9/12 Teabaggers: Hypocrisy In Action

So, the Million Moron March went off without a hitch?

Oh joy.

You’ll have to pardon my lack of enthusiasm because, well, it’s really hard to see past all the hypocrisy and discern what, exactly, these people are protesting. I just have to ask, if they’re so hell-bent on “defending” principles of American Democracy, where were they for the past eight years?

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? The Teabaggers get their name from the idea that they’re “Taxed Enough Already.” Ok, fine, I’ll grant them the fact that even though they want a strong military, they don’t want to pay for it, but are they protesting the tax cut they’re getting under Obama’s plan? Or are they protesting the 4% tax increase that their CEO might get?

Do you really want to go there, lady??

Yea, well I don't want Bush's either. How 'bout you take it, m'kay?

Then there’s the deficit issue (DEFECITS R EIVL!!! OMGLOLWTF!!?!??!1111). They burden future generations with debt that can never be repaid. Uh, yup. This is what “libruls” were saying about the years of deficit spending to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where were the teabaggers then? The national debt more than doubled under W and they were cheering his war efforts on (but, it’s not like the troops saw the benefits).

At least, that's what Glenn Beck tells me...

While we’re here, let’s talk about Iraq for a second. If the teabaggers wanted an opportunity to demand Presidential truth-telling, the lead-up to the war in Iraq was a prime opportunity. Bush and Co told almost 1000 documented lies about starting a war with Iraq. And, where were the teabaggers? Unfortunately, they’re in the group that still believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (which is absurd considering even Cheney admitted it’s not true).

You lost one election. Get a fucking grip...

This person should definitely be in therapy (covered by private insurance, of course)

Speaking of Cheney, let’s talk about freedoms. Apparently, Obama is going to take the teabaggers’ freedom (which one(s), they don’t say), but Cheney (along with Bush) succeeded in actually demolishing the Constitution (you know, that piece of paper). Freedoms like the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, the right to be free from unlawful punishment and the right to know why you’re being detained. The PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act were two of the greatest affronts to American freedoms and the teabaggers wholeheartedly supported their enactment (Remember "if you're not a terrorist, you don't have to worry?") . And, teabaggers today continue to work against the freedoms of individual choice that truly define America.

So, they don’t really understand taxes, don’t truly care about deficits, aren’t actually concerned with the truth, definitely not interested in freedom. Oh, yea, this was supposed to be about health care ("supposed to" being the key phrase). There was surprisingly little mention of health care. It was mostly an after thought:

I wonder what poignant thought could possibly be on the front of this sign.

They’re concerned that somehow the government is going to take over health care by proposing a competitive alternative to private insurance, and simultaneously be so ineffective as to cause long waits and poor care, yet also be so effective as to cause private insurance to go out of business? Is something like that even possible? But, I guess it makes sense to people who believe Obama can be both a socialist and fascist at the same time...

Call this kid's World History/Civics teacher. Retroactive FAIL.

Yea, I'm trying to add that all up and it comes out to, um...you're a dumbass

Maybe they’re concerned about the cost. But, were they concerned about the cost of Medicare Part D, which will probably be more expensive as comprehensive health insurance reform (ten year cost estimated at $1.2 trillion), yet all taxpayer dollars go directly to PhARMA? No, no they weren’t.

Ah, nothing like people on Medicare protesting government health care:

I understand that people may be wary of so much government action, but eight years of improper, unjustifiable and sometimes illegal action cheered on by these teabaggers have brought America to the breaking point. The fact is, all these people are complicit in the real destruction that has been wrought.

So, here is my message to all the sometimes-patriots out there: You lost an election because of the failure of your leaders. You are intellectually and politically bankrupt, and generally have no legs to stand on in this debate. You didn’t show up when it mattered most, instead choosing to cheer on heinous and extreme behavior. Everyone noticed and said “No More.” If you want to have a legitimate, policy-based debate, we’re here to listen. But know this: your demagoguery of villainous characters is actually what is tearing at the fabric of our democracy. Your hateful ways will be your undoing.

But, let's be honest, hate is the real reason you came to Washington.

And they say it's not about race...

Just because?

I'm sure whoever made this sign is absolutely gorgeous

But, really, it's not about race

Bush Enron-ed America

There's really no other way to put it. And it's essentially that simple.

Bush as been committing accounting fraud since we went to war with Afghanistan. It only got worse with Iraq. How much have these wars cost? Well, we have estimates of what Congress has authorized, but that's not where the accounting fraud has come in. The fact is that most of the money for Iraq was not included in the formal budget proposals from Bush. Sure, he requested some money. But then he requested more. And more. And eventually, most of the war funding requests came outside of the formal budget process. So, Bush dug us into debt with his budgets, and further with his wars. His accounting of our country's expenses was not honest, and it undermined our economic system. Like Enron, America appeared more solvent than it really was. See the similarity between Enron stock and the Dow recently?

Ok, I'll give you the fact that Bush didn't set up offshore accounts that moved money in generally illegal and improper ways (I think). But, his system of budgeting was a smoke and mirrors act. And the mirrors have come crashing down. Obama's commtiment to honest budgeting may not be pretty. But at least it's real. We can rebuild on real. We can cut back once we know what's actually being spent (and where it goes).

But, here's the real lesson from Enron: The Republican financial gambit makes it impossible to run an honest business in the long run. It was never about establishing long-term security and stability. It was about propping up the house of cards long enough to get yours and get out. So, no, Republicans we don't want your opinion on Obama's budget. You don't know WTF you're talking about, you're not fiscally conservative. You're liars and thieves and you haven't learned your lesson from Enron.

Bush, Cheney, DeLay: here's your next job option.

25 Things

In the spirit of the Facebook wildfire that is “25 things,” I figured I’d share 25 political thoughts, since you probably don’t care that I always sleep in socks or that I eat cereal for dinner at least five days a week.

1. The more I learn about the Republican Party, the less I understand why anyone would want to be associated with such a hateful, backwards, hypocritical group. I’ve heard it best described as “jingoistic masquerading,” but whatever it is, it’s completely based in falsehoods. I’m truly convinced that Republicans are mentally unstable.

2. For the first few months of the primary, I thought Barack Obama was the “token black guy.” I was a big John Edwards fan. Shows you how good my instincts are…

3. I really wish that Republicans would learn the difference between Socialist and Fascist. For reference, George W. Bush’s administration had the underpinnings of fascism.

4. Just to clear up any confusion, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Saying something over and over does not make it true.

5. People need to read the entire Second Amendment before claiming they can carry fully automatic weapons into a McDonalds. (So you don’t have to go looking: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.)

6. A flat tax would be the most effective and equitable way to fix the tax problem in this country.

7. It’s the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Get it right.

8. George W. Bush did not serve his country in Vietnam. Don’t give me any crap about the National Guard. Ask anyone who lived during that time, only people with connections got into the National Guard.

9. The War on Drugs is just an excuse to stoke racial tensions. If we didn’t waste our money and prison space on mandatory sentences for drug offenses, we could actually use that money to aid the communities that need help. But, like Chris Rock said, a new jail is better than old projects.

10. A majority of the prisoners in Guantanamo are not terrorists. There is no harm in bringing these people to US prisons and trying them in US courts. After all, we’ve held crazier people than that before (best reference on this point).

11. Bill, Rush, other right-wing gasbags, listen up: yelling does not make you right. You can yell all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that your information is bad and your conclusions are whack.

12. Sarah Palin is a joke. The nail in the coffin was her teen daughter saying that “abstinence only” education is unrealistic. Life as proof…nice.

13. Speaking of reality, it does have a liberal bias. That’s why conservatives have to work so hard to counter it. Slowing the natural progression of society is hard work that only the supremely stubborn would undertake.

14. I’m convinced that the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives is the ability to empathize. Liberals can, conservatives don’t even attempt. But, if we had a culture of empathy, I think we’d be less likely to tell people to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” WTF does that even mean?

15. If Freepers were to leave America, where would they go? No other country would allow them to bitch and moan and obstruct the political process the way they do. But, they’d probably get health care.

16. How are Republicans the party of fiscal responsibility? Last time I checked, fiscal responsibility meant spending only what you have, be it a lot or a little. Three Republican presidents have accounted for more than 90% of our debt (check it out). Tax cuts don’t mean shit if you don’t cut spending…which Republicans couldn’t do to save their lives.

17. World War Two was the supreme example of government spending. All those people that were drafted into the military? Government employees. All those factory contracts that put people back to work? Government contracts. Republicans are dim for not figuring this out. Obviously throwing money at Haliburton doesn't have the same effect.

18. I’ve ended friendships over Prop 8. Well, probably more like acquaintance-ships. Either way, I don’t need to be around people who don’t support equality.

19. I support the idea of the death penalty, but I think it’s unworkable with our current justice system.

20. When people want to use the government to regulate your love life and your body, they cannot be the party of small government.

21. This whole debate over abortion and choice is taking place on the wrong terms. It’s not about “if” abortion is going to happen. It will. It’s about the right of an individual to seek medical assistance and make decisions based on the realities of their own situation.

22. Tax cuts for business are corporate welfare. The way to grow a business isn’t through government handouts, but by selling more of your product. You can only sell more of your product if people can afford to buy it. Therefore, if we’re going to cut anyone’s taxes, we should cut those of the people who would most likely spend that money.

23. Supporting our troops has nothing to do with blindly supporting a president. In fact, one of the best ways to support the troops is by keeping out of unnecessary war and providing proper care when they return. Bumperstickers don’t count.

24. George W. Bush’s administration was criminally negligent at best and down right criminal at worst, and no, I will not forget that and “move on.” I want some damn justice to keep this from happening again. Along those same lines, Karl Rove should be arrested. Sure, he’s in contempt of Congress, but he’s also a criminal.

25. I know a number of people who’ve become Democrats as they’ve gotten older. Most of they time, they’ve had an “eye-opening moment” where they realize that the Republicans had them by the nose. Today, I ran into a friend from college that I haven’t seen in five years, and he told me that he ditched the Republicans because he couldn’t stand the “fake machismo.” It’s the small victories that make me smile.

Will I always be mad at Bush?

Seriously. Will I see pictures of him in five or ten years and still want to throw shoes at him?

Interestingly, it's not the series of increasingly bizarre press conferences that disgusts me (but it's safe to say he's back on the sauce). No, it's my graduate class. We actually had to have a discussion about Bush's "leadership ideas" and his "picture of success." Leadership? Success? I suppose Bush's picture of success will be staying out of prison.

Having to take (another) long look at the past eight years makes me sick. Everything he touches turns to shit. And he's so damn smug about it. He knows he's going to leave us holding the bill and with the targets on our heads while he just clears brush (or hires "non-whites" to do so). Fuuuuuuuuck. I'm having a hard time articulating how much he sucks. Justice. Economics. Environment. Military. Constitution. All of the above.

All I have to say is, no wonder Bush drinks. If I were him, I'd drink, too!

If McCain Wins, America Loses

If we elect John McCain, America will demonstrate how socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept it has truly become. Maybe Republicans want us to vote on who is more patriotic, which is completely subjective. I say that a flag lapel pin doesn’t make a patriot if that person is willing to send hundreds of thousands to death in a false war and simultaneously tear down the very laws that make us free. But, that’s just my opinion. Maybe they want us to vote on who would have the ability to provide cheap (and crappy) beer to America. Keep us drunk to keep our minds off the misery that is Bush’s reality. I guess McCain would win that contest, but as for the actual election, there is too much at stake to waste a vote on John McCain.

First, on the issues of the economy, McCain has continually demonstrated that he does not, in fact, know anything about how our economy actually works. Though he has shown that he is willing to accept how corporate lobbyists want our economy to work. I think this is the most important fact when it comes to McCain’s economy: McCain’s economic plan does not budget for the war in Iraq. Does not even mention it. Does not believe in accounting for the single greatest expenditure in American history. Hello?! For the man who is an ardent supporter of this war, wants to be in the country for, well, ever, and wants to go to war with Iran, China, North Korea, Russia, and probably Venezuela, this budget is a joke. All it does is fling money at wealthy individuals and corporations without acknowledging the reality of our current situation.

So, if that doesn’t scare you, here’s more. We all know that McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts. Why? Because they don’t give enough to the 99.9% of people that actually make up America. Now, he’s for them. Hm, sounds like someone sold out to the ridiculous neo-con perspective (I’ve got mine, screw everyone else) to get the Republican nomination.

And now McCain is pushing a suspension of the federal gas tax, saying it would ease gas prices by 20% (in reality, it’s only 5%, but we know McCain no longer operates in reality). What does he think people are going to do when gas is $3.32 vice $3.50? Yea, I’m not planning that road trip yet, and neither is the rest of America. A suspension does absolutely nothing to address the true cause of these inflated oil prices, corporate greed. Additionally, the federal gas tax goes to support and repair our highways, which are in dire need of maintenance. Not to sound morbid, but maybe McCain should ask the victims of the Minneapolis bridge collapse if they support taking money from highway repair. He would be putting even more Americans at risk of such a tragedy.

In case we weren’t convinced of the utter failure of supply-side economics, there is the sticky little problem of the current economic downturn being “rescued” be demand side policies. Give the people money and they will spend it. Of course, that will only happen if they aren’t in debt already. But, thanks to Bush’s economic policies, we all are. Tax cuts won’t solve it. Deficit spending won’t increase consumer confidence. People will spend money if they feel secure, but right now, we are barely keeping our heads above water trying to cover the basics, not to mention retirement and/or higher education for the future generations. We need a government that will implement policies that help us, and McCain’s policies do anything but.

But, maybe the economy isn’t you’re thing. Maybe you’re more of a rule of law kind of person. Well then, McCain isn’t your guy because he definitely does not support the rule of law, the bedrock of American principles. Foremost is his support for the war in Iraq, which we know was started over lies. However, that doesn’t matter to him. What matters to him is that Americans keep fighting, regardless of whether or not we have a goal or a reason.

Then there’s the troublesome fact that McCain continues to support Bush in all his efforts to restrict the freedoms that make us Americans (those same freedoms that people are fighting and dying for, I assume). And the most important of these would be the Writ of Habeas Corpus, otherwise known as, the ability for anyone who is jailed to appear before a judge and learn why. Now the Constitution says that this cornerstone of freedom may only be suspended in times of “rebellion or invasion,” but Bush just wanted to get rid of it all together. And, thanks to the Republican Congress of 2006, it’s gone. Why worry about the limits of the law when you can just change the laws? Needless to say, I’m more than a little concerned about the serious neutering of the Constitution that has taken place under Bush and that McCain promises to continue.

However, I doubt that these issues will be brought to the attention of the general public. Why would we want to talk about things like economic security and truly protecting freedom (as well as health care, education, the environment, corporate graft, political corruption, the real war on terror, social security, civil rights, I could go on and on)? Why would we want to discuss the issues when we can talk about flag lapel pins and who staffs more lobbyists? Well, probably because the media, following the lead of the Republican Party, is socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept. They will focus on God, guns and gays; they will focus on fear and on trivial non-issues to keep us from seeing how truly pathetic American politics has become. Unfortunately, I’m not sure enough Americans will figure it out on their own to keep McCain out of the White House. After Wednesday night’s debate, I saw how the media is going to hand the election to McCain, I just can’t figure out why. If John McCain wins, America will lose.

McCain the Next 'Honest Abe'? Highly Doubtful.

John McCain claims that he is a proud to be a Republican in the tradition of “Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.” Knowing what I do about Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan, I am more than skeptical of McCain’s claim (except for the Reagan part). And, knowing what I do about McCain’s general level of knowledge (low), I am assuming that if someone were to ask him to compare himself to Lincoln and Roosevelt, he would have no clue where to start. And, just a note for his speech writers: before you write something for your candidate, make sure he can back it up when you’re not there.

Since this is kind of long, I’m going to have to do it in two parts. I’ve decided to leave Reagan out because we can all remember his policies, and Reagan was no Lincoln or Roosevelt either. I’ve highlighted some governing philosophies of Lincoln, and we’ll see if McCain is following his “tradition.”

It’s important to note that Lincoln was a Washington outsider. Lincoln spent only two years in the House of Representatives and took a ten year hiatus before he ran for President. Lincoln also had no military experience. Abraham Lincoln highlights:

• In 1846, he spoke out against the Mexican-American, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory."
• Lincoln did not support war for personal gain or presidential legacy. McCain has solidly supported Bush’s war and delusions of military glory.



• After declaring "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just," Lincoln became a political liability and chose not to run for re-election.
• Lincoln spoke out against injustice, regardless of the consequences. McCain used to speak out, but now he only says what the party tells him to say.



• However, in 1854, Lincoln returned to politics in response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which expressly repealed the limits on slavery's extent as determined by the Missouri Compromise.
• Lincoln was involved in politics to promote justice and the ideas of the founders, not for personal gain. McCain does not support equal rights for all Americans.



• Lincoln is well known for ending slavery in the United States. In 1861 – 1862, however, he made it clear that the North was fighting the war to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery. Freeing the slaves became, in late 1862, a war measure to weaken the rebellion by destroying the economic base of its leadership class.
• When Lincoln had to fight a war, he had sound principles. He did not fight war based on personal feelings or philosophy. Again, McCain supports endless crusades based on the mistaken ideas of a few.



• In 1863, when Lincoln saw support for his war wavering, and people were disturbed by the draft, he knew he had to make a statement to win back the people. Hence, his decision to go to Gettysburg and urge the Union to highly resolve that the dead there "shall not have died in vain" was Lincoln's way of saying that if the Copperhead peace democrats get their way, then the men who there gave the "last full measure of devotion" will have done so for no reason at all. In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln was proposing this question: what would these men who died for this cause want us to do--quit now or finish the job? How the country answered this question would determine the 1864 election.
• Public support in a time of war is always hard to maintain in the face of high casualties. And, we’ve heard Bush say that the soldiers who’ve died in Iraq will not die in vain. And that giving into calls for peace would make the whole effort in vain. So what’s the difference? Well, for starters, Lincoln was fighting a war to protect the integrity of American, and it had a clear definition of success: The southern states return to the United States of America. In Bush’s war and with McCain’s support, the Global War on Terrorism has become a quagmire with no clear goals or definition of success. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, so all those that have died have died in vain because Bush and McCain have chosen not to pursue the real terrorists who harmed America.



• Even before the war ended, Lincoln was actively pursuing a reconstruction strategy. Determined to find a course that would reunite the nation and not alienate the South, Lincoln urged that speedy elections under generous terms be held throughout the war in areas behind Union lines. His Amnesty Proclamation of December 8, 1863, offered pardons to those who had not held a Confederate civil office, had not mistreated Union prisoners, and would sign an oath of allegiance.
• Lincoln understands that a solid strategy needs to be in place if the region is going to rebuild. He did not tear down the system of government and replace it with partisans. He allowed the people to continue to govern themselves. McCain has supported the complete destruction of Iraq and the installation of Bush partisans, which has not helped the reconstruction effort.



• Besides the war, Lincoln took a hands-off approach to legislation, where he allowed Congress to write the legislation and he vetoed only those bills that threatened his war powers. Thus, he signed the Homestead Act in 1862, making millions of acres of government-held land in the West available for purchase at very low cost. The Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act, also signed in 1862, provided government grants for agricultural universities in each state. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864 granted federal support for the construction of the United States' First Transcontinental Railroad, which was completed in 1869. Other important legislation involved economic matters, including the first income tax and higher tariffs. Also included was the creation of the system of national banks by the National Banking Acts of 1863, 1864, and 1865, which allowed the creation of a strong national financial system. Congress created and Lincoln approved the Department of Agriculture in 1862, although that institution would not become a Cabinet-level department until 1889.
• In his legislation, Lincoln showed that he supported a strong government. He supported the first income tax and higher tariffs. I don’t know if McCain could be more of a polar opposite on this issue. Lincoln also supported government grants for education, and large federal projects for infrastructure. McCain, like Bush, supports only private, for-profit industry. Additionally, Lincoln supported a growing federal government, but supported by the higher taxes and tariffs. This is where I believe McCain is more like Reagan; he says he supports small government, so he reduces taxes, but continues to expand the federal government without the necessary funds. Lastly, Lincoln did not meddle in legislative affairs or veto based on his personal beliefs. McCain has promised more Bush leadership: Approve only what he personally believes in, make no compromises or attempts to see an issue from the majority’s point of view. From what McCain has promised, he could not be more opposed to Lincoln’s governing style.



• Lincoln largely relied on the Calvinistic "doctrine of necessity" and not organized religion to guide his beliefs. Lincoln’s religious skepticism was fueled by his exposure to the ideas of the Lockean Enlightenment and classical liberalism, especially economic liberalism. Consistent with the common practice of the Whig party, Lincoln would often use the Declaration of Independence as the philosophical and moral expression of these two philosophies.
• This may be the most important point because it talks to governing and leadership style. Lately, the Republicans have come to be dominated by the Christian Fundamentalists, but this was not what the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln intended. Lincoln based his beliefs on Enlightenment-era philosophies, not religion. The Declaration of Independence was his guiding document. Lincoln believed that America’s destiny was to be shaped by the principles of its founding, not by the Bible. McCain has promised to turn this nation over to the Christian Extremists, which is not something Lincoln would ever do.
  
  
  From these ideas, I can only conclude that Lincoln was a man of great principle. He believed in truth, justice, and enlightenment. When he had to fight, he did it judiciously, and based in solid principle. When he led America, he thought about what was best for the nation, not just for his supporters. Lincoln guided this nation through a time of great turmoil, and while he was not perfect, he was thoughtful. McCain promises to be none of these. McCain is a war monger who will continue the harmful, un-Constitutional policies of President Bush and the Christian extremists. If any candidate in this race is like Abraham Lincoln, it is Barack Obama, which these highlights make very clear. McCain should be ashamed for trying to degrade the memory of a good president for his own political gain!
  
  Coming soon: Is McCain a Roosevelt “Rough Rider?”

The CIA Director Said What?

We all know that this administration has an agenda. The recently released Department of Defense study not linking Iraq and 9/11 has made perfectly clear that war is the lifeblood of the current administration. War at all costs. And, while the war in Iraq is the current battle ground of this election year, I believe that we need to watch what is being said about Iran. We are being set up, and we need to confront these lies before they drag us, and the next president, into another costly war. In December 2007, a National Intelligence Estimate was release that said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, yet we have been bombarded by administration officials who continue to say otherwise.

On "Meet The Press" this Sunday, the Director of the CIA said that he personally believed that Iran was seeking nuclear weapons. He acknowledged the NIE released in December 2007, but he immediately launched into a disqualification of the report, the intelligence, and Iran. And, Hayden isn't the first official to make these same remarks. Last week, Cheney said that Iran may be seeking nuclear weapons. Of course, he could have also said "probably not" or "we have no evidence of," but instead he continue to push his party's agenda of constant, costly war. And, just days after the NIE was released, Bush said "the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world." And who could forget Republican presidential candidate John McCain singing "Bomb Iran" during a campaign stump? I've tried, but I can't.

So, let me get this straight, even though 16 US Intelligence agencies concur that Iran is not working to produce a nuclear weapon and has not been working on acquiring a nuclear weapon for more than four years, the Bush administration continues to try and sell us another war based on false evidence? Even though the Intelligence agencies are stacked with Bush supporters, even they couldn't tell him what he so desperately wanted to hear? Even though the evidence is right in front of him, he can casually brush it aside for his "feelings"? No. I will not accept this. I will not accept more lies, and more officials who push the party line over truth. I will not accept a candidate who sings and dances to sell death and destruction. Now is the time for every American to demand that our leadership respect the truth of the world we live in: It may be dangerous, but picking fights won't make anyone safer. The officials who continue to lie to the people about Iran should be ashamed by the way they throw our credibility into the wind. I will not go to war based on their feelings, and neither should any other American.