. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 63% of Americans support the new Obama federal regulation requiring health insurance plans to cover the costs of birth control; 8 out of 10 democrats support the Obama requirement; 4 in 10 republicans support the ‘Obamacare’ regulation; and what seems most important in this upcoming election, the independent vote, shows that 6 in 10 registered independents support the Obama policy for insurance companies to pay for contraceptive care for people they cover.

Finally (the 3:05 mark), it came as a shock to learn that Andrew Breitbart, prominent conservative blogger and muckraker, died suddenly Wednesday night of natural causes, according to his spokesperson. Maybe more surprising, was the immediate swarm of conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Breitbart reportedly was to release a video on Thursday, March 1, of President Obama back in college that would have “destroyed” the President and significantly ruined his reputation before this upcoming election. Now, it’s still all hearsay as to how damaging this video might have been (remember Breitbart is the same person to selectively edit the Shirley Sherrod video that caused a phony outcry of racism, and also had his hand in the James O’Keefe fabrication that eventually led ACORN to close its’ doors), but it seems that if there were some strange insidious character trait President Obama has been hiding through over 3 years in office, and this video would expose him as a fraud, or a fake, or something worse, this video seems dubious to expose him as such. And even more preposterous is this idea that Breitbart was ‘taken-out’ because of the knowledge that he supposedly possessed. The autopsy will hopefully shed some light on the true cause of Breitbart’s death, but as evidenced throughout the last few years by the ridiculous spectacle surrounding President Obama’s birth-certificate, republicans may just scoff at any true evidence found in relation to Breitbart’s death.

Stick around to the end of the video for a new campaign ad by republican presidential candidate Ron Paul lampooning his rivals in the GOP race. We don’t like Paul anymore than the other candidates, but it’s always nice to see the republicans grilling one another.

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker

In Iran War, Media Sounds the Horn

Tensions are running high between the United States and Iran right now, maybe a bit more than usual. That's the thing though, it's usual these days. Ever since the last president invaded Iraq to rid that regime of its' imagined weapons of mass destruction, the Middle East has become increasingly destabilized. Iraq, for all its faults, at least kept the far more radical Iranian government in check. But with Saddam Hussein's overthrow, Iran was left with few obstacles to grab a more prominent position in the Middle East and the world. And now we're in the midst of a struggle with Iran over nuclear weapons. They want nuclear capability and contest they do not seek a nuclear weapon. The United States, much at the behest of Israel, seeks to keep them from obtaining any sort of nuclear weapon, while simultaneous diplomacy is working to not over extend our influence in a wary Middle East and allow them nuclear capacity for energy if they so choose.

Throughout the last several weeks, the rhetoric has escalated. Israel is threatening a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran is vowing to strike back. This, for some reason, means they are the aggressors. Matt Taibbi over at Rolling Stone nails it here:

Virtually all of the Iran stories of late have contained some version of this sort of rhetorical sophistry. The news “hook” in most all of these stories is that intelligence reports reveal Iran is “willing” to attack us or go to war – but then there’s usually an asterisk next to the headline, and when you follow the asterisk, it reads something like, “In the event that we attack Iran first.”

As Glenn Greenwald points out, it's the media (and the Senate) this time frantically beating the drums of war with Iran, not the Presidential administration. Erin Burnett over at CNN seems to me the worst offender. It's Sunday morning as I write this. Of the stories currently listed on the front page of her blog, she has not 1, not 2, but 3 out of 5 stories rabble rousing the public to believe Iran is some sort of serious threat (and why-oh-why is Rudy Guiliani still talking).

The main problem is that Iran is in no way a major threat to the United States, or even to Israel. As both Taibbi and Greenwald point out, James Clapper, head of US Director of National Intelligence, has explicitly stated that he does not believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, in line with thinking Iran abandoned its' nuclear weapons program back in 2003. Even Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary, said, "The intelligence does not show that they've made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon."

So why the drowning media coverage? For one, the media likes war. It's something that can be followed and reported 24-7. War offers filler, and the Republican presidential debates can only fill so much time!

Second, the reporting is also partly to blame on the public (and again, the Republican candidates share some culpability here). The presidential candidates have all talked-up the Iranian threat and how their government can under no circumstances be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. They have called President Obama weak for his diplomatic approach, even though, as we've established, the threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is very slim right now. But the problem is that people actually watch these debates and they begin to think Iran actually does have the capacity for nuclear arms and to strike American soil. In fact, nearly 50% of the country currently believes we should use military force to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is the same war-weary public that wants to end the conflict in Afghanistan. This is the ouroboros. The media schedules debates, where they question the candidates' stance on Iran's nuclear program. The candidates then tout their puissance on the issue, how threatening Iran is, and how the United States must stand by Israel. The public then thinks Iran is a serious threat, and the next time the media does a poll, more people are suddenly in favor of military action. The media pretends the issue is dire. They ask more about it and frighten ever-more people.

Rick Santorum's Theocracy

I'm really trying to wrap my head around a Rick Santorum presidential victory and what it might mean for the country. And I find it a frightening scenario. First of all, I honestly do not think it will happen. I believe Michiganders will finally start thinking again before next Tuesday's Republican primary and Mitt Romney will win out after being ahead, then drastically falling, only to come to a tie again the weekend before the voters cast their ballots (that is, if he stops talking long enough...). This win for Romney will once again set him up as the front runner and I don't foresee Santorum coming back again. Much of Santorum's fall, however, is based on his own missteps (more on that momentarily). But should Santorum come in a close second in Michigan, and perhaps steal a few more primaries along the way, he could potentially be the Republican nominee against Obama. And even though many voters claim their highest priority is the economy in 2012, for many more the simple expulsion of Obama from the presidency factors much more and it may mean the President is not elected, giving candidate Santorum the White House. And if this happens, the bitterness still stinging your tongue from the Bush administration will suddenly seem like the most decadent wine you've ever tasted.

The number 1 issue on voters minds right now is the economy. Santorum, to his credit, recognizes he doesn't have the greatest record when it comes to the economy, spending, and earmarks, and his opponents are hitting him hard on it. Santorum's plan of government cuts and tax reductions will actually increase the deficit, just as Gingrich's and Romney's plans will do. In actuality, Ron Paul's deficit reduction plan is the only plan of the 4 remaining Republican candidates that will effectively reduce the deficit. Knowing his economic past may come back to haunt him, Santorum has attempted a debate 'coup' to change what the candidates are talking about. He criticized President Obama last week of practicing a "phony theology," questioning the very nature of the President's beliefs. Many from both sides of the aisle criticized this statement, and those who are incredulous to President Obama's stated Christian beliefs, and excoriated them for their double-standards. Santorum has also loudly drummed the "contraception controversy" and spoken of the President's "war on religion". Santorum is playing to his strengths and what he perceives as his best chance to secure the nomination and the White House: social issues. But there is a larger pretext to all of this: Santorum's want to create law based solely on "biblical law".

Santorum's questioning of President Obama's beliefs and his advocating to outlaw birth control, as well as abortions, and prohibiting same-sex marriage are directly linked to the former Senator's strict Catholic upbringing. Where most candidates and public officials recognize and abide the Constitution's separation of church and state, Santorum seems to be wholly ignorant of it (something many Conservatives might find interesting), or willfully blind to achieve his own selfish ends. The former Senator is running on a campaign that would essentially be the most theocratic administration in power in over 100 years. Santorum has unequivocally stated that civil law should "comport with God's law." Here's a video of him saying just that:

Santorum believes that sex serves no other purpose than procreation. He thinks sex, unless in the act of conceiving, is immoral. He believes this so strongly that he does not think contraception should be legal. He believes this so strongly that he does not think abortions should be legal, even in the cases of rape, incest, or if a woman's life is in danger. He believes this so strongly that, though he claims to have nothing against gay people and purports to "know" many homosexuals, he thinks homosexuality is a sin because there is no biological expedient to homosexual sex, therefore making it immoral. As President, and as a member of the "liberty loving" right wing, Santorum would make all of these things illegal because he believes more strongly in a book written 2,000 years ago than all of the literature, math, and scientific advancements achieved since. In the era where Republicans overwhelmingly bemoan the overreach of government in our daily lives, Santorum seeks to effectively control you to your very bedroom.

And did you notice that bit in the video right at the outset there too? He says, in Islam the civil law and the higher law are the same, what one Newt Gingrich might call 'Sharia Law,' but the United States is different because we have civil laws unrelated to higher laws but they ought to comport with the higher law... Um, what? So, basically, Rick Santorum is promoting that we should have 'Christian Sharia Law'? How is that any better than 'Islamic Sharia Law'? How would that be better than 'Jewish Sharia Law'? A theocracy is a theocracy. Maybe Rick Santorum doesn't exactly know his world history and that thousands of our American ancestors fled Europe to escape theocracies (and still found themselves plenty of theocratic colonies in the New World). But I doubt it. I think he knows full well what he's doing. And that scares me the most.

The Daily Show: Republicans Break Obama's Promises

     

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - President Evil
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

      Part 2:
     

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2012 - President Evil 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

     

Rick Santorum Sinks Low

Rick Santorum has taken his current front-runner status in the GOP primary as a sign that he no longer needs to worry about his GOP contenders, but instead should start focusing his attacks on his presumptive opponent in the presidential race, President Obama. One might think Santorum, a former Pennsylvania Senator, would be attacking the President’s policies over the three years Obama's served in office, or maybe something the President did while in the Senate. No. It seems Santorum wants to forego debating what the President has done for this country (politics aside: staved-off an economic depression; saved the American auto-industry; provided access to health insurance for millions of Americans who couldn’t get it before; the list goes on…) and the administration’s policies and just go ahead and attack the man himself, unbelievably questioning the President’s core religious beliefs. On Saturday, Santorum said the President’s agenda is tied to “some phony theology” not based on the bible. I think in the next couple of days we’ll even see some on the right bemoaning Santorum’s remarks and saying he went too far. So far, of course, the Obama campaign has disavowed the remarks. Robert Gibbs, adviser to Obama’s re-election campaign, said on ABC’s This Week that Santorum’s remark, “crossed the line.” Surely, it did. But I also think this speaks largely to the campaign itself. As the economy continues to improve, it’s going to be harder and harder for the GOP candidates to argue how the President’s economic policies have actually hurt the country. And that’s what this election is all about. It’s about the economy, the most important issue on voters’ minds. What this shows to me, as well as the contraception ‘controversy’ drummed up over the past few weeks, is that the GOP are desperately searching for cultural issues as wedge devices in the upcoming election to pull independent voters their way. Will this Bush-era tactic work? I’m sure that some voters will be swayed, but for the vast majority of them, especially liberals and the all-important independent group, this will only serve to further pull them from ever voting 'right' again.

And speaking of running the country on a campaign ‘based’on the bible,' here’s an excellent clip from The West Wing season 2. Imagine if we did have a President who based how the country should be run only on the words of that outdated text.

Push the Keystone XL Pipeline

Republicans in Congress are stalwart in their push for President Obama to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline originating in Alberta, Canada to transport oil to Gulf Coast refineries. They have tried numerous times to tie the approval of the pipeline to various bills in Congress, but have thus far failed at this end-run game, or convinced the administration that the pros in support of the pipeline outweigh the cons. In truth, the pros in conjunction with the pipeline seem to be overall beneficial to the country. Estimates show there will be thousands of temporary construction jobs added over the next two years, both directly in constructing the pipeline and indirectly through the various steel mills and other manufacturing sectors needed in constructing the pipeline. Though these estimates vary, I do not think it’s relevant for those opposed to the pipeline to diminish the importance of adding temporary jobs in a recessed economy. I do, however, take exception with the many overstated estimates of permanent jobs that will be created from those in the media and Congress. Once the pipeline is finished, most estimates put the number of permanent jobs from as low as 20, to as many as 200. That’s not going to put a great dent in the unemployment numbers. The number of temporary jobs estimated range anywhere from about 4,000 to 20,000. 20,000 people back to work, at least temporarily, is rather significant. And when we have record-high unemployment, especially when employment in construction and home-building is so slow, I can’t disregard these numbers as ineffectual.

All of this skips around what is most important here, however: the U.S. consumes too much oil, and adding one more transnational pipeline does nothing to reduce the U.S.’s oil dependence both domestically and abroad. As a nation, the U.S. produces fewer than 5% of the total petroleum mined per year, yet we consume nearly 25% of the world’s oil. That’s a staggering number, but the numbers are improving. We are for the first time since the 70’s exporting more oil than we import, and due to increased fuel-efficiency standards put in place by the Obama administration, we are consuming less oil. Also, I have to think that as alternative fuel sources become more abundant and less costly our dependence on this finite resource will diminish. Finite here is the key word.

Having one more pipeline will not address our countries exorbitant necessity for oil and other natural resources. It is apparent that America overuses, yet with each new pipeline dug and well mined we come no closer to solving ours or our planet’s peril in depleting the natural resources that history has so generously provided. Perhaps instead of scarring the planet, and more importantly our nation, with yet another oil pipeline, why don’t we and our leaders seek alternative fuels to reduce our oil and natural gas dependency and lead the world in a new global economy?

AmericanLP Daily News Brief 2/17/12

AmericanLP covers all the top headlines in politics on both sides of the aisle in this morning’s news brief. Major headlines yesterday once again pointed to a rebounding economy. New applications for unemployment hit a 4-year low. Also, the DNC released a new ad, which you can view at the 1:15 mark, highlighting the diverging ideologies between the Obama administration’s decision to save the auto industry and Mitt Romney’s 2008 Op-Ed “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”. The bailout was unequivocally a successful administrative decision for President Obama, and coupling this with the rate for unemployment applications falling, and last week’s news that the overall unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent, we have public opinion of the President quickly on the rise. 44% of Americans, according to a Pew Research Center poll believe economic conditions will be better in 2013 than this year. This coincides with a CNN poll yesterday showing the President’s approval rating is back to 50% for the first time in 8 months. The administration, and the Obama re-election campaign, have really begun hammering home the jobs numbers, focusing not on the unemployment rate so much, as that number is still unfortunately high, but rightly talking about how bad things were when Obama came into office (750,000 jobs hemorrhaging from the economy per month) to how his policies have vastly turned this country around (250,000 jobs added in January; a 1 million point swing) and have created the most manufacturing jobs since the 1990’s.

Switching over, AmericanLP discusses the latest from the GOP presidential campaign. Mitt Romney, on the verge of losing his front runner status in some polls, gave a speech Thursday in which he addressed the concerns of entrepreneurs looking for funding to start their own business. In a swipe at the Solyndra controversy, Romney excoriated the benefits of government funding a start-up business and instead suggested entrepreneurs should apply to venture capitalists, angels, or their parents for funding. A statement such as this is on par with Romney’s “$10,000 bet” and once again reinforces the notion that Romney is so fiscally out-of-touch with the general American public (the average salary for Americans is $26,000/year; Romney makes $57,000/day) that it’s hard to fathom how he’ll win the nomination. Romney was born to the kind of wealth where if he wanted to start his own company, he could go to his parents for the capital to get the project off the ground. However, most Americans cannot. Most Americans struggle to pay their own bills, and many are helping their parents through retirement after the recession. It seems every time Romney opens his mouth, he further ostracizes himself from the general American public. Maybe that’s why he chose to drop out of the CNN Georgia debate scheduled in a couple weeks. Rick Santorum also declined the invitation; his motivations for doing so are less clear. With less money and generally one of the candidates who performs well in these debates, it doesn’t really play to Santorum’s strengths not to participate. But Santorum was not immune to the ‘tax return release’ scrutiny either. Santorum released 4 years of his tax returns and they paint a startling contrast to much of what Santorum has been saying on the campaign trail. Posturing himself as a threat to big government, Santorum has actually made $3.6M in lobbying fees since losing his re-election bid for the U.S. Senate. Try as he might, Santorum seems just as much a “Washington Insider” as Newt Gingrich.

A new segment on AmericanLP, “News From The 14^th Century,” highlights the ridiculous spectacle yesterday from Congress where Darrell Issa barred a woman from testifying on a birth control hearing in response to the contraception controversy. Republicans, for all their talk of individual freedom, want to deny women access to birth control, even though 98% of Catholic women say they have used some form of contraceptive in their life. Issa, instead of allowing one woman to testify, decided to fill the panel with men and priests. Clearly, they’ll have a deeper understanding of contraception than any woman might…

These are just a few of the highlights from this morning’s briefing. Watch the whole video for more news in politics from around the country. ~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker

Obama and the Contraceptive Accommodation

I guess one of the things I find most appealing about Facebook is the access to information and opinion from my friends that I don’t find elsewhere. And I think the impersonal dialogue that exists through the site gives people incentive to write things they might not normally say during a conversation. For me personally it provides a gateway to my friends’ point-of-view that normally I do not think I would know. The contraception “controversy” dogging President Obama through the last couple of weeks has again provided a basis for some personal introspection on my part, some friendly banter on Facebook, and some evolving perspective on the issue.

It started with a link of mine to an article on Truthout.Org describing how this contraception issue is mostly being drummed by a partisan right-wing agenda to shift the upcoming presidential election towards social issues rather than the economy. The reason being this issue of having employers (including religious institutions) provide birth control care in their insurance plans has been law since 2000 and the Bush administration coming into office did absolutely nothing to appeal the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ruling that denying contraceptive care is in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination based on sex. So, clearly, this was never a problem until a democrat was in office and then it became an ‘example’ of “government overreach by this administration”.

My point in linking the article was to highlight this GOP hypocrisy, but a friend commented about the ruling itself, having also fallen into the trap that the government is only now overstepping its bounds (and never did in the previous 8 years of the Bush presidency). He mocked that toothpaste will be the next thing the government will require employers to cover in their insurance plans. I responded that that was ridiculous because toothpaste is over-the-counter, and further tried to make my point that I was not addressing the contraception issue per se (for my views on it were initially that I think religious organizations should be allowed to deny birth control coverage based on freedom of religion), but, again, the hypocrisy of the GOP to make this an issue now. My friend then posted this:

“Here’s what I think. I read an article about how England lost their right to own firearms. It started slowly and pitted gun owners against each other. The government first outlawed automatic firearms. This only affected persons who owned automatic firearms so everyone else who owned semi-autos, bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Next the government outlawed semi-autos. So everyone that owned bolt actions, handguns, etc. said, 'Oh well, this doesn’t affect me.' Then they outlawed bolt actions and so on and so forth. In England, all firearms owners should have stood together to fight the bans whether it affected them of not, but they didn’t and the government was able to break them down piece by piece. I see this contraception deal as the same thing. Non-Catholics are saying, 'Why do we care? We believe in contraception and preventative pregnancy.' What non-Catholics should be saying is, 'We do not share the Catholic Church’s belief on contraception, but we stand behind them in their Constitutional right to believe and practice their religious views.' This isn’t about me being Republican and you being Democrat. This is about a slippery slope. This is the first step toward the Government impeding the free exercise of religion. This isn’t some conspiracy theory,[sic] it’s just what governments eventually do.”

After pointing out that my friend should read Martin Niemoller’s “First They Came...” quote on the rise of Nazi Germany, I dove into an argument showing how I think President Obama’s shift to exempt religious organizations/businesses from this Affordable Care Act requirement was a “slippery slope” inclined the other way. (Note: the administration is now shifting the burden of covering contraception to insurance companies.) In my view, offering this accommodation to businesses with religious affiliations creates the opportunity for other businesses to deny contraceptive coverage, not only because they might have a moral/religious objection to contraception, but because they might want to save a little money instead of provide care to their employees. What were to happen if one of the largest insurance companies in the country decided that they had moral objections to contraception because some of their top executives suddenly became devout 'Catholics'? And when businesses are granted special privileges, why can’t a state or local government not be offered these same exemptions to discriminate against women for contraceptive use? And the current GOP front runner for the presidential nomination is Rick Santorum, who has been running on a staunchly evangelical platform and wants a Constitutional Amendment banning all contraceptives. This outcome seems like the next step in accommodating one religious group, or in reality what we should classify the Catholic Church as, this one business. The more I think about this issue, the more I side with President Obama’s initial take on this (and the one the EEOC deemed in 2000) is that no one group should be allowed to discriminate from any one group.

And I think it bears to mention, that Ron Paul, who has a strong backing all over the country for the GOP nomination, believes the Civil Rights Act was itself unconstitutional and should be repealed, and by extension would disagree with the EEOC’s ruling. Paul, a long-serving Texas Congressman, seems to me a very dangerous individual to have in office. Congressman Paul thinks that if a business, a person, or really anybody, wants to discriminate against a race, a sex, or any other group they have it within their rights to do so. Paul does not seem to understand that one individual’s freedom cannot be limitless. According to Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher, individual freedom extends only to the cusp of infringing on another’s freedom. Sure, you have the right to own a gun, but if your right to have that gun to kill me infringes on my right to life, then you should have to relinquish that right. Such are the basis for laws. Such balance is the basis for the Civil Rights Act, and the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to require employers to cover contraception. Government has an obligation to protect the citizenry no matter of race, religion, or creed. It has an obligation to thwart any person or entity who wishes to restrict the autonomy of another.

Allen West: The Personal Good

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) took place late last week in Washington D.C. All the biggest names in Republican politics were in attendance, and even some Occupy Wall Street protesters decided to join in on the excitement, or maybe just create some on their own. There were countless speakers throughout the conference, each offering up their litany of excuses not only as to why President Obama is such a bad president, but why he's such a bad person. Frankly, that's all anybody has heard who's been even remotely paying attention through the twenty-something debates the GOP primary has had so far, so as an outsider and liberal, none of that stuff really excited me. Mitt Romney didn't convince me any more than he did Sarah Palin that he's conservative. Rick Santorum gave a well received, though ultimately uninspired speech at the conference, and failed to hold the momentum he gained earlier in the week with a sweep of lat Tuesday night's caucuses. On Saturday, Santorum placed a distant 3rd in Maine's caucus. Ron Paul continues to hold his firm grasp of a decent-sized portion of the GOP electorate, narrowly beating front runner Romney in Maine. And Newt: I'm not too sure he's over the hill quite yet. But there was at least one thing I heard coming from CPAC that interested me.

Florida Congressman Allen West gave a speech on Friday night where he laid out this little tidbit, "We also realize that the public good is a misnomer, created by our liberal friends. It is not the public good that matters. It is the personal good."

I'm quite astonished by this statement. To me, this sounds like one of the most selfish things ever uttered by a man. It is made worse that Rep. Allen West considers himself a christian, a religion that teaches the practice of helping others in need, "do unto thyself as you do unto others," and to "bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ". Not only does this statement fly in the face of West's supposed religious beliefs, but it flies in the face of American values. We are the "United States," are we not? It's difficult to separate the inherent "public" of this nation when 50 territories (and thousands of others still within those) are bound by a simple doctrine of "We the people..." A statement such as West's is so callous and base that it makes me wonder how I grew up in the same society as a man elected to public office who would say this. Personal good means nothing without public good. If the public lacks freedom then the individual is bereft of it. If the public lacks goods and services then the individual is in want of these. If the public lacks safety, the individual is isolated in fear of everyone around them, and the more selfish they become the smaller the island to which they are immured.

Sucker PAC'ed

President Obama today reversed his long-standing position on super PACs and his supporters donating to them. For a long time Obama has spoken of the dangers of the super PACs and the potential threat they pose to our elections and to democracy as a whole. Since the Citizens United decision back in January 2010, PACs have been able to raise unlimited amounts of money to spend in political campaigns without having to disclose their contributors, nor do the politicians affiliated with these PACs have to admit to any collaboration with them. These PACs have dwarfed the standard PACs of the past, and hence have now become "super" PACs simply based on the financial muscle they can now flex in influencing voters through attack ads. Some have argued that this wouldn't happen, but it's pretty clear the impact super PACs are going to have on the 2012 Presidential election already as evidenced by the brutal Republican primary currently taking place.

Now that Obama has changed his stance on the issue, how will this fair for his campaign and the democratic base. Over at The Huffington Post, Sam Stein writes an intuitive article on the potential impacts it could have on the left and Obama's supporters in general. And I have to agree mostly with what he is saying here. It does not seem likely that the base will abandon the President at all (especially given the choice of potential candidates coming out of the right). Sure, they're going to be angry with the President for a little while, but they will likely see this as consolation for the very nature the Citizens United decision has cast over the country. Just look at what the Koch brothers announced at a dinner this past weekend. The thing is, this presidential election is going to be costly and it's going to be downright ugly. The republicans have already shown their hand. They're attacking one another maliciously. Once the dust settles there, and all these super PACs focus their attention on the left, it's going to be worse. I for one will be happy the President has some allies in his corner to help. I don't like it, certainly, but he can't bring a knife to a gun fight.

But here is what I would hope the President does. He needs to continue to denounce super PACs and the Citizens United decision in general. He needs to reestablish his push for campaign finance reform, even though now it may seem hypocritical and he may have a hard time selling the public in general. But I think if he doubles-down on campaign finance reform he can at least appease the dissatisfied voters that are going to pop up because of this decision. And it's not really being hypocritical. Just because he wants to amend the rules of the game he's playing, doesn't mean he can't play by the rules already established. Mitt Romney made such a case for his 13.9% effective tax rate. After receiving initial criticism for for how little Romney actually pays in taxes, and that he has money in offshore tax havens, he argued not to begrudge him, he's just using the rule of law. And it's true. But Romney has made no mention that he wants to balance the disparities of the tax code (his tax plan will actually make it worse). President Obama still has the chance to do this, to make this argument against his opponents trying to draw him as hypocritical for this decision. Play the game by the rules. If you see a better way for the game to be played, make your voice heard and the people will follow.

Lots of Tax Talk

Sarkozy Tackles Wall Street Tax - On Monday, French President Nicolas Sarkozy took a large step towards implementing a financial transactions tax, a tax largely supported by many world leaders, and publicly backed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  Sarkozy, a conservative up for re-election, has been pushing for the tax for some time, but the tax has not received the backing of all the European Union, most notably UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who does disagree with the measure, but would veto the bill in the UK unless the tax is implemented worldwide. Now, feeling the pressure of his campaign and what looks like an attempt to take a more populist stance prior to the election, Sarkozy is saying that even without the full consent of the EU, France is willing to go it alone.

Citing deregulation of the financial markets and rampant, unhindered speculation as some primary causes of the global economic downturn, Sarkozy is arguing that traders “repay” their country for the damage that was done. Sarkozy says there is an inherent “moral issue” with the tax, a levy on financial trading transactions that he claims will generate billions of dollars for France, as well as many other countries still reeling from the global recession, and effectively cut down on the sheer number of trades, which many analysts cite as endemic to the market insecurities and directly caused the May 2010 “flash crash” on Wall Street. The EU finance ministers are set to discuss how effect the tax could be at a summit in March, however, Sarkozy’s administration is planning to introduce a bill as early as February. The US opposes taxes on financial transactions between banks, despite wide public support for them.

Obama Strengthens Jobs Agenda - Speaking of taxes and morality, stateside, President Obama met with business leaders yesterday in the White House to discuss the “moral” case for American companies to keep, or bring jobs back to American workers. “So my message to business leaders today is simple: ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to the country that made our success possible,” in a statement that seemed to paraphrase just slightly JFK’s “Ask Not…” speech. The President is proposing $12 million in his 2013 budget as incentives to companies who invest in America from overseas. For companies that don’t, the President wants to end tax breaks and cut off the corporate welfare so many businesses receive from the federal government. With the economy as the number one issue on voters’ minds as the 2012 election gears up, President Obama is looking to show the public that he is still very much focused on jobs and the economy right now.

Warren Buffett Challenges Congress - And Warren Buffett is talking taxes again as tax season looms. Last August, Mr. Buffett wrote in an op-ed to the New York Times lampooning the disproportionate tax structure in the US. Buffett, with a net worth of $45 billion, says he effectively pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. In response, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quipped that if Buffett were feeling “guilty,” he should “send in a check” to the IRS. There was even a “Buffett Rule Act” introduced in the Senate to add a line on tax forms for the rich to donate extra in order to pay down the national debt. Buffett’s response: he’s offering a 1-to-1 match on all voluntary contributions from Congress (3-to-1 for Sen. McConnell’s case). In TIME magazine’s cover story this week, Mr. Buffett waxes benevolent, “It restores my faith in human nature to think that there are people who have been around Washington all this time and are not yet so cynical as to think that [the deficit] can’t be solved by voluntary contributions.” You can read the full article and more about Buffett’s wager in this week’s issue of TIME on newsstands Friday.

Huntsman Lands Big Endorsement

Today, Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman received a major boost to his campaign just five days before the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday night. The Boston Globe, Massachusetts’ most influential newspaper, endorsed the former Utah Governor as their pick for the Republican nominee for 2012. This is big news for the Huntsman campaign, which has seen anemic support so far throughout the Republican race and it may also come as a surprise to some since Mitt Romney, current frontrunner for the nomination, was once the paper’s state governor. It may come as a surprise to everyone, except Romney himself. The Globe in the 2008 campaign endorsed Sen. John McCain, who eventually won the nomination. With the primary so close, it’s difficult to say if this endorsement is too little, too late for the Huntsman campaign, or if it will provide a flurry of media attention and support in the waning days before the primary, similar to former Sen. Rick Santorum before the Iowa caucus Tuesday night. With the top-tier of candidates so tight and many republicans still undecided, this endorsement could be just what Huntsman needs to finally make a move towards the top.

Republican voters seem, at least before Romney’s narrow Iowa caucus victory earlier this week, reluctant to pick and stay with a candidate. The field has seen Michelle Bachmann (dropped out of the race after finishing last in Iowa), Herman Cain (dropped out), Rick Perry (back in Texas to reassess his campaign after a 5^th place Iowa finish), and Newt Gingrich all at one time taking the top spot in polling. Ron Paul has seen steadily increasing numbers and has the most ardent supporters. Paul feels so strongly about the loyalty of his base he has not yet ruled out running as a Third-Party candidate in the general election. And there’s Huntsman, who has run a steady campaign in New Hampshire (he did not participate in the Iowa caucuses), but has seen very little support come his way. The Globe’s endorsement may help change all that. Romney leads comfortably in New Hampshire, but a strong surge from Huntsman, possibly moving him into 2^nd or 3^rd in the Republican race could upend the field and bring many of these candidates back down to earth. Just look at the end to the Globe piece:

                “But even if Romney emerges as the nominee, it matters how he gets there. Already, the religious Right, represented by Rick Santorum, and Tea Party activists, represented by Ron Paul, have pushed Romney in unwanted directions. In New Hampshire, Republican and independent voters have a chance, through Huntsman, to show [Romney] a sturdier model. Jon Huntsman would be a better president. But if he fails, he could still make Romney a better candidate.”

Romney is, in view of many analysts, a moderate pandering to the far Right in order to secure the nomination, and that should he win the presidency, he’ll be much less conservative than the party wants (probably the reason voters are reluctant to pick him and constantly looking elsewhere for a viable conservative they can support). And as the Globe points out, “Huntsman has been bold” when it comes to his beliefs and values, and contrary to Romney’s denunciation of all-things-Obama, his unsubstantive vision of repeal, repeal, repeal while speaking little of what he would replace it with, Huntsman has consistently laid out his goals for the future.

A link from Huntsman's campaign website provides a detailed overview of some of Huntsman’s signature goals if elected president. But there are a few items that I have been watching with Huntsman for several months now.

Huntsman opposes the notion that ‘corporations are people’ and the controversial decision of the Supreme Court in early 2010 in the Citizens United case. The entire Republican field has endorsed the decision of the court and none find it controversial nor view it as a threat to our democracy. It is, and Huntsman is the only candidate who rightfully believes so. Mitt Romney on the other hand was against the idea of granting “personhood” to corporations until, or course, he needed to raise cash for his campaign and very publically proclaimed to a worried gathering of supporters when questioned on the decision, “Corporations are people, my friend,” then dismissively went on to another topic.

Jon Huntsman refuses to accept that global warming is a natural trend and wants to reduce our carbon footprint, reduce our emissions, and strongly supports turning our economy off foreign oil, as well as fossil fuels all-together, and move the country towards a green economy so that we can compete with the $5 Trillion alternative fuel industry emerging in China, India, and the rest of the world.

And finally, Governor Huntsman has been advocating the break-up of “Too Big to Fail” banks, recognizing their involvement, deceit, negligence, and criminal activity that lead to the housing crash and ultimately the Great Recession. Rightfully, Mr. Huntsman has bemoaned the Obama Administration and Congress for failing to address and change the systemic issues of the financial services industry with the Dodd-Frank Act that was passed into law in 2011. He believes lawmakers failed to pass meaningful reform.

I do not necessarily agree with Mr. Huntsman on everything. I do not like that he is basing his plans for entitlement reform on Paul Ryan’s deficit reduction plan, which essentially ends Social Security as we know it. Huntsman seems willing to expand domestic oil production, which I think could pave the way for approval of the Keystone oil pipeline, the benefits of which are considered by many wildly over exaggerated, and threatens vulnerable environmental areas throughout the country. But what I do not want to happen is come November, I’m casting my vote to re-elect President Obama simply because the guy standing at the other podium is so dangerous to human rights, so neoconservative in their views on tax cuts and military spending, so disastrously unqualified, that I have no choice. If Jon Huntsman wins the GOP nomination, he will also force President Obama to become a better candidate.

Gingrich Putting the Children to Work

With the Republican Presidential nomination race maintaining its highly contested aura, the candidates are searching for ways each can pull ahead. Generally such a highly contested race might spur some candidates to veer more towards the middle, to a more moderate stance in their party to avoid becoming the outlier, the crazy one, and draw more supporters. If we look back at the 2008 Presidential election, there were many independents on the fence about voting for an untested Barack Obama, but when it came down to it, they couldn’t bring themselves to lay down their vote for the gaffe-prone, “rogue,” Sarah Palin, John McCain’s Vice Presidential pick. After the landslide margin of victory for the Democrats in that election, you’d think the Republican Party might have turned down the far Right rhetoric. But it only seemed to get worse after Obama took office. And now here we are one year out from the 2012 election and it seems the crazier the Republican nominee, the better chance they have of winning the nomination.

That’s where Newt Gingrich comes in. Once considered completely out of the race, suddenly the former Speaker of the House finds himself in the lead with a slight edge over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Romney has had his share of problems, mostly his John Kerry-like indecisiveness and “flip-flopping” on key issues. (I use the term ‘flip-flopping’ here loosely. Romney, I feel if elected, would actually move far more the Left of his current positions on certain issues. I believe he’s aware that the GOP has shifted drastically Right since Obama’s election and to simply court the vote, Romney is veering far Right until the nomination.) Gingrich, on the other hand, has simply maintained. He has not had the major flubs that Michelle Bachmann and Gov. Rick Perry have had. Also, despite Gingrich’s marital problems, no extra-marital affairs or sexual harassment allegations have sprung up, like nose-diving Herman Cain. What Gingrich has going for him thus far seems to be only that he is the GOP’s self-professed “ideas man.” What exactly has Gingrich come up with lately? Well, this week he once again attacked child labor laws defending a remark he made in mid-November for how ‘truly stupid’ they are. Frankly, if these are the types of ideas a Presidential nominee is going to come up with, I fear the Right is far more out of touch with the American public, and the American economy than most realize.

How exactly putting children to work will help the economy, and more specifically the unemployment rate, is something the prospective nominee does not purport to theorize. But, nonetheless, Gingrich is maintaining his stance on this issue. He believes that ‘poor’ children do not know how to work, that their work ethic is nonexistent because if they are poor, then surely their parents must not work. Gingrich glances over the fact that 15% of the country, 46 million people, are in poverty. The official unemployment rate is just below 9%. That means that 6% of the population works, but is still below the poverty line. That’s not lack of motivation, that’s lack of livable wages in the private sector. But say that Gingrich does somehow manage to rollback child labor laws, and his idea of putting school children to work with janitors in the evenings is implemented. How exactly does this help unemployment? Children are not officially counted in the unemployment rate. So, that would not dent the unemployed. But, if suddenly schools are allowed to hire children for less wages, thus more hands, they could feasibly layoff adults working in the school, which would actually worsen unemployment.

And what exactly does this do for a child? True, I’m sure they’d get valuable experience learning how to clean toilets and clean up kindergartener’s puke, if they aspired to be janitors when they grow up. Children should not be made to work in school. Parents should be raising their children. (Is this big government from Newt Gingrich?) Children should be concentrating on bettering their education, not what cleaning product works best on permanent marker scribbled on school lockers. A better education for the youth of our generation is the only means to a better future. India and China, the two fastest growing economies in the world, have invested billions into their education systems and they are leading the way in graduating math and science students, producing future innovators and entrepreneurs. It’s true that an after-school work program might keep a lot of kids off the streets and it will better prepare them for the future by teaching them needed skills, but it should be a voluntary, unpaid program. It should be like an internship program, or provide extra-credit for students struggling with their grades. Or perhaps it could be used as a reduction in school taxes for those parents whose children join the program. Lower taxes? Every Republican can get onboard with that one.

And speaking of China: until recently the country had very lax child labor laws. Comparatively to the US, they still do. Maybe Mr. Gingrich doesn’t quite remember sweat shops? Maybe Mr. Gingrich doesn’t quite remember our own sordid history with child labor in the fields and factories of the early 1900’s? For someone who’s written so many books, especially on history, I find that hard to believe. Maybe someone needs to remind Mr. Gingrich of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire of 1911? The point is this country has already seen it’s more than fair share of needless accidents involving the deaths of workers, especially children who were put into unsafe working conditions. We enacted laws to better safety standards of factory conditions so that workers are not risking their lives to make below poverty rate wages. The funny thing that happened along the way though is that as American labor laws became stricter, the factory owners and “job creators” just took their industries overseas to China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, to name a few. Sure enough, however, the same thing that happened here is happening overseas. There have been countless reports of death and injury in Chinese factories where the labor laws were extremely lax. But after some very public, egregious stories of operose workers being hurt, especially poor children from China’s vast countryside coming to the booming cities for work, the country has had little choice but to enact stronger labor laws to protect its people from unsafe American business practices. Why then, in a bit of hyperbole, does Mr. Gingrich wish the United States to rollback our labor laws and become more aligned with Communist China? Isn’t Obama supposed to be the socialist Kenyan, Newt?

Finally, I think the biggest problem I have with this whole idea of Gingrich’s is that he specifically points out that “poor” children are the ones in need of a solid employed role model in order to garner some kind of proper work ethic. Why is it just poor children who need this? What kind of work ethic do rich kids have that poor children do not? Poor children do not see how their parents boss the maid around the house in order for the maid to pick up after the messy child. Do rich children by some under-reported phenomenon, some kind of osmosis of ambition, absorb the ingenuity, the entrepreneurial spirit that their parents supposedly have? What about the children of Bernie Madoff? What kind of work ethic do they have if their father’s wealth came from crime? And what of the executives on Wall Street who crashed the economy with fraudulent mortgage foreclosures, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, etc.? Sure these people made a lot of money, and they stole a lot of money from the country and the middle class. Is this the type of “ambition” that Mr. Gingrich feels we should be instilling in all our children?

Elitists Vs. The 1%

I was reading through Paul Krugman's piece today in the New York Times and was struck by a sudden realization. We hear quite a bit in the media about these "elitists" who are these privileged, upper class, intellectuals that have ruined the country in numerous, countless ways. Now, there are "Right Wing Elitists" such as former President George W. Bush. And then there are "Left Wing Elitists" such as our current president, Mr. Obama. But I believe there is a discordant variation of the way the media portrays these two "different" groups.

If you were to Google "Michelle Malkin elitist" you'd find a few links to her blog and the above image will come up. These blog entries chastise the President for his apparent hypocrisy of pointing out other elitists while trying to play himself off as an average American. And we hear all the time on Fox News of "liberal elites" who are subverting the country and have taken it over(!) already. Just refer back to Glenn Beck's satirical, conspiracy-theorist run on Fox for plenty of reference material. And these elitists must be stopped at all costs from further damaging the country.



What we have from the other side of the aisle is a fixation on the 1%, the wealthiest Americans who have siphoned money for the last 30 years from the middle and lower classes, who have bought elections, and silenced the press and freedom of speech. But these are the "job creators" and hence are sacrosanct in GOP rhetoric. And therein lies the hypocrisy of the Right's defense of the 1% in light of the Occupy Wall Street protests. The right cannot stand that a contingent of the population is protesting the abuses of the wealthy, but it is the wealthy 1% who are the "elitists" the right seems to believe have destroyed the fabric of America. They can't have it both ways. Either the elites are helping the country by creating jobs, or the elites are hurting it by fundamentally stripping away our freedoms and luring us into a socialist state. The GOP needs to come to this same realization: elitists are the 1%. The funny thing is: I tend to agree with the assessment that elites have thrusts this country into a tailspin of corruption and greed.