Tag Archives: Politics

To Those, Especially Liberals, Who Are Voting Trump Because They Think He Will Upset the Status Quo

I am confused by anyone who is even semi-liberal, or progressive, who is even considering Trump over Clinton. Don’t get me wrong, I think Clinton comes with a huge number of issues, the email scandal among others, but to even consider Trump because they think he’ll upset the status quo is misguided.

Many seem to say, we can do it again in four years, and that most of his extreme policy proposals will be moderated by congress. However, that ignores several key issues.

Firstly, there is the Supreme Court. This is why many on the right will vote for him not matter what he says, what he stands for, or what he does. The next candidate will likely appoint three candidates to the Supreme Court. They will replace a conservative justice and two of the three liberal justices. If Trump wins, and the Senate remains in Republican hands, which is virtually guaranteed if he wins, he gets to appoint three very conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Odds are that they’ll then go after older conservative justices like Thomas and try to get them to step down so they can have lots of young, very conservative justices on the Supreme Court for a very long time, remember there is no term limit. This will set back women’s rights, worker rights, minority rights, voter rights and more. Most importantly for those thinking Trump will upset the status quo, this far right Supreme Court will just further affirm cases like Citizens United which will put more and more power in the powerful elite and away from the individuals of this nation. This can’t be stressed enough. A vote for Trump is a vote to secure the status quo even more, because of the far lasting changes he and the Republican Congress will push through to the Supreme Court.

Let’s also look at the danger of the great number of increased lone wolf attacks that groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda will be able to claim responsibility for, without having to do the actual recruitment work on. A Trump presidency is radicalized Jihadist groups wet dream. His stated policies, even if not fully implemented, his desire to wage war and kill them and their children (he directly said he’ll kill their families, which means he’s targeting their children), to violate international laws and bring back torture far worse than water boarding, his desire to restrict travel, will make self radicalization far more likely. They have publicly stated they want us to war against them, because it pushes the “us vs them” narrative. Many Muslims already feel they are the most persecuted religion in the world. This persecution just proves to many that it is the one true faith, because the enemy (read the Devil) is working so hard to put the faith down. This results in self radicalization, and people will fight for the cause because they see the world turning against their faith, by people like Trump equating the whole faith to the actions of very few… they dissociate their involvement with those very few, but make mistake, the number of self radicalized people will greatly increase due to a Trump Presidency… of course Republicans want this greatly increased attacks on American Citizens as it increases American’s call for war and destruction, which the party (which oddly calls itself pro-life, while being pro death penalty, pro stand your ground and murder somebody for trying to steal your TV, and very very pro war) loves. Republican war profiteering will go into overdrive because of the increase in self radicalization… which means even more of the status quo.

Finally, let’s keep in mind that while Congress might moderate some of Trump’s most radical policies, there is no Congress between him and the button. He’s stated he might not protect our NATO allies if they are attacked if they haven’t paid. He’s stated he’d order our troops to shoot and kill people for making gestures at US forces (in regards to Iranian ships running around US military ships and making gestures at the US forces while doing so)… something that could start a war… and most scary of all, has publicly stated he would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons (as an offensive weapon) be it against a nation in the Middle East or Europe. He reportedly even asked his military advisers “if we have them, why don’t we use them”? Keep in mind how often he blows his top and says outrageous things… he’ll be like the Philippine President, Rodrigo Dutert, or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, but of a major power. The fact he doesn’t seem to understand the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction should scare anyone, even conservatives (unless they are voting for him just to bring about the end of the world). It doesn’t matter if we launch against somebody who doesn’t have the ability to launch back, the moment one missile flies, they all fly, and that ends the world.

I could go on and on about a large number of other issues, but anyone who is even mildly liberal or progressive can not even think about voting for Trump. You want to wait four years to undue something, undue Clinton in four years. The damage that Trump will do is too vast, and will give the status quo even more power than Clinton will.

My Simple Plan to Raise Minimum Wage

Time for a rare political post on this blog… As of 920 AM EST 25 November 2014 this is more or less a quick rough draft… I have to get to work.

I’ve got a Minimum Wage Increase Plan that I think could get easy bipartisan support.

In the US, the Federal Minimum Wage is $7.25/hr for non-tipped employees (last raised in 2009), and only $2.13 (last raised in 2001) an hour for tipped employees. ┬áHad the Federal Minimum Wage kept pace with inflation, it would be $10.90/hr. Recent efforts to raise it would have had it raised to $10.10/hr (over two years), something that was opposed by 100% of the Republicans. I couldn’t find reliable numbers on where the tipped employee wages would be if it kept pace with inflation. ┬áThe US has one of the smallest minimum wages in the first world developed economies.

One typical argument against raising the minimum wage is that most people make above minimum anyhow. Of course when they talk about that, they are referring to the Federal Minimum Wage. Several states have minimum wages above the Federal Wage, and the people making that state’s minimums aren’t being counted when people argue that lots of people make above the minimum wage. Also, we have to keep in mind where minimum would be if it kept pace with inflation, and if you count all the people making less than that, then there is a huge percentage of Americans making below where it would be.

Another typical argument against raising the minimum wage is that places would have to raise prices. That’s a pure lie. Continue reading My Simple Plan to Raise Minimum Wage

435 Isn’t Enough

Fun point. We have had 435 Representatives in the house since 1911 (with a 4 year exception when it went to 437). Our Founding Fathers wanted it locked in at 50k to 60k per Representative, we now have an average of 800k (source I am fact checking them now, however even if those particular facts aren’t true, their idea of more Representatives is a good one). NOTE: All that follows is a work in progress…I may modify it as I go along and further refine my ideas.
If we limited to the 50k our Founding Fathers originally wanted the size difference between districts would be less than 5%. There would be 6,000 members of the House and would far better represent their local populace. We could, if cost was a huge concern, limit it to one member for each 100k, this still results in 3,000 (or nearly anything up to say one rep for each 300k… no more than 500k).

With modern technology there is no need to have every member of the House in the building in DC… as a matter of fact, from a security point it is better, and there is nothing in the Constitution that would stop us from using modern technology to do it. And by leaving them in their home districts we could cut the expense of having them all in Washington. For direct representation in DC, if we wanted to continue to house 435 people in the the Capital itself, then each state’s legislative body and governor would decide who went to DC. Who went wouldn’t matter since being in the Capital itself doesn’t increase their voting power. If they wanted they could rotate so all of them get a chance, but to reduce costs perhaps best to leave it set. I would also suggest a pay cut to help with the expense of so many Reps, especially since most will be in their home district. At the very least a big cut to the size and costs of their staff and other expenses.

This does increase the difficulty of getting things done, since now you have far more people to sell on a plan, but in the end we end up with less pork, less ear marks and a government that is forced to be more focused on actual governance and more bills would become far simpler in order to get them passed.
Such a plan would greatly reduce Gerrymandering. It could be reduced further by devising a GIS based program to draw district lines without regard to politics… as a matter of fact, this should be done even if we stay with the 435 number we have now. That alone would improve representation.

We also need to remove the first past the post voting method in the US for all federal offices… I would say for state level offices as well. There are two primary alternatives, the Alternative Vote and the Single Transfer Vote. I would say for the House, use the Alternative Vote, for the Senate and President use STV. On the election form they are more or less the same, it is how they are counted that changes. Continue reading 435 Isn’t Enough

It’s the End of Democracy

Olbermann’s tendency for hyperbole is actually drastically understated here. In a few years this country will not belong to us, it will belong to the wealthy corporations who will literally rape and pillage the American citizens, and won’t care (corp owners never care) about the death of democracy, the environment or anything else. Time to get the fuck out of the US.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The one and only hope is an Amendment to the Constitution:

Visit http://www.freespeechforpeople.org/ for more details.

Interesting Video on Jury Nullification

There is one essential right you have as a member of a jury that the judge will likely not instruct you on, as a matter of fact, he will likely be upset it comes up. The jury can acquit a defendant if they feel the instructions given to it by the judge were wrong, or most prominently promoted by defenders of freedom, if the jury feels the law itself is unjust. This doesn’t overturn the law, unless a large series of juries return the same result. This is called jury nullification. Largely however, it deals with bad instructions to the jury from the judge than the jury judging the law itself.
This video is presented in part by a much younger Ron Paul…

That is part one of three. More parts:
Continue reading Interesting Video on Jury Nullification

Local Presedential Contributions

I was pursuing the local (zips starting 447) list of contributions to the Presidential campaigns (follow that link and you can find out for your area, or candidate or donor), and there seem to be a fair number of illegally large contributions.
Each individual is allowed $2300 per candidate per election, with the primary and general election counting as two elections, and you can contribute all $4600 during the primary election, so that if the candidate doesn’t win the primary, they turn the $2300 remaining of your contribution to the general election fund for whomever does win. Perhaps those who made the overly large contributions thought it was $4600 per donation, who knows… I would guess after next quarter results are posted, we’ll see some corrections to that as there are lots of reattribution requests.
Oddly almost all the illegally large local contributions were made to John Edwards. I also see some contributions to John Edwards that I would think would be legal as they total $4600, but it says reattribution requested… unless reattribution requests means it comes from the person and they want to reattribute the donation to somebody else… and then I am not sure if that means they want to say the money came from somebody else or want the money to go to somebody else….
So no question on John Edwards winning the local contributions, at least as of last quarter, we’ll see how things are after the reattributions go through and the results come in from this current quarter.
Meanwhile let’s see how the Republican’s are doing locally as of last quarter (this current quarter ends in a few days, and I have no idea how long until they update the information):
Romney: $0
Giuliani: $250
McCain: $1250
Brownback: $400
Paul: $750
Tancredo: $50
Huckabee: $0
Hunter: $0
Thompson: $0 (to be fair, I don’t think he could have had any last quarter)
Cox: $0
Gilmore: $0
No mention of Keys on that list.
I won’t list all the Democrats, however, John Edwards currently has a huge lead locally. Kucinich, our dear CFR free Democrat and the only candidate beyond Paul who will end the war quickly has $0 locally. Anyhow, it would appear from the Republican stand point it was McCain then Paul, both with only two contributions.

Follow up to the People Being Arrested for Reading the Constitution

I posted earlier about people being arrested for reading the Constitution, I figured enough time should have passed that more details would have leaked out by now, but I can find little.
This was at a pro-war rally, and the first lady, some men and members of Code Pink were arrested. It does not seem the first lady was a member of Code Pink, hard to tell about the men. The forums seem full of people defending the cops actions since the video doesn’t show the start of the arrest and point out the cops don’t need, and shouldn’t tell third parties, such as the cameraman, why the people were being arrested. However, these people miss the point that the woman herself was yelling “why am I being arrested?” and when the camera man asks her again later, she still doesn’t know.
The biggest insult is the defenders of the cops say the people probably didn’t have permission to protest or speak. Which is the point you dumb fucks! The Constitutions says nothing about needing a permit to speak, it actually says the opposite. You are not supposed to need a permit to speak in this country, at least the Constitution says you do not need one, and requiring one violates the Constitution.
Just a reminder of the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A law requiring a permit is an abridgment of the freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble. A Fee Speech Zone goes even further in abridging our rights the Constitution is supposed to guarantee us.
They were not using a bullhorn, and if we are to believe the Code Pink lady (a dubious thing I know) they were not shouting, so the interruption to the pro-war rally was minimal. Also, why are pro-war people not arrested for interrupting anti-war demonstrations? If they are to be fair, then they have to start arresting those people as well.

Mattel Apologizes to China for Product Recalls

Mattel apologizes to China for product recalls” is the headline of a story about Mattel’s recall of about 21 Million toys. What is Colgate going to apologize to Chinia next, “sorry we didn’t watch the shelves for fake Colgate,” after all was it China’s fault that they made fake Colgate with poison? Are the pet food companies going to apologize to China for trusting them and not checking the food before packing it up and killing a bunch of pets? To be fair, Mattel claims that most of the recalls were design problems not Chinese manufacturing problems, but who cares why apologize to China since some were manufacturing problems at Chinese plants. Stop doing business with them, they kill people for protesting the government, heck we only arrest people for practicing their first amendment rights, and then really only if they are protesting against Bush, so that is largely Bush’s fault… then again they tazered that kid for speaking out at the Kerry rally, long after he was handcuffed… and again there is a giant standoff at the Brown’s house since they are holding off their IRS payment until somebody shows them the law that requires you to pay an income tax (did you know it is a secret law and they refuse to show it to anyone, even congress people who have requested to see it), admittedly holding off payment until they show you the law is perhaps not the best way to do it, but since the courts refuse to help and show the law I guess they took the only action they could (details). Anyhow, we don’t need to do business with them, they would revert back to a third world country if everybody refused to do business with them.

Apparently Reading the Constitution of the USA is Illegal Here Now

An interesting video of people being arrested, not given their meranda rights and not being what they are charged with beyond apparently reading the Constitution to people out loud, and when I say out loud, I am not talking about volume, just speaking the words of the Constitution of the United States of America in a public setting. This I am sure will be closely followed.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCLuYvBeq40[/youtube]
What the fuck is happening to this country? At one time the whole country was a free speech zone, now you have selected free speech zones and if you do free speech outside of those zones you are arrested. If you don’t have a permit to peacefully assemble, which incidentally is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment, you are arrested. People are being arrested for having impeach Bush shirts and being threatened by the city for having Ron Paul signs. The Constitution is being shit on by a bunch of asses who sore an oath to uphold it and protect it from threats foreign and domestic. The First Amendment is the first for a reason.
I am pissed, I am off to bed before I rant more…
EDIT: A short follow up is here, though I just more or less go off on those who say the police did right (and they did right in not telling third parties, but not to tell those arrested… which misses the point which is what I go on about… here I am about to go off again…)

New Hampshire Debate

There was another GOP debate on Fox last night. Initial reports are that the moderators were attempting to skew the questions and format against Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul rose to the occasion, and won the text messaging poll afterwards. Fox tried to downplay the results saying that they were messed with, despite the fact it was impossible to vote twice, meaning every vote that Ron Paul got came from different phones. It also appearers that a great many of the advertisers were banks, who would naturally oppose Ron Paul. No doubt it was rude of Guiliani to laugh on mic every time Ron Paul spoke, and feed the lie about Iran to hold up the upcoming war with Iran. If the vast majority of American’s knew the truth of the war, the pending war with Iran, and all that jazz… then again, I think that most people prefer to be ignorant of the truth… they want to believe the lie, they want to believe what the mass media and the government tells them, owning up to the truth would mean taking responsibility and taking action, and the government, the education system and media have spent years conditioning people against taking responsibility, to accept the status quo. They get people focused on small issue rather then the bigger issues which if solved would resolve the smaller issues.

What Candidates are in the CFR

One of the most dangerous organizations to US sovereignty is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), who is out to create a North American Union in the style of the European Union. The Daily Paul has posted a list of who are members of the CFR from both major parties.
The Democrat CFR Members:
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd, Bill Richardson
The Republican CFR Members
Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson

Notably absent from the list, Ron Paul on the Republican side and Dennis Kucinich on the Democrat side. All the others on the list want to remove US sovereignty.

Ron Paul Places Third in Texas Straw Poll

I saw over at Daily Paul that Ron Paul placed 3rd in the Texas Straw Poll.
Seeing how the party did their best to keep him from being able to get any votes at all, this is a truly amazing victory.
Third place puts him well ahead of Giuliani and Romney, the media’s favorites. Duncan Hunter finished first, with fast rising Fred Thompson in second and Dr. Paul pulling in close behind Thompson, then there is a huge gap to get to 4th place with Huckabee and down from there.
Reports are that the convention was overtly Christian Far Right Wing and very Pro-War (how those two are together is a bit of a mystery since none of these wars involve anything for which the Bible says that a nation should defend or protect, meaning it falls under the killing without cause, aka, murder a violation of one of the ten commandments, but whatever). Seeing that Ron Paul is a very strong anti-war candidate (he and Kucinich are the only two true anti-war candidates in either party), for him to get such a strong result at a very pro-war rally, which again, tried to keep delegates who might vote for him out, is amazing. Had they opened the poll up more like most other states, I have little doubt he would have won hands down…

16.7% Ron Paul (217 votes)
41.1% Duncan Hunter (534 votes)
20.5% Fred Thompson (266 votes)
6.4% Mike Huckabee (83 votes)
6% Rudy Giuliani (78 votes)
4.7% Mitt Romney (61 votes)
.46% Sam Brownback (6 votes)
.62% John McCain (8 votes)
.46% Tom Tancredo (6 votes)
2.2% Ray McKinney (28 votes)
.23% Hugh Cort (3 votes)
.77% John Cox (10 votes)

Parental Consent Act of 2007

There is a very important bill before Congress that I urge you to tell your Representative to get behind right now. The Parental Consent Act of 2007, would explicitly “prohibit the use of Federal funds for any universal or mandatory mental health screening program.”
The bill is in response to TeenScreen, which until recently was screening kids for mental health issues with a short (generally 10 minute) test, to see if a kid is suicidal. If the test decided they were at risk, they would be referred to further evaluation where if the parent refused or refused to allow them to be drugged, they would be threatened with child abuse violations. The program is overseen by advisers to the drug companies and is an obvious ploy to medicate more kids and sell more drugs. Recall that the drug companies, on a per dollar basis, makes more than twice what even the oil companies make, only banks make more. Until recently the program would test kids with passive consent, that is they tested every child, unless specifically told by the parent or guardian they were not allowed, of course what the parent doesn’t know… Recently it was changed so that specific consent was required, at least in most public schools. However we need a law to prevent them from rolling it back or other such laws coming forward. The false positive rate of TeenScreen is 84%, meaning there are 84 false positives for every 16 real hits, this is worse then the drug screen rate (which is far higher then the industry will publicly admit, but what do they care if millions of lives are ruined by false positives meaning those people can’t get jobs, it means even more money for them, and the government doesn’t care as it means those people can’t work putting them on government rolls and dependent on the government). Can we take serious any test that has an 84% false positive rate? So we put these kids on antidepressants who are not depressed and suicidal, the side effect of such drugs is suicidal thoughts according to the FDA… Where is the logic of this? Kids who took their own lives are 15 times more likely to have been on antidepressants, which even after you filter out those who were already likely to commit suicide is a very high number. I have to actually ask what is the point of an antidepressant if it increases suicidal thoughts according to the FDA? How does such a drug pass FDA standards?
How would you answer a question about if you ever feel nervous doing things in front of a large group of people? If you say yes, sorry you are neurotic, and need mental health help and drugged. According to TeenScreen anyhow. TeenScreen’s response is that the test is voluntary, which kind of side-steps the issue.
Oh, and we know how nice kids are to other kids. We know a kid falsely, or even positively labeled as mentally ill won’t get made fun of…
Continue reading Parental Consent Act of 2007

Did My First Ron Paul Meetup

I did my first Ron Paul Meetup today. I helped with setting up the Ron Paul booth at the Stark County fair. The main people seemed to mostly have things under control so my main contribution was holding the ladder steady at one point. However it was good meeting a few other Ron Paul supporters. Unfortunately I can’t help out at the booth itself this week, but perhaps Ari and I will swing into the fair some point this week and check it out. This upcoming Monday will be yet another Ron Paul Meetup, this one with another Meetup in the area.

You Can’t and Shouldn’t Legislate Morality Part 3

Following up part 1 and part 2 of this discussion let’s talk about Romans 13, which says to be subject to the government. It is this part of the bible that our government is pushing pastors to push on their people, and some pastors are doing it.
Here is the thing, would these pastors push people to support everything the government does and says if somebody other than Bush was in office? I doubt they did when Clinton was in office. Would they say support the government if it enacted Jus Primae Noctis (where the political leader got first rights to any bride ahead of the groom). Would they support Hitler? They don’t support the governments support on abortion or many state’s desire to support gay marriage, so they clearly have limits. Clearly if this was to be the case, then we should apologize to England and resubmit ourselves to English rule since if we take Romans 13 the way the Bush administration wants us to, then we were wrong to revolt against an unjust government.
Also, in context, this applies to good, Godly government. It is like the “wives obey your husband thing.” Yes it says that, but that doesn’t make her a slave to what the husband says, and it says in that same passage that the husband is to love his wife, which in principle means that he would never ask her to do anything she wouldn’t naturally do anyhow.
Besides, Bush is not the government. Our elected officials are not the government. Homeland Security is not the government. The IRS is not the government. The Constitution is our government, even from a Romans 13 perspective, and if we were to be subject to anything, that is what we would be subject to. Only one candidate stands for the Constitution, all the rest do not. Bush clearly does not stand for the Constitution.

Media Ignoring Rest of Straw Polls

Lew Rockwell notes that while the media had 4,800 articles about the Iowa straw poll which Romney bought his way to victory, there have been only 162 combined reports on all 5 polls in which Ron Paul won, only Fred Thompson has won more.
Taking things into more perspective, Ron Paul has placed in the top 3 in 16 polls, matched by Romney and nearly matched by Thompson. The media’s darling Giuliani has placed in the top 3 a total of 5 times, never in first himself, but 5 total times which Ron Paul placed first. Expect the media to ignore this trend since if Giuliani doesn’t get the nomination, they will push Romney or Thompson down our throat.
I’ll laugh when Ron Paul places very strongly at an actual primary, and the media will be at a loss to explain to the people how somebody they have been trying to make American’s forget about could do so well.