To Answer a Mooncalf According to His Own Folly

To Answer a Mooncalf According to His Own Folly

In attempts at coming to some form of amiable terms without invoking amenable expression, I would like to address a list of enquiry towards the Republican minded fold. Maybe vain, may be bold, perhaps it will be viewed as ridicule, but it is a genuine reaching out of the hand in trying to understand the logic that motivates the so-called conservative in a country that is supposedly that beacon of light in a dark and dreary world of human and individual right abuses. Correct if I’m wrong, but of recent history, as a nation, America has been human rights’ salvation.

I have often said and still insist that the measure of any country’s greatness is in how well that country takes care of its citizenry; not how wealthy it is or the immeasurable amount of military might it has. This is of course irregardless of the biased malfeasance and the bullying of the ‘I’m holier than thou’ snob mentality that might pervade.

There is no debate on debt, for no matter the stripe or star you pin to your epaulet of party affiliation, we all would like the debt lowered; it’s just how so. Wisconsin representative, Republican Paul Ryan’s budget deal is the quintessential crystalizing gap between a Democrat and Republican concept in achieving a balanced budget. Where Republicans want to add even more tax breaks to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of deep cuts in social programs for more average incomed Americans, Democrats request that the wealthiest pay a little more in their share of tax revenues. Democrats support the rest of Americans in preserving social programs with some additional benefit packages to combat economic duress and resuscitate any upward mobility that might be left for future generations.  

So, as we all stand in a political context and in want of a better life living within the frameworks of a true democracy, I submit to you these following questions…

A)    Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon is far more a perceived threat than carrying a pickle jar of urine, a ladder or a string that’s six and a half inches long?

B)    Do you truly believe that in a democracy voter rights should yield to voter suppression?

C)    Are you under the impression that it is OK for a presidential candidate to personally be a conscientious objector, excluding himself and family members from joining the U.S. military due to his religion’s dictates, but yet in speaking as a war hawk that if he was commander-in-chief, insinuates he would not hesitate in sending thousands of our military personnel, who did join, into harm’s way?

D)    Do you feel that it is OK for a president to have offshore financial accounts?

E)     Is an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work still a good motto for you?

F)    Should business be rewarded by a government entity for screwing customers?

G)    Is it truly in your emotional mantra that if an infant was born to poor parents that the baby with a life threatening condition should be denied access to quality healthcare to save the little one’s life?

H)    Do you think the scorn President Obama has received in questioning the Supreme Court’s political activism is deserved?

I)       Do you believe that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional due to its granting the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce?

J)       Do you not care if Marshall Law has been enacted in the U.S.A. that has negated individual rights and replaced elected public officials?

In Response:
All the above questions are directed at Republicans simply because they are all sponsored and promoted Republican legislation, laws and mandates. Hopefully if you read the above questions, you put forth a true effort in whether you concur or not with them. Below are the explanations to each one.

Do you believe that carrying a concealed weapon is far more a perceived threat than carrying a pickle jar of urine, a ladder, or a string that’s six and a half inches long?

In Florida, after the Republican controlled state congress in 2005 passed the ‘stand your ground bill,’ Republican governor Jeb Bush then signed it into law. The GOP convention this August 27-30 will be held in Tampa. Due to the fact that the state law stipulates local governments cannot enact any laws to regulate firearms, anyone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon is lawfully allowed to enter the GOP convention protest zone. Although local Tampa officials cannot bar weapons, they can enforce the banning of just about anything else and along with the above items, the extended list of squirt guns, umbrellas, ice chests, thermoses, poles and cans…apparently they have.

At least inside the convention, there will be a ban on concealed firearms, simply because security there is under the jurisdiction of the federal government which has immunity to Florida’s law. Imagine, the federal government and secret service having to protect Republicans from their own law.

This is the very law that has gained notoriety of late in the Trayvon Martin shooting and killing. Similar laws argued for, passed and enacted by Republican majorities are in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Utah and Montana.

To shoot and kill someone because there was a justifiable feeling of being threatened requires a reliable witness to validate the offender’s real fear. Unfortunately, as in the Trayvon Martin case, the only credible witness is the one shot and killed.

In Florida courts the law has been used in defense of public area executions and excused killings in neighbor disputes, bar fights, road rage and street gang violence. The thing is, under these ‘stand your ground laws,’ two drug pushers in a street corner argument can have one pull out a gun shoot and miss the other one as he’s running away. While running, he aimlessly shoots back, missing his intended target too, but strikes and kills a child nearby. Under this law, both pushers get off scot-free. The first pusher to shoot missed so would not be charged. The second missed also, although his aimless shot hit and killed the child. Under the law though, the second pusher was returning fire due to a perceived threat, so he is not liable either. Two pushers go on to do their dirty deeds another day, while a child lost his or her short life. Is this justice?

Do you truly believe that in a democracy voter rights should yield to voter suppression?

In every state that has a Republican controlled house and governor; new voter identification laws have been enacted and passed. Since 2003, thirty-two states from Wisconsin to Texas, voter ID laws have been passed in Republican controlled state governments requiring a government issued photo ID be shown before voting. Sounds fair enough, just simply bring your drivers license or passport with you to the voting booth. Well for those that are affected, it is a dilemma. A frail housebound elderly woman on a fixed income is hard pressed to plop down $10.00 for a birth certificate copy to acquire a state ID, but that shouldn’t negate her right to vote.

In general, voter ID laws disproportionally impact groups that traditionally vote Democrat. The laws disenfranchise the young, the elderly, the poor, urban populations, minorities, naturalized citizens and highly mobile voters. All these groups are Democrat strongholds. To ensure Republican voting blocs are unaffected they have even specified which issued IDs are acceptable or not. In Texas, college student IDs are not accepted, but a National Rifle Association (NRA) issued card is. Of course students are perceived as overall more liberal, while gun toting NRA members are classic Republican voters.

Republicans use the ruse that this is not their intention at all; it is to counter voter fraud. But they cannot come up with an instance where rampant voter fraud has occurred. That’s because it hasn’t. All the registration and voting laws in place the last half century have kept the voting booth pretty honest.

These new voter ID laws have a price tag as well. Republicans who are always whining about cutting costs are actually adding debt to their state budgets in enacting these laws. In Pennsylvania alone, the Republican enacted new voter ID law will cost an estimated $11 million to implement, according to the Pennsylvania Budget & Policy Center.

At least though in Pennsylvania, I’ve been informed by my state representative Mrs. Michele Brooks, via her phone call that the Pa. voter ID act will have a voter identification program that will provide access to acquiring a state accepted ID for invalids and the poor. She also stipulated the program will be in full force long before the general election this fall. I appreciate her phoning me and her comments. Stay tuned… 

The thing is, in a democracy, voting rights should be encouraged…not suppressed.

Are you under the impression that it is OK for a presidential candidate to personally be a conscientious objector, excluding himself and family members from joining the U.S. military due to his religion’s dictates, but yet in speaking as a war hawk that if he was commander-in-chief, insinuates he would not hesitate in sending thousands of our military personnel, who did join, into harm’s way?

That’s right, none other than Mitt Romney is a Mormon and under the Church of Latter Day Saints’ dictates, members are conscientious objectors to joining the service to be killed or kill. Instead, males are to join the churches missionaries and spread their form of gospel. So, my question to you is how he could with clear conscience and sound heart be the commander-in-chief sending those who did join the military off to die?

Besides, the moral majority evangelicals do not even see Catholics as true Christians, much less Mormons, for a Mormon views Joseph Smith as God’s last prophet. This is tantamount to blasphemy for the average evangelical, for they perceive Mormonism as a cult.

Do you feel that it is OK for a president to have offshore financial accounts?

For a wealthy American to invest a bulk of his finances overseas states only two obvious reasons as to why he/she would. One is that he or she does not trust American currency or financial institutions and the other is simply that there is something to hide. There are no other reasons for a patriotic American to do otherwise.

Well guess what sports fans, Mitt Romney under secrecy has offshore Swiss fund accounts and is not about to divulge in how much or how many millions he has made in those foreign accounts. Could turn out to be a messy situation, for their never has been a U.S. president or candidate for the presidency to have invested their monies in foreign accounts.

Is an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work still a good motto for you?

Since the Reagan years, unions have been eviscerated by Republican onslaughts. Unions definitely have had a storied past when the mafia got their hands in on some of its control to pad their own pockets. Even today, the word ‘teamsters’ still has a negative ring to it. They have also at times gone way overboard in protecting one laborer’s rights through denial of another. In this strictest of case, common sense was left out of the equation. For instance, on a construction site if a member of a plumber’s union was ably capable of moving a crane out of the way of ongoing work, he could not and work would have to be halted until a member of the operator’s union could be located.

But overall, unions have benefited the American worker and working families immensely. They ushered in the forty-hour work week, addressed safety issues, confronted employer abuses and ensured benefits such as healthcare and pensions. Unions gave the American worker a voice.

All across the states, Republican legislation in twenty-three states have right-to-work laws in place. The name is a misnomer, for it gives the worker no rights, it is simply a staged name. Right-to-work laws are solely for busting up unions in place or to keep them from forming. Let’s be plain here, right-to-work laws have nothing to do with protecting employees or creating jobs.

Even though President Truman had vetoed it, the Taft-Hartley Act became law when a conservative leaning congress overrode the veto. This act gives states and corporations (not the federal government) the right to deny laborer representation which is normally through a union, therefore is a tool conservatives use against labor formation and to drain existing unions of monetary resources.

This past winter, Indiana became the twenty-third state to ratify a right-to-work law. The Republican house passed and Republican, Governor Mitch Daniels signed it into law February 23, 2012. Even with 69% of the populace rejecting it, Republicans had the momentum due to soaking up hundreds of millions of dollars from out of state conservative groups.

During the George W. Bush years, Bush and Republicans pushed to deny workers overtime pay at the behest of corporate CEOs. It failed, but Bush had his Labor Department pass out letters to corporate heads on how to get around from paying overtime.

If that’s not enough, GOP politicians in Florida just passed a bill repealing an existing law known as the Wage-Theft Act. This law ensured that an employer could not refuse paying an employee their wages after having worked for it. The law also was a conduit for a wage earner to collect delinquent wages that were withheld by an employer, stipulated an employer could not force an employee to work off the clock and went after corporations failing to pay overtime. As mentioned in the previous article ‘Handing Apples Out With Worms,’ in Miami-Dade county alone, the law has aided workers in receiving $400,000.00 in pay that was held by their employer, but owed them.  

I’m of the opinion there can be no reverent opinion in stating this is fair. What in the world are Republicans thinking in repealing this bill. In a rational thinking mind, this is not fairness, no matter the justification for it.

Should business be rewarded by a government entity for screwing customers?

Now, to ponder just a bit…Ohio GOP controlled house lawmakers, under the Republican leadership of Governor John Kasich, just passed HB 275, the ‘Consumer Sales Practices Act.’ This law allows businesses that are being sued for cheating customers the right to offer the customer his/her money back and to pay up to $2,500.00 any court and legal fees for the plaintiff. They’re calling this a “right to cure.” In effect, the new law allows businesses that have intentionally wronged customers to be immune to being sued for liable, if they simply give the customers money back, which dismisses the lawsuit.

You may think that seems fair, since the customer’s money is returned, but why did it have to go to court before the business did agree to repay. There are also all kinds of business services that go beyond just repayment, such as physical or mental damage done by the offending business to the customer that now the plaintiff has to cope with or pay out of pocket. Examples are a botched house paint job, or a travel itinerary that the agent changes once the trip has begun.

Additionally, since the $2,500.00 in legal fees are capped any amount beyond that, comes out of the consumer’s pocket book. This law is also egregious to honest businesses where there shady competitors can scam, bait ‘n’ switch or perform any other unfair tactic and not be penalized for it through judicial process.

This law only stipulates one course to unscrupulous businesses…Why be honest…

Is it truly in your emotional mantra that if an infant was born to poor parents that the baby with a life threatening condition should be denied access to quality healthcare to save the little one’s life?

Ya know, a couple of weeks ago I was talking to a young fella about twenty-three years old or so. He’s the grandson of a friend of mine. We were both leaning on his nice big pick-up while we were discoursing. As usual, another one of my conversations drifted into politics.

As we were talking, taxes came up where he stated that he’s sick and tired of his tax money going out to people on welfare that don’t do much of anything. He continued on in saying he’s driven through parts of Erie, Pa. where he sees those kind of people and it irks him. He proclaimed he had a good job, but is tired of his own money supporting people on welfare and those wanting free healthcare. He wants to keep all his earned money. He finalized that if he wasn’t working and paying for his health benefits, he would rather live in a tent out in the woods before he would take someone else’s money to live off of.

Well, sounds very noble of him to say the least, but it is indeed the same old conservative song and dance I’ve heard time in and time out. He is truly a good guy, but is viewing the complicated world through a simpleton ideology.

It is good that he is young with a well-paying and I’m sure well deserving job, but his feeling that he has to work hard while those welfare people do nothing but leech off others taxes needs some attendin’ to. This is almost prime pure greed.

If one does not like ‘social’ programs while living in a ‘society’ then they need to move to some remote mountaintop to satisfy their ever loving life. In a society we are connected and as the saying goes, are only as strong as our weakest link. To administer social programs for the less fortunate does not mean that that government is socialist. Some of the world’s best forms of government are social democracies.

For sure, as much as he complains, he would not for one instant want to change places with the ones he complaining about living on easy street. It is not easy, much less leisurely to be on assistance. He has his leisure, his independence and even enough dignity to boast. Struggling to get by in life, the misfortunate has had these traits taken away.

He believes healthcare is a privilege and not a right, so for the infant that just happens to be born to poor parents, but no less desperately needs medical attention; a “good luck with that” scenario is all the assistance he feels should be given to the little struggling life. No, the baby is on its own… just let me keep my money.

Again, he is not a bad guy, he’s only viewing the world through a young and single male’s conservative viewpoint. If he had a family to contend with in not just being on his own, I bet the tent life would be thrown off the tarp and he would seek assistance to maintain the family.

Assistance should be temporary, but this recession has swelled the underprivileged population, with relief looking further down the lane than average. Most on assistance today want to work, employment is just not there. He feels it is and even said that he has a barn full of cow manure that he can’t hire anyone to shovel it out. I volunteered I would, but he ignored the offer with a smile.

Do you think the scorn President Obama has received in questioning the Supreme Court’s political activism is deserved?

Actually, complaining about the judicial system has traditionally been a Republican front and center action. In fact, with all the Republicans turning coat and criticizing the president for doing what they’ve been doing for decades, apparently they’ve deemed themselves as the new protector of judicial independence. With acts of phony outrage, for political ploy, Republicans railed against Obama when he stated if the ‘Affordable Care Act’ is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it would be unprecedented for the judicial system to overturn a major congressional mandate. Mitch McConnell, the senate minority leader, said, “The president crossed a dangerous line this week. And anyone who cares about liberty needs to call him out on it. So, respectfully, I would suggest the president back off.”

Of course, when it comes to judicial matters McConnell left out the fact that he himself is solely responsible in impeding the filling of vacant federal judgeship seats. One out of ten judgeships is still vacant due to McConnell spearheading obstructionism to Obama’s appointments. It’s not that these Obama picks are unqualified. The American Bar Association (ABA) has praised all the candidates as highly qualified. Legal experts are stating the shortage of federal judges is creating major challenges in backlogged courts and that the judicial system cannot effectively serve.

Also, back in 2005 McConnell was the pivotal Republican player in the GOP effort to disregard 19 rulings by Florida state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court, concerning the ending of life case of Terri Schiavo.

John Cornyn, Republican senator from Texas, who attended the Supreme Court hearings on the healthcare act said, “I’m optimistic that in June, which is their deadline that they will strike down the individual mandate and say that this has just gone too far.”

I wonder what he will say about the highest court if they don’t, for he had something nasty to say about the courts after a federal judge was slain in Atlanta, Ga. and a judge’s family member was murdered in Chicago. On April 04, 2007 he proclaimed, “I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country...and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence."

bama’s unsurprising claim appears a bit mild compared to that, but nonetheless the president’s level straight shooting and confidence that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the bill caught Republicans off guard. They expect liberals to roll over and were confused, for it is the GOPs bully pulpit talking point in denouncing judicial activism for years ranging on numerous issues such as women and gay rights to abortion.

The way the hearings went, Obama had every right to give a rebuttal. Supreme Court judges mind you, were hurling questions sounding much like a Tea Party spokesman; even to the point of referring to the health bill as ‘Obamacare.’

Obama later responded to all the hoopla in saying and rightly so that, “Conservative commentators have for years said the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example.” Yes sir…it is…

Romney accused Obama of being, “terribly disrespectful.” Republican, Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina called the president a “bully,” while Republican, Texas Representative Lamar Smith said the president was, “trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.” Ah, the big bad president put the wrath of fear into the GOP. Obama also stated, “So there not only is an economic element to this, and a legal element to this, there is also a human element to this.” Obama’s statement to me anyway, is more like a little nudge rather than an attack for crying out loud.

Do you believe that the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional due to its granting the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce?

The main point of roil over the new healthcare bill is the mandate that all have to purchase health insurance, never mind that it was originally a right-wing thought brought forth by the conservative Heritage Foundation. The GOP rails the mandate is in violation of interstate commerce, so therefore declaring it unconstitutional. I say fine, but we really need to backtrack a few steps. There is another form of insurance that has been required by law for years that drivers be forced by government to purchase. It’s called liability car insurance. Now this insurance definitely affects interstate commerce. Why is it not being repealed deemed as unconstitutional?

I have a strong hunch that our founding fathers had nothing to do with the intricacies of healthcare specifics when writing the constitution. So, if we have any common sense left in our current politicians, I would hope that they do not perceive it as a commodity, for it is an unavoidable essential necessity to quality in life.

Do you not care if Marshall Law has been enacted in the U.S.A. that has negated individual rights and replaced elected public officials?

Once again to brief on a topic I cannot believe is happening here in America and even more amazing with apparent immunity and apathy on the part of us all.

Since the GOP has taken over the state legislature and governorship in Michigan, four entire cities and two school districts have been taken over by the state. For a more in depth expose on this you may refer to the last segment in my article, ‘Leaning Up Against the Cracker Barrel’ concerning the town Benton Harbor and the Detroit public schools. If there ever was an attack on American democracy it is what’s happening and how it’s happening in Michigan.

Though the Michigan GOP prefers to call it the Emergency Financial Management (EFM), it is declared Marshall Law in stripping the rights of citizens and their elected officials. It is a takeover by the state Republican controlled government to benefit corporations at the expense of the local public.

Michigan governor, Rick Snyder, a former corporate venture capitalist, has fired to date in the affected cities and school districts, all the duly elected officials and school board members and replaced them with his personally installed financial managers. These managers have total power in the city or school districts to reign in what they don’t like and install private business exploits in their place for profit. What was once city lands have been sold dirt cheap to investors to develop projects like exclusive members only golf clubs. Local citizens virtually have no input on what transpires in their cities, communities or even their neighborhoods.

If this is not bad enough, what is even more alarming is how the Michigan GOP has been able to do this. Republicans are not attempting to just take over cities, they want the whole state and this is how.

In order to immediately pass this law among other GOP favorite mandates, such as the right-to-work, voter ID and favorable business laws, Republicans are abusing an existing act known as ‘immediate effect.’

As amended in the 1960s, under none other than Mitt Romney’s father, George Romneys guidance, Michigan’s constitution was revised providing that new laws could not go into effect until after a legislative session has been concluded, meaning anywhere from three to fourteen months. The reason behind this was for contestants of a new bill to have a chance to counter it in a reasonable time span. In their wisdom back then though, they realized there would come a time when emergencies arise and would need immediate attention. So, when an emergency arose, such as a natural or manmade disaster, legislators in bipartisan fashion could vote on a bill to address the emergency and have it immediately passed through the ‘immediate effect’ clause. This allowed the government to quickly respond. Since it was to be bipartisan, it would require a two-thirds majority vote ensuring it was truly an emergency response law. This was intended for bipartisan emergencies only; other laws that were more partisan in nature would have to be held up for enactment until the time frame elapsed or be held accountable as going into effect illegally.

Well guess what, the majority GOP congressmen have illegally passed 546 of the 566 total bills under the ‘immediate effect’ clause. Remember, any ‘immediate effect’ passed bill must be bipartisan with a two-thirds majority or it is illegal. When vote counts are called for a yay in passage, literally, the vote is counted in seconds by the Republican speaker then gavels claiming the two-thirds have been met. 

This is incredulous; you know it is. With a 63 Republican and 46 Democrat house, Republicans do not even have a two-thirds majority, much less being able to count those votes in seconds. Democrat, Libertarian, Independent or other votes simply do not count now in Michigan lawmaking.  

Now up front I will mind you that when Democrats held the majority recently under Governor Jennifer Granholm, they indeed too at times abused and used the ‘immediate effect’ illegally. But that is no excuse for Republicans to continue breaking the law and even more so in pretending they are passing laws with a two-thirds majority. I still give no justification for the times Democrats used the ‘immediate effect’ for they were wrong, but at least they held a two-thirds majority in passage. The Dems are now suing.

For some excellent coverage on the matter, watch the below clip of Rachel Maddow’s exceptional expose that gives thorough insight.  

Day of Thaw:
Hands over the eyes and they see not. That is how I picture Republicans at times. When their GOP politicians claim they protect industry over the environment to create jobs, the Republican voter appears as blind. It is not about creating jobs, for there have been far too numerous times, industry gets the edge over environmental issues (such as allowing the spewage of higher amounts of toxic pollution, the blowing away of mountaintops or oil drilling in America’s last pristine lands) that do not create employment; it only makes industries and their CEOs richer. This scenario was witnessed throughout the Bush years and is still ongoing.

Republicans claim they are for the unborn but that is about the extent of it. Once you’re out of the womb and not a fetus you’re then on your own according to the GOP philosophy. For if they truly loved America’s unborn, they’d drop their pretending care for life anti-choice picket sticks and redirect their wrath toward the Republican politician’s unyielding support for America’s major industrial polluters.

Mercury amounts now being spewed into our breathing air is America’s number one cause of fetal abnormalities and birth defects. The metal also causes infantile acrodynia in small children. The element in its various forms contaminates food, water, soil and air. In having a zero oxidation state and also a mercurous state, its myriad forms as a solid liquid metal, aspirant, inorganic salt and slew of organomercury compounds produces highly toxic effects to life.

Not only has the Republican controlled House voted to not enforce current mercury emissions and strip the EPA of its regulatory authority, but have actually voted to allow industries to increase pollution levels. Now is that responsibility? Any politician who is sincere in protecting the unborn, first not only has a responsibility, but an obligation in protecting the little ones. But since pollution is not an overnight end result like being run over by a car in giving an immediate result, they confuse the issue with economic matters.

Sun Perspiration:
Well, with the Hilary Rosen statement today, I suppose Republicans will attempt to use that as counter fodder in stating that it is Dems who are waging war against women. It’s fairly a lame charge, but decided to mention it anyway.

Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist stated that Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann…“has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing.” Wow, pretty potent stuff, but Ive hopes we’re not all overexposed to this for it is stifling sidelined gimp.

All she was referring to is that Ann has had a luxurious life and Rosens charge was not demeaning her as a stay at home mom. Strictly my opinion here, but I bet, unlike most moms Ann has had a circled wagon full of maids and servants to care for her, her children and her home and good for her.

Ms. Rosen has no political affiliation with anyone who is in office or even with any current campaign. Rest assured Romney surrogates and conservative pundits will somehow try to tie her in with Obama in some official capacity. She is not.

Now if you want to read something nasty about womanhood, look no further than what has been said and done by Republican politicians and pundits.

Every house Republican voted against renewal of the ‘Violence Against women Act.’ How could any lawmaker oppose this bill?

Just this past Thursday, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin quietly signed into law a bill that repeals the Equal Pay law that was for women victims of wage discrimination.

In 2010, Nebraska Republican Governor Dave Heineman vetoed Medicaid funds that provided prenatal care for undocumented pregnant women stating that is one item taxpayers need not pay for. Two years since then, doctors are reporting a 4% death rate for babies that did not get the prenatal service. Some Republican lawmakers are now siding with Democrats and are considering reinstating the funds. This has outraged the governor and has chastised Republicans who’ve had a change of heart. Heineman is also vowing he won’t allow the state to become “a magnet for illegal aliens.”

A Virginia Republican lawmaker as recounted by Delegate David Englin stated, Forcing women to have a vaginal ultrasound is justifiable, because they already made that decision to be vaginally penetrated when they got impregnated.”

Republican Representative Bob Morris of Indiana states that, “The agenda of planned parenthood includes the sexualization of young girls through the girl scouts.”

Former Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum claims, “A woman impregnated through rape should accept that horribly created gift…the gift of human life. Accept what God has given you and make the best of a bad situation.”
Rush Limbaugh, nah enough said. Just in writing his name conjures up enough.

Oh there are plenty others, but let’s let this rest.

Fair Mindedness:
Finally, Republican lawmakers need to wake up and edge more to the aid of the average American. The GOP has a deep and embedded history in supporting the wealthiest of Americans and the wealthy are doing just fine thanks to Republican policies, but again, thanks to Republican policy, the average American isn’t sitting so well.

According to the Wall Street Journal’s, ‘Real Time Economics,’ in 2006, supposedly Bush’s best economic year, 4.6 million low paying jobs were created, but at the same time 2.6 million were lost. Overall with only 325,000 jobs created, a dismal .03% increase, Bush has the lowest job creation under his watch than any other president going back to Herbert Hoover and that includes the current sitting president, Obama.

Under the Republican controlled houses and Bush years, federal government employment rose more rapidly than private sector employment since WWII. The reason wasn’t that more government jobs were being created, it was due to the private sector laying off more employees than they were hiring. Now this was during the time span the Republicans trickle down economic experiment was in full force. Companies were getting wealthier, but their job creation was strictly that...trickling.

The top 1% of the nation’s wealthiest take home pay is 24% of the national income while owing only 5% of the debt. Wall Street’s financial crisis of derivative and mortgage bundling grabs left the middle class in its worst shape in over a century. Americans had to foot the trillion dollar bailout, but on top of that are paying even more in lost wages, savings and homes amounting to $14 trillion, while Wall Street is back to reaping handsome profits.           

Ya know, Thom Hartman, a radio announcer once compared income in a brilliant and eye-opening way. He articulated that one making $40,000.00 per year, if that year’s wages were in 100 dollar bills the stack would be 6 inches high. He went on with his list of various income stacks, but when he got to the wealthiest in the 1% bracket, the stack of one hundred dollar bills would be 35 miles high. That is an incredible amount of discrepancy in distributed wealth.

In Dauntless Conversation

No comments:

Post a Comment