Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett made moves to appease birthers in his state this week, petitioning the state of Hawaii to confirm the existence of President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate, which the White House released last year.

In a radio interview with KFYI's Mike Broomhead, Bennett said he would consider keeping the president off the ballot if the state failed to answer his request. Bennett, who is preparing for a gubernatorial run in 2014, also denied being a birther himself, and said that his action was not a move to gain favor with fringe elements in Arizona. He claimed it was a standard response to pressure from over 1,200 Arizonans who had emailed him with concerns about the president's eligibility and the authenticity of his birth certificate.

The renewed focus on President Barack Obama’s controversial pastor is reviving the issue that neither presidential campaign wants to discuss directly: race.

But the differing reactions Thursday from Obama aides and Romney officials to revelations about a planned ad campaign linking Obama to Rev. Jeremiah Wright shows that Obama has more to gain than Romney if race enters the 2012 campaign.

Romney’s campaign, irritated at what they saw as a distraction from their economic assault on the president, quickly put out a statement from their campaign manager in response to The New York Times report. The campaign accused the Obama team of “running a campaign of character assassination” while distancing Romney from a GOP consultant’s proposal for a wealthy super PAC to launch the $10 million ad blitz.

Romney himself followed suit hours later, saying “I repudiate” the attack.

But if Boston saw a news cycle lost, Chicago found an opportunity to link Romney to the more hard-edged elements of conservatism. Read more:

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Thursday said that he disapproves of a Republican super PAC's plan to link President Barack Obama to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory comments, a tactic that had been used by some in 2008, but rejected by then-presidential candidate John McCain.

"I want to make it very clear: I repudiate that effort," Romney told reporters in Florida, repeating a claim that he made in an earlier interview. "I think it's the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign."

But Romney also alleged that the Obama campaign was leading the charge with negative attacks.

"Having a campaign focused on character assassination is one thing I find offensive among many others," he said.

A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.

Ameritrade chairman and founder Joe Ricketts -------------->
[2005 file photo, abcnews.go.com]

Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.

The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.

“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Read more;

WASHINGTON -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday slammed House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for sparking another potential showdown over tying an increase in the debt ceiling to trillions in spending cuts. "They did it before. Here we go again," Pelosi told reporters during her weekly briefing. "To toss this into the mix right now, saying we have to have cuts that exceed ... the extent that we lift the debt ceiling is really immature. Irresponsible. Let's get serious," she said. Boehner made waves earlier this week when he said he will "insist" that matching spending cuts be linked to raising the debt limit when it hits its cap late this year or early next year. When Republicans made the same demand last year, the U.S. nearly defaulted on its debt for the first time in history and the country's sterling Standard & Poor's credit rating got downgraded. Thousands of federal workers were also kept on edge for months as they waited to see whether they would be paid in the event of a default. Congress ultimately raised the debt ceiling, at the last minute, and reduced the deficit by $2.1 trillion.

The Republican Party is the real party of American women. And women have played a huge role in our party’s success. We have a dynamic group of 24 women in the House, including a record nine freshmen. Four of the six women governors today are Republicans. We’re also the only party in the past 25 years to nominate a woman for vice president.

American women have a right to be self-confident, and we have a right to be suspicious of politicians who say we should be dependent on government programs. We, the House Republican women, will continue to advocate for the positive solutions that women want — and America needs.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76340_Page2.html#ixzz1v8bZDMF9

President Barack Obama's campaign on Thursday took aim at a recent attack ad released by Karl Rove-backed group Crossroads GPS, calling its claims "B.S."

In a 3-minute-long web video, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter provides "the facts" to debunk the ad's jabs at what it says are Obama's failed campaign promises.

"Karl Rove's group Crossroads is spending $25 million from secret donors to tear down the president in a new ad," Cutter says. "Time to tear this thing apart."

UPDATE 7:51 PM CDT: Ed Schultz reporting on MSNBC that Walker is outspending Barrett 25-1, and polling shows that 39% of union members are backing Walker. 

---------------------------

Read the linked story in conjunction with the following comments and answer the question: Are the Dems blowing it?

Just a couple days ago a story surfaced about Wis. Dems ticked off at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for failing to provide $500,000 in funds for the recall effort against Gov. Scott Walker.

Now...this poll. 

For weeks, Scott Walker has been running all over the country raising millions of dollars from billionaire benefactors who now have the blessing of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns, and even anonymously if done through PACs.  With some $25 million collected, according to one report, Walker's been able to blanket the airwaves with little response from Democrats. 

Walker has something like 10-20 times more funds than Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who emerged as the successful Democratic nominee in the May primary.

As for organized labor, some of the larger unions expended substantial energy and money promoting Barrett's leading challenger in the primary, former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk.  Those unions came out early for Falk before knowing who all the other candidates would be, which has been a bone of contention among some union members. 

According the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, union PACs spent $4 million supporting Falk. Now Barrett's campaign is hurting for cash... and Walker is running rampant... and the DNC is sitting on its money.

What's going on?  Join the discussion below...

WASHINGTON — Democrats controlling the Senate rejected for the second year in a row Wednesday a budget plan passed by House Republicans.

The 58-41 vote against the GOP budget came after a daylong debate in which Democrats blasted Republicans for refusing to consider tax increases as part of a solution to trillion-dollar deficits, and Republicans in turn attacked Democrats for not offering a budget at all.

Republicans launched the debate, which was aimed less at successfully passing a bill than highlighting the failure of Senate Democrats to deal with a budget deficit expected to top $1 trillion for the fourth consecutive year.

In a letter to Citizens United supporters, Mike Huckabee made clear his feelings about President Barack Obama. Commenting about how he doesn't trust the president, he went on to say that Obama has surrounded himself with "morally repugnant political whores with misshapen values and gutter-level ethics."

Said Huckabee:

Listen, you're a person of faith and so am I. In his administration and now on his re-election campaign, President Obama has surrounded himself with morally repugnant political whores with misshapen values and gutter-level ethics.

Breitbart.com editor John Nolte is calling for right wingers to harass, stalk, and bully liberals on Twitter, and in typical Breitbart megalomaniac fashion, Nolte calls this “The Battle for America on Twitter.”

Just in case you had been suffering delusions that the Republicans have improved on basic arithmetic or responsible governance, House Speaker John Boehner and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney on Tuesday made sure to disabuse you of that notion. As both men pandered to the base on deficit reduction while foreswearing tax increases, they reinforced the central Republican narrative of our age: Somebody else can pay for the mess we made. Somebody -- as in those losers who can't afford memberships at our golf club.

Boehner delivered that message in a warning that he would again engage in brinksmanship later this year when Congress and the White House return to negotiations over lifting the debt ceiling and extending the tax cuts George W. Bush bestowed on wealthy Americans. You will surely recall how the last such negotiations went down: Boehner and his fellow Republicans held to threats not to go along without draconian spending cuts -- a line they maintained so rigidly that they convinced much of the planet that we Americans had lost our minds along with our calculators, leading to Uncle Sam's credit rating getting dinged.

Reporters covering Mitt Romney's campaign sent out a volley of tweets on Wednesday, complaining that they had been prevented from asking the presumptive Republican nominee questions at an event in Florida.

Trouble between the campaign and the press apparently started at the beginning of the day. Sara Murray, a Wall Street Journal reporter, tweeted that journalists had been told they would not be asking any questions of Romney. "Isn't that our decision?" a reporter asked.

Lots of people agree that our government is currently bogged down in a morass of dysfunction that's so disastrous that it's basically criminal. And I do not use that word lightly.

People who hold other people hostage are criminals, and the elected criminals came very close to murdering the entire global economy when they took the debt ceiling hostage. And if you recall, the deal that was crafted to avoid that mess involved the creation of a Super Committee that was tasked with creating a package of spending cuts and revenue adds to bring budgetary discipline to Congress. They needed a supermajority to agree on a plan. And they failed.

Republican Mississippi state Rep. Bubba Carpenter recently gave a callous assessment of a state anti-abortion law that critics have cautioned could close down the state's only abortion clinic.

Abortion rights advocates have protested the measure, claiming that the shuttering of the facility -- brought on by potentially overwhelming certification requirements for practicing physicians -- could force women to turn to dangerous alternatives. This prospect didn't seem to concern Carpenter.

"The appearance of a Republican party almost entirely composed of ideological conservatives is a new and historically unprecedented development. It is only in the last decade or so that 'movement conservatism' finally succeeded in silencing, co-opting, repelling, or expelling nearly every competing strain of Republicanism from the party."

[The reaction President Barack Obama received from the audience at Barnard College on Monday] represents a telling contrast from the one his opponent, Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, received Saturday when he delivered the commencement address at the evangelical Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va. Both schools are representative of each man's political base - for Obama, college-educated women and youths, for Romney, socially conservative Christians.

But while Obama's reaction was enthusiastic, Romney's reception felt polite. The president's speech rallied supporters already dedicated to his cause; Romney simply tendered a peace treaty to men and women who view him warily. Some students at Liberty, after all, were worried the GOP's putative nominee would be booed.

...That difference in tone between the two events might be indicative of how each base feels about their respective standard-bearer. Obama, after a first term plagued by criticism from what former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called "the professional left," has consolidated his base. Liberals have closed ranks in large part thanks in large part to a newly populist economic pitch, a GOP primary that presented a clear contrast between Obama and the GOP, and, most recently, his support of gay marriage.

Romney, in contrast, still has to approach the Republican Party's social conservatives gingerly, careful not to veer too sharply to the middle lest he incur their wrath. Note how he's equivocated on the issue of gay parents adopting children.

Following President Barack Obama's public announcement backing gay marriage last week, Newsweek magazine has featured him on its front cover with the headline, "The First Gay President."

With Obama's face pictured looking skyward and a rainbow-colored halo above his head, the controversial cover leads to a story written by gay writer Andrew Sullivan -- a self-described political conservative -- who analyzes the president's backing of gay marriage.

Obama said Wednesday he supported gay marriage, reversing his position on a controversial social issue just six months before the November election and adopting a stance fraught with uncertain political implications.

The president said that after years of lengthy discussions with friends and family, including his wife and two young daughters, he now "personally" believes gays and lesbians should have the right to marry. Read more:

As Washington’s tea party class endeavors to rekindle the movement’s magic, this month’s Texas Republican Senate primary stands as a crucial test of its strength and influence.

The effort might backfire in Nebraska, where GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Rand Paul (Ky.) and conservative organizations including the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks have been stumping for state Treasurer Don Stenberg in Tuesday’s three-way GOP Senate primary. Stenberg could finish dead last, his standing with voters diminished by the barrage of negative television ads that the supportive, Washington-based tea-party-affiliated groups and Members have run against his opponents. 

CICERO, N.Y. —Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) is exasperated as she concludes her opening remarks and reaches for a piece of paper on the podium.

“I don’t know who was handing out this literature,” she says, “but I think we’ve got to talk about this a little bit.”

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Voters "like" Barack Obama more than they "like" Mitt Romney - and that might be all it takes to decide the outcome of the election.

A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows 60% of registered voters say that President Obama is likable. That's nearly double the 31% who feel that way about Romney.

Even among crucial independent voters, the president holds a double-digit edge.

So despite the fact polls show Romney and President Obama in a dead heat both nationally and in key battleground states - Mitt Romney is facing a huge likability gap here.

And it could cost him.

Consider this: In each of the last five presidential elections, the candidate the voters "liked" the most won.

When you put all the other issues aside, a lot of people vote for the guy who does a better job connecting with them on a personal level.

In 2004, polls famously showed undecided voters would rather have a beer with George W. Bush than John Kerry; and swing voters found Bush to be more of a "real person" than Kerry.

As for Romney, pollsters say this likability deficit presents a challenge for his campaign as it tries to shape his image.

They can either work on making voters see Romney as more likable or they can give up on likability and try to emphasize other areas where Romney is stronger than President Obama.

For now it doesn't look like Romney is hurting too badly on this issue since he's neck-and-neck with the president.

But he might be doing even better if he hadn't tied his dog to the roof of his car.

So, how much does it matter if you like a candidate for president?

[Visit The Cafferty File]

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott's chief of staff has abruptly resigned amid news stories examining his job performance and handling of contracts.

Steve MacNamara wrote in a resignation letter Saturday that he would step down July 1. He wrote that "recent media attention I have been receiving has begun to interfere with the day-to-day operations of this office."

The Associated Press recently reported that while working for the state Senate, MacNamara helped steer a $360,000 no-bid consulting contract to a friend who now leads a task force rooting out state government waste.

PHOENIX, May 13 (UPI) -- Diehard Ron Paul  supporters were having none of the Mitt  Romney campaigns calls for party unity at the Arizona Republican Convention  this weekend.

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s recent declaration that Russia is America’s top geopolitical adversary drew raised eyebrows and worse from many Democrats, some Republicans and the Russians themselves, all of whom suggested that Mr. Romney was misguidedly stuck in a cold war mind-set.       

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivers the commencement address to the graduating class of Liberty University, the world's largest Christian university, telling them that marriage is between "one man and one woman".

...

The Lynchburg, Virginia, school, founded by the late television evangelist Jerry Falwell, is a bastion for conservative Christian thought. Its theology students are taught that Mormonism - Mr Romney's religion - is a cult.

But Mr Romney seized the opportunity to try to show evangelicals that he and they have much in common, and carefully avoided talking about his own faith. Instead, Mr Romney appealed to the "free exercise of religious faith" as a cherished American value.

"Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government," said Mr Romney. "But from the beginning, this nation has trusted in God, not man."

Here's a link to the full transcript of Romney's speech, and here's a link to a video of the full commencement address.

Many folks on the Vine are comfortable with the claim that the likely Republican candidate will be working hard and furiously for the 1%.  It doesn't take a lot to realize that the same is also true of the Obama Administration.   While one can make excuses for Obama, the fact is that he continued the tax cuts for the rich, has done what he could do to keep the military-industrial complex producing weapons and profits, bailed out the banksters, failed to push for a serious jobs program, did not push for the public option (inexpensive medical insurance for all Americans), did insist that health care be funded through private corporations, escalated the Afghan war, did not want to pull all US troops out of Iraq, and has overseen three years that gave the wealthy greater profits than they secured during all either years of Bush II.

My point is not to criticize Obama: he's doing a great job at duping a lot of people into thinking he offers a meaningful and substantial alternative to the Republicans when, in fact, he doesn't.

My point is only to show that our so-called democracy is dominated by two-parties that in fact represent, work for, and provide cover for the 1%.  It is the 1% that benefits--not the rest of us in the 99%.  This explains the OWS movement and its amazing energy.  Despite the fact that police, undercover agents, and the media are doing what they can to undermine and mischaracterize that movement, the OWS movement is alive and well.  For this all Americans should be grateful. This is, in the US today, the only grassroots movement that can capture the public imagination and force a dialogue about the welfare of the 99%.   Obama pretends he's for the 99% and Romney will do the same.  

For those who are uncertain about the term 'duopoly' here's a definition and its application to American politics:

A true duopoly (from Greek duo δύο (two) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) is a specific type of oligopoly where only two producers exist in one market. In reality, this definition is generally used where only two firms have dominant control over a market. In American politics, the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated and framed policy debate as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half.  Both parties have manipulated and governed on behalf of the 1%.  Whether the president is a Republican like Bush I, Bush II, or possibly Romney--or a Democrat like Clinton or Obama--the policies of these presidents and their cabinets and staffs further the interests, wealth, and power of the 1%.  These two parties, and their various figureheads, are like the necks and heads of a multi-headed serpent and  the two parties basically run our so-called "democracy."  

I welcome anyone who wants to argue that this is not a Duopoly.  Meanwhile, for those who do see the reality of this characterization of American politics, and even for those who do not, I invite you to join the Duopoly group.

Newt Gingrich will campaign for Mitt Romney at next week's Georgia state GOP convention, CNN reports.

After dragging out the final days of his 2012 bid, Gingrich finally suspended his presidential campaign May 2. Though it was reported he would embrace Romney's candidacy as he suspended his campaign, Gingrich delayed making an outright endorsement.

My friends over at Americans Against the Tea Party put it best when they said, “What does it say about a movement whose brightest “stars” are the dimmest bulbs?” It says, laugh at them, pity them, but if you want to live in a modern nation of laws which evolves with the rest of the globe, for Heaven’s sake, DON’T look to them for ideas on how to operate a functioning society, since the only thing conservatives have been successful at is proving that everything they stand for is wrong.

Let’s imagine this scenario: You have an uncle…a loud, opinionated, uncle who’s thinly veiled racism and misogyny is only superseded by his not-so-thinly veiled hatred of gays. He says he’s a Christian, but never misses the opportunity to cheer for war and bloviate proudly about how merciless he is. He fights anything that has a hint of challenging his perceived position in the straight/white/male catbird seat, even if that seat came from the fact that the Liberals he hates fought for the Social Security, Medicare, etc. that allows him to live in dignity. He regales you with factually incorrect tales of American history, despite having never read a book in his life. He disdains “intellectuals,” and perceives science as a “liberal plot.” For as far back as you remember – and as far back as the family tree goes – he has been wrong about everything.

Wis. GOP Gov. Scott Walker has been riding high with about $25 million collected (mostly from out of state) to fend off his recall.  For weeks he had the luxury of blanketing the state with TV ads that have gone pretty much unchallenged.  But now that Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has won the Democratic primary, the race is on.  He came out swinging in his May 8 primary election speech, and he's calling Walker out on everything from union busting to job losses.  

The smackdown was just the beginning of what's shaping up to be a really bad time for our Imperial Walker, which could culminate in his Total Recall on June 5.  MSNBC's Ed Schultz will be broadcasting live from Madison on election night.  Watch this breathtaking example of democracy in action.

In the News...............................

 Wisconsin turns against Scott Walker

In the new Marquette University Law School Poll, disapproval of the governor’s performance had moved up to 51 percent. Indeed, his approval rating has now declined to 47 percent, the lowest point so far this year. And one of the prospective Democratic challengers, Tom Barrett, has now moved ahead of Walker in head-to-head matchups run by the Marquette pollsters.

In film, Walker talks of 'divide and conquer' union strategy

"Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -"

"Oh, yeah," Walker broke in.

"- and become a right-to-work?" Hendricks continued. "What can we do to help you?"

"Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill," Walker said. "The first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer."  

Scott Walker Using $100 Million Of Taxpayer Money To Fight Off Recall?

In the effort to move withering public opinion in his direction, the Governor has embarked on a campaign strategy highly dependent upon finding someone else to blame for the poor economic performance of his state. In the process, Walker has resorted to committing a huge amount of taxpayer money to aid in his political survival, while mounting a campaign that—to anyone paying attention—only serves to highlight his own failures over the past decade.

 Walker's War Against Workers Spreads to the Private Sector

The machinists' St. Peters sees the anti-union campaign of Walker infiltrating the private sector. "It's definitely a playbook that's going on in Wiscon

sin right now," he said. "They have a new playbook and they're ready to use it.

"Scott Walker used some of the same rhetoric against unions and for 'free choice' that you're hearing now from company negotiators," said St. Peters.

Hard-hitting new spot highlights Walkergate scandal

The ad highlights the widening scope of the investigation and Walker's role in personally  hiring two of the key figures.

The Republican Party has alway been a party with a lot of bravado masking the fears that underline much of our society. This party has always been afraid to negotiate on the world stage preferring to force our nations will upon others, they have always been afraid to accept social change as they feared their power and way of life may be jeopardized, and they have always feared the future through science as it may be at odds with their religious beliefs. With that said, most Republicans of the past would at some point accept that change was inevitable and aqueous to reality. Nixon created the EPA, Reagan did negotiate strategic missile reductions and actually considered proposing all nuclear missle be eliminated, George Wallace in his later life even acknowledged he was wrong on civil rights and worked to rid his party of intolerance.

With the emergence of the Tea Party, the Religious Right of the party has formed an unholy marriage with them to try to consolidate a coalition to take over the Republican Party and so far are succeeding. The real question to be asked is why. The answer is simple, if you look at the root of their agenda, that answer is fear and cowardice.

There is a good reason why the religious right wish to deny science and promote GOD. This is because they are cowards. It is not being religious to hide behind GOD. Instead it is the fear of moving our society forward to where they may become irrlevant. Recent statements by many on the religious right to the effect they believe that the church should have the right to intervene in the state and that education is elitist is like hiding under the sheets. By denying science and using GOD as an excuse they can blame everything on GOD's will without ever having to accept responsibility. They do not want to be responsible for anyone other than themselves and are are afraid to take responsibility for the future let alone facing the future.

The whole premise of the Republican Party went from conservative to reactionary. Republicans need to face up, accept it, the world will not stand still or go backwards and like it or not, becoming innovative and moving forward is the only way to succeed. Republicans, especially the Tea Party wish to rewrite history to fit their needs. They are now denying the old testament, fighting against science, protecting the corporations and their own pockets to assure they can still wield power and influence because their belief systems in the world today can not stand up against reality.

The Republican Party has declared war on courage. The courage of those in our society to fight for the rights of all, believe in religious freedom, wish us to innovate and move forward, understand that we are a global community, and believe that change can be a good thing are all under assault from the Republican Party. My question is are there no longer any Republicans with an ounce of courage to tell the American People what is truly happening. Is there not one Republican willing to denounce the positions that the far right are forcing their party to take. Is there not one Republican who has not sold their soul to the far right? No matter how extreme the statements being made by the far right, not one Republican will come out and just say what we all know that those statements are just plain wrong and do not reflect what we are as a nation. Could just one Republican show a little courage? Guess not because they are all cowards.

When you have T. Boone Pickens calling the Koch Brothers evil, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others warning us of the inequalities that the Republicans are pushing, do you not think it is time to sit up and listen? When womens rights are being assaulted in just about every state, do you not think a battle is being waged? When voting ID laws akin to Jim Crow laws are being pressed, do you not think that white males are trying to hold on to power? When Newt Gingrich and others in the Republican Party are saying that the Supreme Court needs to be pistol whipped if they do not like their decisions, do you not think the far right is not trying to take control of our government? When the far right cannot tolerate gays even in the Romney campaign staff, call our President a Muslim, call our democratic colleagues communists, do you not think they are at war with us? When the far right is having our text books re-written eliminating anything that does not match their religious views and adding in Christian beliefs instead of science, do you not believe that this is not the same as burning books like in Nazi Germany to hide the truth? When the GOP is pushing gun rights and the right to carry guns even in our schools, do you not think they are arming themselves for a revolution? When the right declares that corporations are people and are giving tax cuts to the rich while trying to have you pay more, do you not think they are not trying to disarm you in this war? When the right is saying that the states should be deciding our fate, do you not see they are trying to get rid of the Federal Governments ability to control their reactionary agenda? When Republicans like Olympia Snow and others that are being pushed out of the Republican Party because they are considered to moderate, do you not think a purge of any voices of reason within the Republican Party are being systematically eliminated?

Does not all of the above indicate that the GOP is just plain cowards when it comes to facing the future? The Republican Party has declared war on anyone with the courage to stand up for what is right. So to the Republican Party I only have this to say: "Let's Get It On." It is time for you to find a hole to crawl into because America, our America, is ready to burry you in this fight and assure until you can find that one ounce of courage to do the right thing, that you are irrelevant.

T1Truth

Madison - A filmmaker released a video Thursday that shows Gov. Scott Walker saying he would use "divide and conquer" as a strategy against unions.

Walker made the comments to Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks, who has since given $510,000 to the governor's campaign - making her Walker's single-largest donor and the largest known donor to a candidate in state history.

The filmmaker has done work on Democratic campaigns and gave $100 in 2010 to Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Walker's challenger in the June 5 recall election.

In the video shot on Jan. 18, 2011 - shortly before Walker's controversial budget-repair bill was introduced and spawned mass protests - Hendricks asked the governor whether he could make Wisconsin a "completely red state, and work on these unions, and become a right-to-work" state. The Republican donor was referring to right-to-work laws, which prohibit private-sector unions from compelling workers to pay union dues if the workers choose not to belong to the union.

ABC News' Robin Roberts: Mitt Romney just said that he deserves credit for the revival of the U.S. auto industry.

President Obama: (Laughs.)

Roberts: How do you respond to that?

The President: Well, you know I think this is one of those Etch-A-Sketch moments. I don't think anybody takes that seriously. People remember his position which was "let's let Detroit go bankrupt." So, had we followed his advice, at that time, GM and Chrysler would have gone under, and we would have lost probably a million jobs throughout the Midwest.

Reuters) - President Barack Obama threatened on Wednesday to veto a Republican bill that would partially replace looming automatic budget cuts and protect military spending at the expense of food stamps and other social programs. 

The White House said in a statement that the cuts proposed by Republicans would "cost jobs and hurt middle-class and vulnerable Americans - especially seniors, veterans and children."

 

"The bill's unbalanced provisions fail the test of fairness and shared responsibility," the White House added.

 

The veto threat escalates one of several new budget battles that have broken out this spring in Washington.

The automatic cuts, about $1.2 trillion over 10 years, were set in motion by last summer's debt-limit deal, after a congressional panel failed to specify further deficit-reduction measures. Unless Congress takes action to stop them, the across-the-board cuts are scheduled to hit in January.

Jesse Lee Peterson, the controversial conservative preacher and regular guest of Sean Hannity, said in a recent video it was a mistake to allow women the right to vote.

In a video uploaded in March but publicized this Monday by Raw Story, Peterson, who runs an organization calling for Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), said that allowing women to vote puts the United States "on a pathway to destruction."

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has a theory about the super-rich: They just want to be loved.

"If you're really, really rich, an additional dollar, an additional hundred million dollars doesn't matter too much for you. But feeling that you are being respected -- it matters a lot," the Princeton professor and New York Times columnist, said in an interview with Reuters on Monday.

WASHINGTON — The battle over President Obama's plan to keep interest rates low on federal student loans escalated Tuesday as Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic proposal to tax higher-income individuals to pay for it.

Jihad is a term meaning: "A religious war with those who are unbelievers of your faith to advance the agenda of your religion. Last week we published and article outlining our case that the Right Wing of the Republican Party had declared war on the rest of the nation. (This is War - My Liberal Friends Are Pissing Me Off) If you read that article or not, we thought we would provide some statements from the far right to back up our assertion that the far right has declared an all out war or Jihad on the rest of America.

The quotes below are just a small sampling of thousands of quotes available from the right wing. I would dare anyone to read these and other quotes and come to any other conclusion than the far right has declared all out war for this coming election year.

Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel."

"This is God's world, not Satan's. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians."

"So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a
generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Gary Potter of Catholics for Christian Political Action

"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no atanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no
more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."

Pat Robertson (Founder of The Christian Coalition)

”Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same
thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians.

Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history."

"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore."

Rick Santorum

It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion and now we're just extending it out."

Anne Coulter (Conservative Author)

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"

Robert T. Lee (Society for the Practical Establishment of the Ten Commandments)

"There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America."

AMERICA'S CONSTITUTION PRODUCES HOMOSEXUALITY!"

David Barton of Wallbuilders

"There should be absolutely no 'Separation of Church and State' in America."

Gary Bauer (President of American Values)

"We are engaged in a social, political, and cultural war. There's a lot of talk in America about pluralism. But the bottom line is somebody's values will prevail. And the winner gets the right to teach our children what to believe."

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin

“George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the United States, he was appointed by God.”

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"We're fighting against humanism, we're fighting against liberalism...we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today...our battle is with Satan himself."

Dr. D. James Kennedy (Founder of The Center for Reclaiming America)

"Democracy originated in the mind of a rational being who has the deepest hatred for God."

"The Christian community has a golden opportunity to train an army of dedicated teachers who can invade the public school classrooms and use them to influence the nation for Christ."

"The best way to insure the earth is never over populated is for sensible and righteous governments to clear all forms of atheism and heresy."

"Raising your children under Americanism or any other principles other than true Christianity is child abuse."

Joseph McCarthy

"Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between Communistic Atheism and Christianity."

Henry Morris of the Institute
for Creation Research”

“The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis
1-11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or
chronologic problems thereby entailed."

Kay O'Connor (State Senator, R-Kansas)

"I'm an old-fashioned woman. Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women today, we wouldn't have to vote."y O'Connor (State Senator, R-Kansas)

Star Parker of the Coalition on Urban Renewal & Education

"Anybody that believes in separation of church and state needs to leave right now."

Now do you believe this is War?

T1Truth

This afternoon at a town hall in Cleveland, Ohio, Mitt Romney took a question about the Constitution from a supporter who said she believed that President Obama was "operating outside the Constitution" and "should be tried for treason."

Instead of challenging the absurd notion that President Obama should be tried for treason, Romney delivered a word salad about how he personally loved the Constitution and then invited the woman to explain in more detail what she meant.

The woman proceeded to spout references to Executive Orders, including one that she said involved the Secret Service restricting the rights of citizens to protest.

Romney, who is protected by a detail of Secret Service agents, said "I will be happy to look at what he has done about the Secret Service with respect to protests."

WASHINGTON -- Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, the political ad-buying organization cofounded by Republican strategist Karl Rove in 2010, has officially submitted its first tax forms with the Internal Revenue Service, and as expected, the group is formally requesting that the IRS treat it as a nonprofit operating under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code.

Huzzah! Following in the footsteps of Avenging Angel, who has done yeoman's work in exposing the stinking pile of mendacious horse manure that is Mitt Romney, I have been working to gather all of Willard's grotesque falsehoods into one central blog. I don't carry advertising on it, and I have not "monetized" it in any way. It's strictly a labor of love/hate. It can be found here. You see, I loathe and despise liars. I'm  60. I've been following politics since I was 12 (yes, a misspent youth).  I vividly remember such world-class prevaricators as Richard Nixon. But for the life of me, I have never seen a more brazen liar than Romney running for president in my entire life. By God, I won't stand for it, not without a fight. Hey, I'm just one little person. But just as a few hundred thousand small fires can make a conflagration, a few hundred thousand dedicated truth-tellers can out Mitt Romney for the lying, unprincipled, morally bankrupt sociopath that he is. So, with this conviction in mind, here are Romney's lies all exposed:

We all know what conservatives/Republicans are like. It’s just unfortunate that they don’t know it themselves. And if they do, that’s just sad. Many things have been said about conservatives, Republicans, and conservatism. Most of it, of course, is bad but true. Humorists, politicians, writers, journalists, comedians, and even US Presidents have left us with many quotes about the right wing. Here are just 33 of them. If you’re a liberal, these are well worth book marking. If you’re a conservative, the truth hurts, doesn’t it?

1. “Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
~Barry Goldwater

WASHINGTON -- A retired Indiana state trooper has asked the Securities Exchange Commission to investigate whether state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, a candidate for Senate, broke pay-to-play rules in offering a contract to manage police pension money while he was raising campaign cash from Wall Street.

Mitt Romney: "The President’s a nice guy, but he’s never had a job in the private sector."

But as Politicker pointed out:

It’s impossible to question Mr. Romney’s bonafides as a businessman, but we’re rather dubious of his claim President Obama has never held a private sectory job. For example, in 2001, the future president witnessed the 9/11 attacks from his offices at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland. That sounds like a private sector job to us.

Yes, that job was in the private sector, and President Obama worked there for 12 years. In addition, at least three of the jobs he held as a young man were in the private sector: his first job after obtaining his bachelor's degree was at Business International Corporation and he held summer jobs at Sidney Austin, LLP and at Hopkins & Sutter.

So, I think we have to call this latest Romney claim another lie inaccurate.

WASHINGTON -- The House Republican version of the new Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would dramatically rollback confidentiality protections for abused immigrant women, make it more difficult for undocumented witnesses to work with law enforcement officials, and eliminate a pathway to citizenship for witnesses who cooperate with police on criminal cases.

The provisions are tucked into a bill that reauthorizes the act, and have received scant media attention. But the legislation is picking up steam in the House. The bill, officially sponsored by freshman Rep. Sandy Adams (R-Fla.), has the backing of the full House leadership, and is headed for a vote in the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act is typically a bipartisan affair lacking in contention. This year, however, Republicans are pressing for significant changes that would weaken protections for victims of domestic violence, arguing that the current law is being taken advantage of by undocumented immigrants looking for legal citizenship.

I am sure this article will make some feel uncomfortable on both sides of the isle much like the article we published yesterday. (This is War - My Libral Friends are Pissing Me Off) If it does make you uncomfortable, it should as these stakes are high and should not be taken lightly. There is much at stake here and our government is at siege. The question this article poses is if the Americans For Tax Reform Pledge could be forcing our Law Makers to commit Treason from their blind obedience to the pledge. Please remember as you read the following that our nation is at war and has been so for over a decade, that these wars were unfunded, that the near financial collapse of our nation could have compromised our ability to effectively protect our citizens from both military and financial acts that could have weakened our nation, and that many things such as the Buffet Rule which has over a 70% approval rating of our citizens are being blocked. Remember that the Republicans held up the debt ceiling increase as has been done for many decades without question that resulted in a downgrade of Americas credit rating. And remember that the Republicans are continue to put their pledge ahead of their oath, citizens, and best interest of the country.

The primary question here is if your lawmaker puts the Taxpayer Protection Pledge ahead of their oath of office, ahead of their citizens wishes, jeopardize our financial standings, put our citizens at undue peril, risk, and well being, while we are at war, are they or are they not committing a treasonous act. Even if the answer is no at this time we believe the Tax Pledge could in fact cause them to do so and that all of our politicians in order to garner another single vote should be forced to renounce their pledge.

Below are some definitions that you may find useful and a list of all the current members of the Senate and House who have taken the pledge. (Listed by state) Please let us know in the poll above if you would vote for anyone who have signed this pledge without disavowing it.

Here is the oath that your legislators take upon taking office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Here is the pledge that many have taken in order to get elected or to maintain their office:

Taxpayer Protection Pledge

I, _____, pledge to the taxpayers of the (____district of the) state of _____— and to the American people that I will: ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

Definition of Treason Under the Constitution:

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfot has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

Definition of Subversive:

Seeking or intended to subvert an established system or institution.

236* Representatives and 41 Senators Have Signed the Pledge. Their Names and States Are Listeded Below 

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge Signers 112th Congressional List

ALABAMA

AL-Sen Jeff Sessions (R)

AL-Sen Richard Shelby (R)

AL-01 Jo Bonner (R)

AL-02 Martha Roby (R)

AL-03 Mike Rogers (R)

AL-04 Robert Aderholt (R)

AL-05 Mo Brooks (R)

AL-06 Spencer Bachus (R)

ALASKA

AK-Sen Lisa Murkowski (I)*

AK-AL Don Young (R)

ARIZONA

AZ-Sen Jon Kyl (R)

AZ-Sen John McCain (R)

AZ-01 Paul Gosar (R)

AZ-02 Trent Franks (R)

AZ-03 Ben Quayle (R)

AZ-05 David Schweikert (R)

AZ-06 Jeff Flake (R)

ARKANSAS

AR-Sen John Boozman (R)

AR-01 Rick Crawford (R)

AR-02 Tim Griffin (R)

AR-03 Steve Womack (R)

CALIFORNIA

CA-02 Wally Herger (R)

CA-03 Dan Lungren (R)

CA-04 Tom McClintock (R)

CA-19 Jeff Denham (R)

CA-21 Devin Nunes (R)

CA-22 Kevin McCarthy (R)

CA-24 Elton Gallegly (R)

CA-25 Buck McKeon (R)

CA-26 David Dreier (R)

CA-40 Ed Royce (R)

CA-41 Jerry Lewis (R)

CA-42 Gary Miller (R)

CA-44 Ken Calvert (R)

CA-45 Mary Bono Mack (R)

CA-46 Dana Rohrabacher (R)

CA-48 John Campbell (R)

CA-49 Darrell Issa (R)

CA-50 Brian Bilbray (R)

CA-52 Duncan L. Hunter (R)

COLORADO

CO-03 Scott Tipton (R)

CO-04 Corey Gardner (R)

CO-05 Doug Lamborn (R)

CO-06 Mike Coffman (R)

FLORIDA

FL-Sen Marco Rubio (R)

FL-01 Jeff Miller (R)

FL-02 Steve Southerland (R)

FL-04 Ander Crenshaw (R)

FL-05 Richard Nugent (R)

FL-06 Cliff Stearns (R)

FL-07 John Mica (R)

FL-08 Daniel Webster (R)

FL-09 Gus Bilirakis (R)

FL-10 Bill Young (R)

FL-12 Dennis Ross (R)

FL-13 Vern Buchanan (R)

FL-14 Connie Mack (R)

FL-15 Bill Posey (R)

FL-16 Tom Rooney (R)

FL-18 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R)

FL-21 Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R)

FL-22 Allen West (R)

FL-24 Sandy Adams (R)

FL-25 David Rivera (R)

GEORGIA

GA-Sen Johnny Isakson (R)

GA-Sen Saxby Chambliss (R)

GA-01 Jack Kingston (R)

GA-03 Lynn Westmoreland (R)

GA-06 Tom Price (R)

GA-08 Austin Scott (R)

GA-09 Tom Graves (R)

GA-10 Paul Broun (R)

GA-11 Phil Gingrey (R)

IDAHO

ID-Sen Mike Crapo (R)

ID-Sen James Risch (R)

ID-01 Raul Labrador (R)

ID-02 Michael Simpson (R)

ILLINOIS

IL-Sen Mark Kirk (R)

IL-06 Peter Roskam (R)

IL-08 Joe Walsh (R)

IL-10 Robert Dold (R)

IL-11 Adam Kinzinger (R)

IL-13 Judy Biggert (R)

IL-14 Randy Hultgren (R)

IL-15 Tim Johnson (R)

IL-16 Don Manzullo (R)

IL-17 Bobby Schilling (R)

IL-18 Aaron Schock (R)

IL-19 John Shimkus (R)

INDIANA

IN-Sen Dan Coats (R)

IN-03 Marlin Stutzman (R)

IN-04 Todd Rokita (R)

IN-05 Dan Burton (R)

IN-06 Mike Pence (R)

IN-08 Larry Buschon (R)

IN-09 Todd Young (R)

IOWA

IA-04 Tom Latham (R)

IA-05 Steve King (R)

KANSAS

KS-Sen Jerry Moran (R)

KS-Sen Pat Roberts (R)

KS-01 Tim Huelskamp (R)

KS-02 Lynn Jenkins (R)

KS-04 Michael Pompeo (R)

KENTUCKY

KY-Sen Mitch McConnell (R)

KY-Sen Rand Paul (R)

KY-01 Ed Whitfield (R)

KY-02 Brett Guthrie (R)

KY-04 Geoff Davis (R)

KY-05 Hal Rogers (R)

KY-06 Ben Chandler (D)*

LOUISIANA

LA-Sen David Vitter (R)

LA-01 Steve Scalise (R)

LA-03 Jeffery Landry (R)

LA-04 John Fleming (R)

LA-05 Rodney Alexander (R)

LA-06 Bill Cassidy (R)

LA-07 Charles Boustany (R)

MARYLAND

MD-01 Andy Harris (R)

MD-06 Roscoe Bartlett (R)

MASSACHUSETTS

MA-Sen Scott Brown (R)

MICHIGAN

MI-01 Dan Benishek (R)

MI-02 Bill Huizenga (R)

MI-03 Justin Amash (R)

MI-04 Dave Camp (R)

MI-06 Fred Upton (R)

MI-07 Tim Walberg (R)

MI-08 Mike Rogers (R)

MI-10 Candice Miller (R)

MI-11 Thad McCotter (R)

MINNESOTA

MN-02 John Kline (R)

MN-03 Erik Paulsen (R)

MN-06 Michele Bachmann (R)

MN-08 Chip Cravaack (R)

MISSISSIPPI

MS-Sen Roger Wicker (R)

MS-01 Alan Nunnelee (R)

MS-03 Gregg Harper (R)

MS-04 Steven Palazzo (R)

MISSOURI

MO-Sen Roy Blunt (R)

MO-02 Todd Akin (R)

MO-04 Vicky Hartzler (R)

MO-06 Sam Graves (R)

MO-07 Billy Long (R)

MO-08 Jo Ann Emerson (R)

MO-09 Blaine Luetkemeyer (R)

MONTANA

MT-AL Dennis Rehberg (R)

NEBRASKA

NE-Sen Mike Johanns (R)

NE-Sen Ben Nelson (D)

NE-01 Jeff Fortenberry (R)

NE-02 Lee Terry (R)

NE-03 Adrian Smith (R)

NEVADA

NV-Sen Dean Heller (R)

NV-03 Joe Heck (R)

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NH-Sen Kelly Ayotte (R)

NH-01 Frank Guinta (R)

NH-02 Charlie Bass (R)

NEW JERSEY

NJ-01 Robert Andrews (D)

NJ-02 Frank LoBiondo (R)

NJ-03 Jon Runyan (R)

NJ-04 Chris Smith (R)

NJ-05 Scott Garrett (R)

NJ-07 Leonard Lance (R)

NJ-11 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R)

NEW MEXICO

NM-02 Steve Pearce (R)

NEW YORK

NY-03 Peter King (R)

NY-13 Michael Grimm (R)

NY-19 Nan Hayworth (R)

NY-20 Chris Gibson (R)

NY-25 Ann Marie Buerkle (R)

NY-29 Tom Reed (R)

NORTH CAROLINA

NC-Sen Richard Burr (R)

NC-02 Renee Ellmers (R)

NC-03 Walter Jones Jr. (R)

NC-05 Virginia Foxx (R)

NC-06 Howard Coble (R)

NC-09 Sue Myrick (R)

NC-10 Patrick McHenry (R)

NORTH DAKOTA

ND-AL Rick Berg (R)

OHIO

OH-Sen Rob Portman (R)

OH-01 Steve Chabot (R)

OH-02 Jean Schmidt (R)

OH-03 Mike Turner (R)

OH-04 Jim Jordan (R)

OH-05 Bob Latta (R)

OH-06 Bill Johnson (R)

OH-07 Steve Austria (R)

OH-08 John Boehner (R)

OH-12 Pat Tiberi (R)

OH-14 Steve LaTourette (R)

OH-15 Steve Stivers (R)

OH-16 James Renacci (R)

OH-18 Bob Gibbs (R)

OKLAHOMA

OK-Sen Tom Coburn (R)

OK-Sen Jim Inhofe (R)

OK-01 John Sullivan (R)

OK-03 Frank Lucas (R)

OK-04 Tom Cole (R)

OK-05 James Lankford (R)

OREGON

OR-02 Greg Walden (R)

PENNSYLVANIA

PA-Sen Pat Toomey (R)

PA-03 Mike Kelly (R)

PA-05 Glenn Thompson (R)

PA-06 Jim Gerlach (R)

PA-07 Pat Meehan (R)

PA-08 Michael Fitzpatrick (R)

PA-09 Bill Shuster (R)

PA-10 Thomas Marino (R)

PA-11 Lou Barletta (R)

PA-15 Charlie Dent (R)

PA-16 Joseph Pitts (R)

PA-18 Tim Murphy (R)

SOUTH CAROLINA

SC-Sen Jim DeMint (R)

SC-Sen Lindsey Graham (R)

SC-01 Tim Scott (R)

SC-02 Joe Wilson (R)

SC-03 Jeff Duncan (R)

SC-04 Trey Gowdy (R)

SC-05 Mick Mulvaney (R)

SOUTH DAKOTA

SD-Sen John Thune (R)

SD-AL Kristi Noem (R)

TENNESSEE

TN-Sen Bob Corker (R)

TN-Sen Lamar Alexander (R)

TN-01 Phil Roe (R)

TN-02 John Duncan (R)

TN-03 Chuck Fleischman (R)

TN-04 Scott DesJarlais (R)

TN-06 Diane Black (R)

TN-07 Marsha Blackburn (R)

TN-08 Stephen Fincher (R)

TEXAS

TX-Sen John Cornyn (R)

TX-Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)

TX-01 Louie Gohmert (R)

TX-02 Ted Poe (R)

TX-03 Sam Johnson (R)

TX-04 Ralph Hall (R)

TX-05 Jeb Hensarling (R)

TX-06 Joe Barton (R)

TX-07 John Culberson (R)

TX-08 Kevin Brady (R)

TX-10 Michael McCaul (R)

TX-11 Mike Conaway (R)

TX-12 Kay Granger (R)

TX-13 Mac Thornberry (R)

TX-14 Ron Paul (R)

TX-17 Bill Flores (R)

TX-19 Randy Neugebauer (R)

TX-21 Lamar Smith (R)

TX-22 Pete Olson (R)

TX-23 Francisco Canseco (R)

TX-24 Kenny Marchant (R)

TX-26 Michael Burgess (R)

TX-27 Blake Farenthold (R)

TX-31 John Carter (R)

TX-32 Pete Sessions (R)

UTAH

UT-Sen Michael Lee (R)

UT-Sen Orrin Hatch (R)

UT-01 Rob Bishop (R)

UT-03 Jason Chaffetz (R)

VIRGINIA

VA-02 Scott Rigell (R)

VA-04 Randy Forbes (R)

VA-05 Robert Hurt (R)

VA-06 Bob Goodlatte (R)

VA-07 Eric Cantor (R)

VA-09 H. Morgan Griffith (R)

WASHINGTON

WA-03 Jaime Herrera (R)

WA-04 Doc Hastings (R)

WA-05 Cathy McMorris (R)

WA-08 Dave Reichert (R)

WEST VIRGINIA

WV-01 David McKinley (R)

WV-02 Shelley Moore Capito (R)

WISCONSIN

WI-Sen Ron Johnson (R)

WI-01 Paul Ryan (R)

WI-05 Jim Sensenbrenner (R)

WI-06 Tom Petri (R)

WI-07 Sean Duffy (R)

WI-08 Reid Ribble (R)

WYOMING

WY-Sen Mike Enzi (R)

WY-AL Cynthia Lummis (R)

6 GOP U.S. House Non-Pledge Signers:

GA-07 Rob Woodall

PA-19 Todd Russell Platts

VA-01 Rob Wittman

VA-10 Frank Wolf

KS-03 Kevin Yoder

7 GOP U.S. Senate Pledge Non-Signers:

IN-Sen Richard Lugar

IA-Sen Charles Grassley

ME- Sen Olympia Snowe

ME- Sen Susan Collins

MS-Sen Thad Cochran

WY- Sen John Barrasso

ND-Sen John Hoeven

* One vacancy by Pledge signer in 112^th  

 NY-24 Richard Hanna

T1Truth

As the Presidential election is getting under way in earnest it is really starting to piss me off that Democrats do not, or cannot find a voice to just tell the truth. The truth is ugly, scary, and it is becoming bloody. It is however the truth and we need to start speaking in the stark and unfiltered truth to expose exactly what is going on, and the reasons for it.

From my perspective this is the real truth. The Republican Party has always been conservative in it's views, however it has moved from conservative to reactionary over the last 5 years. Why is this and what does it really mean?

In blatant terms it means that the Koch Brothers, the Religious Right, and other ultra conservatives have decided it is time to go all in. Just like in a poker game when you think you are either holding the winning hand or that you find yourself in a corner that demands that you bluff with all that you have to win the game, the Republican Party has put all their chips on the table and are playing to win or go bankrupt. What caused this? It is the fact that we elected a Black President and began to push an agenda of social fairness. They are so afraid that their domination of the nation by white males and corporations could be coming to an end that they feel they must fight a winner take all battle.

Make no mistake about this, this is a war that they are fully committed to winning at all costs. My liberal friends continue to skirt this ugly truth in article after article and news cast after news cast. They call out the obvious statements and policies that the far right are pushing as unjust or not being within the main stream view but they do not call out the sinister reason behind this, nor do they call out the fact that we are at war in this country with the radical right and why. Rush Limbaugh and others on the right have no issue calling out what they think is the war that the left is waging on them. Where are the voices on the left that have the guts to tell the American people in no uncertain terms why the real war was started by the right, the methods they are using, exactly what their agenda is, and their real motivations? This is really starting to Piss Me Off.

When you have T. Boone Pickens calling the Koch Brothers evil, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and others warning us of the inequalities that the Republicans are pushing, do you not think it is time to sit up and listen? When womens rights are being assaulted in just about every state, do you not think a battle is being waged? When voting ID laws akin to Jim Crow laws are being pressed, do you not think that white males are trying to hold on to power? When Newt Gingrich and others in the Republican Party are saying that the Supreme Court needs to be pistol whipped if they do not like their decisions, do you not think the far right is not trying to take control of our government? When the far right cannot tolerate gays even in the Romney campaign staff, call our President a Muslim, call our democratic colleagues communists, do you not think they are at war with us? When the far right is having our text books re-written eliminating anything that does not match their religious views and adding in Christian beliefs instead of science, do you not believe that this is not the same as burning books like in Nazi Germany to hide the truth? When the GOP is pushing gun rights and the right to carry guns even in our schools, do you not think they are arming themselves for a revolution? When the right declares that corporations are people and are giving tax cuts to the rich while trying to have you pay more, do you not think they are not trying to disarm you in this war? When the right is saying that the states should be deciding our fate, do you not see they are trying to get rid of the Federal Governments ability to control their reactionary agenda? When Republicans like Olympia Snow and others that are being pushed out of the Republican Party because they are considered to moderate, do you not think a purge of any voices of reason within the Republican Party are being systematically eliminated?

This along with many other policies that are being pushed by the far right is an all out war to take control of our government and our citizens to shape this country into what it was in the 1800's before the Civil War, all the time while saying they are fighting for our rights.

This is war, the Republicans, once we elected a Black President got so afraid that they went all in. Where are the voices on the Democratic side calling this war out for what it actually is? Where are the guts from our party to specifically and categorically define the war that has been brought upon us? Where are the guts on the right to stand up to this group by just declaring they have morals and will not be a part of this?

If you do not believe that this a war then you are sadly mistaken. If you sit idly by and do not call this out for what it is then you are helping them to win this war. The Republican Party has been taken over by the extreme elements of their party and they intend to win. They have decided that if they do not win now they may never have another opportunity and this is a life and death match to them. I am very disappointed and pissed off that we cannot seem to find the guts to tell the American people exactly what is going on, and what the outcome will be if they succeed.

Please read the following if you would like to see some of the details to back up my concerns. (You know the rest if you just stop to think and look at what is going on.)

http://ttruth3829683.newsvine.com/_news/2012/05/01/11492228-tea-party-dangerous-in-1962-and-dangerous-today

If the Democratic Party does not wake up the war may be over before you know it. The Germans burried their heads too when an extreme element was taking over their country. How well did that work out for them?

T1Truth

A group of congressional Republicans are pushing a bill to put key health care decisions in the hands of the states, rather than the federal government. But language buried in the legislation would do the opposite on one key issue: abortion.

Rep. Todd Rokita's (R-Ind.) State Health Flexibility Act, also known as HR 4160, contains a provision that would force 17 states, including California, Massachusetts, and New York, to either discontinue programs that help low-income women pay for abortions, or spend a lot more money to purchase new insurance plans for those women. Thirty House Republicans have signed onto Rokita's proposal since it was introduced in March*, and the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservatives that includes over 70 percent of the GOP caucus, made HR 4160 part of its official budget plan.

Some actual reporting from yours truly. It seems clear from sources close to Grenell and reporters on the foreign policy beat that his turning point came last week. He'd been part of organizing a conference call to respond to Vice President Biden's foreign policy speech, now known best for the "big stick" remark. So some reporters were puzzled as to why Grenell, a week into his job as Romney's national security spokesman, was not introduced by name as part of the Romney team at the beginning of the call, and his voice completely absent from the conversation. Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasn't absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up.

I was listening to talk radio this morning and wound up shaking my head at the thought that Richard Lugar, the highly conservative, republican senator from Indiana is getting a serious primary challenge this year. Now, understanding that Senator Lugar has a 96-98% conservative voting record in congress, any sane individual would think that the challenge would come from the senator's left, especially since there was so much room for a candidate to go on that side. But no. In the crazy world of 2012 republican tea party politics, you can be one of the most conservative senators in the country and still not be pure enough to meet tea party standards. You can still be a RINO. It begs the question. How right do you have to be in order to be right enough for the tea party?

Can you be a republican in today's republican tea party if.......

1. you support equal pay for women?
2. you support public education?
3. you want to see an energy policy that utilizes other forms of energy besides fossil fuels?
4. you support equal rights for all regardless of gender preference?
5. you support limited gun control?
6. you support a smaller military?
7. you support some higher taxes to decrease the national debt?
8. you support a national health care policy?
9. you support a government run social security and medicare program?
10. you support working with the other party on cooperative legislation?

The answer to all these questions increasingly appears to be no. The farther right a politician moves, the farther right the tea party expects the politician to be. They have ousted almost every republican moderate and have managed to end the career of Senator Bennett and now they are going after Senator Lugar. 

The question is how far can the tea party go? They have expelled any republican who thinks differently from them. They have increasingly divorced themselves from the mainstream of American politics. They are on the way to making the republican party a fringe right party in the political scene. There are countless republicans and independents who are feeling the need for a republican party that represents a moderate America. There will come a time, in the not too distant future, that a new moderate republican party rises from the ashes of the tea party. As the tea party becomes an extreme rightist party, there will probably be a center right republican party and a center left democratic party. The only thing that the tea party will have succeeded in would be to have placed a party of the extreme on the ballot in most states. It will, as most extremist efforts, make too many turns toward oblivion, and wind up falling off the edge of the world.

TAMPA, Fla., May 2 (UPI) -- Florida Gov. Rick Scott turned down Tampa's request to ban concealed weapons outside of the Republican National Convention in August.

Mayor Bob Buckhorn wrote to Scott Tuesday, asking that the governor issue an executive order to bar the carrying of firearms in downtown Tampa during the convention, the Tampa Bay Times reported Wednesday.

In a response, also on Tuesday, Scott suggests that Tampa mayor was overreaching in his request because the U.S. Secret Service will ban firearms inside the Tampa Bay Times Forum and inside a security perimeter immediately around the convention site.

"You are now requesting that citizens be disarmed in all of downtown Tampa, including in areas across the river, and distant, from the convention center and Secret Service safe zone," Scott wrote.

Tampa officials plan to ban many weapons and items that could be a weapon from outside the Aug. 27-30 convention, but can't ban guns carried with a concealed weapons permit, the Times said.

Bronx Pentecostal minister and New York State Senator Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) compared abortion to the Holocaust Tuesday during a rant against a piece of pro-choice legislation.

According to The New York Observer, Diaz wrote in an email to his supporters that, "[Hitler] chose to send the Jews to Auschwitz," adding, "That was not their choice, that was Hitler’s choice. Murderers, assassins and criminals are pro-choice. They choose to put a gun to your head and take your life. That is not your choice. That is their choice.”

"What God says here is, that if you hurt a pregnant woman and she loses the baby you have to pay a penalty not because it was a blob of tissue that you killed, but because it was a life."

The Onion News Network is poking fun at Mitt Romney's campaign for their recent attempts to reach out to Hispanic voters.

Some believe Romney's stance on various immigration-related issues has alienated Latino voters, and the GOP candidate is doing his best to win them back. In real life, Romney's campaign has released Spanish language ads and garnered the endorsement of prominent Latino Republicans, including Marco Rubio. But The Onion News network, a fake parody site, invented a stereotype parrot called "Paco" that they describe as Romney's new "sidekick."

Watch the video above to watch Paco in action.

If anyone would like to better understand what the real goals of the Tea Party are and the tactics that they are deploying to obtain these objectives you need to review an article written by Thomas B. Morgan in December of 1963. The title of this article is: "Seventeen States Vote to Destroy Democracy as We Know It" and was published in Look Magazine in that month. Morgan chronicles the fight that took place between July 1962 and August of 1963.

Look Magazine: Dec. 1963

This is a story of 13 months in the sixties - July, 1962 - August 1963 - 13 months of struggle over the substance of American democracy. In this period, a concerted effort was launched which, if successful, could destroy the power and authority of the Government of the United States. The immediate goal is a constitutional convention to propose three amendments to the Federal Constitution that would destroy democracy here as we know it. These are the critical revisions:

Amendment 1: State Legislatures would win the power to amend the Constitution undeterred by the Congress.

Ammendment 2: State courts could get full and final jurisdiction over the apportionment of state legislative districts.

Amendment 3: A court, composed of the 50 states chief justices, would get the authority to overrule certaqin decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

How did these radical amendments come to be the spearheads of a dead-serious political movement? How would they affect our way of life? Will they succeed? The answers to these questions are urgent because, surprisingly, the legislatures of 17 states of the Union now endorse one, two, or all three of the amendments.

The amendment movement begain in Biloxi, Mississippi, at a routine conference of Southern state officials and legislators organized by the Council of State Governments. The Council is a highly respected joint agency sponsored by the 50 states.

When the conference met, the talk ranged over the Kennedys, desegregation and Cuba, but the chief topic was Baker v. Carr, the historic case decided by the US Supreme Court four months earlier.

In a stunning leap beyond previous decisions, the Court held that apportionment of state legislative districts could be scrutinized by Federal courts. Clearly, many rural legislators, long dominate in state governments, would be reapportioned out of their seats. Even as the Southerns talked, courts in Florida, Oklahoma, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia pressed the Baker v. Carr point.

Thomas B. Morgan

An additional monthly chronicle of the events that staved off this effort will be published in an upcoming article along with the article from a Yale professor that helped shoot it down. We will include statements from the Warren Court.

In many ways you could say the current Tea Party are the evangelicals of this original movement. In their zeal to place all the power back to the states they forget that some of us do not where their most recent fude with America started. They forget that some of see through their efforts, and know their tactics. Below are excerpts from two articles that we previously released that define these points.

Goal:

The Republican Small Government Conspiracy

T1Truth - 02.20.2012

First of all I will let everyone know that I have been the General Manager of more than one company in my career and I do believe that the private sector "can" be much more efficient than most government agencies. I also believe that many government agencies should be privatized so that the public may have services provided that must put customer service first and deliver these services at a competitive price for the tax payer. With that said, the Republican reasoning for doing this is just greed and has nothing to do with doing the right thing.

The Republican part or as I like to call it the "Tea-publican Party" espouses the virtues of reducing the federal government and turning control of everything back to the states and local government and not for the reasons you may think. Their argument goes that they wish every individual to have less government in their life and that local communities can do a better job than the federal government. Has anyone noticed that there is never an example given as to the success achieved by doing this for anything of great importance to the masses. Although this sounds like a good idea in some respects as many would believe their communities should chose how to spend their own money, why do we not speak about the reality of this?

In the 20's, Upton Sinclair felt the need to write about the appalling practices of the meat packaging industry. Why, because left uncontrolled companies were not worried about the workers or their consumers and only profits. In the 60's when I grew up in an industrial city where the river was so polluted the fish were dying off, the river contaminated the drinking water and caused illness, and the smell was horrible. Why, because the factories in this city were not controlled and did not care for the community, only their profits. In this decade the federal government and states have turned control of the mental health of our children to the local Community Mental Health departments which funnel the children that need the help the most into the criminal justice system to avoid their responsibility. Why, so they can take the Medicaid dollars allocated for these children and do as they wish with it and lesson their own burdens.

The fact is we cannot trust our states or local governments to protect our citizens as someone will always find a way around the intent of acts to protect our citizens to pocket the money for their own purposes without federal controls. As citizens, we decide what is important to our society and the Tea-publicans are trying to sell everyone a bill of goods that if given the ability to do this at the local level it will be done better. The facts of our past and the facts of our present do not show this to be true. The Real Argument for Small Government is being sold so the rich and powerful can and will get richer and more powerful at all of our expense.

http://ttruth3829683.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/20/10460294-the-republican-small-government-conspiracy

Method:

Tea Party Goal of Parliamentary Government Realized

T1Truth 03.10.2012

Why do we pretend that we still have the Congress and the Senate of a two party system, and why does not the Tea Party own up to the fact that their goal was to turn these two bodies into Upper and Lower Parliamentary bodies? It is clear why the Tea Party wishes to ignore the President and wants Congress to have all the power. The goal is and has always been to create a Parliamentary Government environment.

The real goal of the Tea Party was to create a voting block within the Congress and Senate that must be dealt with in order to advance their agenda by forming a coalition. This is why the Republican Party has had to shift so far right to accommodate this coalition. In the UK many political parties exist and once elections take place, the parties must form a governing coalition by obtaining support of enough groups in order to form a majority government. (This is done by promising their agenda items will be included in their agenda or granting favors.) Tell me how this is different from what the Tea Party has done to our political system. By standing their ground under the guise of being Tea Party members and still being registered as Republicans, they could hold their ground and still obtain funds from the RNC. (Cake and eat it too.)

If you take a look at the government in the UK, the supreme legislative power is vested in the Queen-in-Parliament; although in practice in modern times, real power is vested in the House of Commons. The house of commons in the UK (equal to our Congress) wields the most power even over the House of Lords (equal to our senate).

The truth of the matter is that the Tea Party acknowledges that they are a party and have a set of core beliefs. They have members, meetings, agenda items, and solicit donors for their members to get them elected. They have members in both the house and in the senate and have taken specific stances to not vote for specific issues. (Raising taxes under any circumstances, increasing the size of government, and reducing the power of government.)

http://ttruth3829683.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/10/10635732-tea-party-goal-of-parliamentary-government-realized

Our fathers and grandfathers fought this fight once before. We are now forced to fight it again because we have forgotten. Make no mistake about it, the reasoning for smaller government is to increase the power of special interests and not to protect us from them. This is a plain and simple fact.

You have been warned, again!

T1Truth

"Swiss Bank Account" highlights Mitt Romney's belief that a strong economy is built on outsourcing, loopholes and risky financial deals. As a corporate CEO, he shipped American jobs to places like Mexico and China. As governor, Romney outsourced state jobs to India, and now as a candidate for president he is pushing tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.Romney's economic scheme stands in stark contrast with President Obama's efforts to continue moving the country forward by rebuilding an economy that's meant to last, by out-building, out-innovating and out-educating the rest of the world, and making the things the rest of the world buys by closing loopholes and providing incentives that are bringing jobs back to America.

Republicans are waging the most concerted campaign to prevent or discourage citizens from exercising their legitimate voting rights since the Jim Crow days of poll taxes and literacy tests.

Four years ago, Democrats expanded American democracy by registering millions of new voters — mostly young people and minorities — and persuading them to show up at the polls. Apparently, the GOP is determined not to let any such thing happen again.

According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which keeps track of changes in voting laws, 22 statutes and two executive actions aimed at restricting the franchise have been approved in 17 states since the beginning of 2011. By the center’s count, an additional 74 such bills are pending.

The most popular means of discouraging those young and minority voters — who, coincidentally, tend to vote for Democrats — is legislation requiring citizens to show government-issued photo identification before they are allowed to cast a ballot. Photo ID bills have been approved by Republican-controlled legislatures in Alabama, Kansas, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, and by referendum in Mississippi. Only one state with a Democratic-controlled legislature — Rhode Island — passed a law requiring voters to produce identification, and it does not mandate a government ID with a photo. In Virginia, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has not decided whether to sign a voter ID bill the legislature sent to his desk.

Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress of the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.[1] Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff.

Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

Believe it or not, it is as easy as which party understands and uses the English language correctly. No crap, just the truth.

Republican: "Mission Accomplished"

Democrat: "Mission Accomplished"

If you believe this is partisan, you are right, and we will not apolgize for it.

Game Over! Let them Whine!

T1Truth

Remember those crazy Republican primaries in 2010 that produced terrible general election candidates such as Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada? Candidates who may have cost Republicans control of the Senate?

Guess what: The process that produced them has barely slowed down, and it may cost Republicans again in 2012 — and into the future.

Republicans are having problems recruiting strong candidates in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida. Apparently the national party is reluctant to get involved in primary elections, after getting burned by the losses of credible, party-backed candidates like Bob Bennett, Mike Castle and Charlie Crist in 2010. Now, two more solid mainstream conservatives may be in trouble. In Indiana, challenger Richard Mourdock is closing on veteran Senator Dick Lugar, with one poll (by a Mourdock-supporting group) actually showing the challenger in front. And in Nebraska, the Club for Growth is hitting hard against Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is widely seen as the strongest general election candidate there.

Will either of these states cost Republicans a Senate seat? Probably not, at least not directly. Democrats did recruit the candidate they wanted in both, but in my view former Senator Bob Kerrey is still a pretty weak candidate (and one who hasn’t faced a Nebraska electorate since 1994), and both states are solidly Republican. Still, if Lugar and Bruning lose their primaries, a general election upset would at least be possible — and Republicans would need to devote more resources than they would if they have better candidates.

But there’s a larger point here, and one that could resonate long after 2012: This trend could lead more mainstream conservative candidates to ask themselves whether it’s worth running at all if they can’t be nominated by an increasingly extreme Republican Party. And if mainstream conservatives don’t run, how many winnable seats are Republicans going to lose over time?

The implosion of the Newt Gingrich presidential campaign—the first implosion, before the weird resurrection and inevitable second implosion—came because he used four words: right-wing social engineering. He used the phrase, last May, to describe the Republican budget designed by GOP icon Paul Ryan. It was as if he had urinated on Ronald Reagan’s grave. Party leaders rounded on him. In Iowa, an angry voter cornered him and fumed, in a video captured by Fox News that quickly went viral, “What you did to Paul Ryan was unforgivable … You’re an embarrassment.” Gingrich quickly apologized to Ryan, pledged his fealty to the document, and then, lending his confession an extracted-at-NKVD-gunpoint ­flavor, announced, “Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.” It was no use: Despite years of diligent service, his support among Republicans collapsed, his fellow partisans holding him in the low regard ordinarily reserved for liberals.

 

Ryan’s rise occurred so rapidly that an old hand like Gingrich hadn’t yet fully grasped the fact that he had become unassailable, though most (and, by now, virtually all) of his fellow Republicans had. Ryan’s prestige explains, among other things, the equanimity with which movement conservatives have reluctantly accepted the heresies of Mitt Romney. They may not have an ideal candidate, but they believe Romney could not challenge Ryan even if he so desired.

In the last Congressional Election the Republicans managed to get 14% of the women who voted Democratic in 2008 to vote Republican in 2010.

This in my opinion was the biggest mistake of American women in their short voting history.

I think that these women proved that they were gullible when they fell for the lies the Republicans were telling about President Obama and went for the empty promises of the Republicans who had said if given the chance that they were going to have a laser like focus on "Job Creation".

I personally believe that American women of every stripe were totally lied to by the Republicans in 2010, and the proof of that fact is the rash of anti women legislation put forth by the Republicans.

During the course of the last 2 years at both the state and federal levels Republicans have made and all out assault on women via legislation that primarily affects females.

And it is my opinion that Americas women have already and will continue to pay a horrible price, as their rights to abortion, contraceptives, and especially breast and cancer screenings are being systematically eliminated. 

The Republicans won in 2010 by telling Americans that they knew how to create jobs, reduce spending and lower the deficits( this despite their most recent history).

But the truth is that over the course of the last 2 years that the Republicans still basically haven't created any jobs, as all of their legislation has been focused in these 5 principal areas.

1. Lower taxes for corporations and the rich (The Bush Agenda)

2. Anti Gay and Homosexual Legislation (especially opposition to same sex marriage)

3.  De-funding Abortion at both the state and federal level. (the Republican person hood amendments).

4. Limiting Contraceptives and womens access to contraceptive and health services.

5. A blanket promise to repeal health care reform, this effort that they are so proud of has already, and will continue to hurt women and children the most).

The truth is when it came to legislation that would have created or helped to create jobs for American workers the Republicans opposed the President and the Democrats every step of the way.

If the Republicans had had there way there would not have been any unemployment extensions

If the Republicans had had there way there would not have been in continuation of the Payroll Tax Cut

If the Republicans had had there way there would be no Chrysler Corporation building Automobiles any where in America

If the Republicans had had there way there certainly would not be a General Motors Corporation

And If the Republicans had had there way all of the small American companies and their employees that truly depended upon the American auto industry would have been lost. 

I can understand that women especially those that had families and that were out of work wanted to believe that the Republicans would do right if they gave them one more chance.

But it should have been obvious to those same women that the Republicans never meant to do right they just lied to get the power to sabotage and obstruct the agenda of the Democrats and President Obama.

And it is Americas women and their children that have payed and will continue to pay a very heavy price because of what the Republican Party and it's politicians and allies did with the political power that they were given by the 14% of women who changed their votes in 2010.

My question is will women make the same mistake in 2012.

This year women really are shipwrecked on Gilligans Island and they are going to have to make a choice to either vote for Thurston Howell III (Mitt Romney or the Professor (Barack Obama)

By Jon Meacham: Republicans are — forgive the cliché — shocked, shocked to discover that a presidential contender is “politicizing” an important national event. In this sense, “politicizing” might be best translated as “beating us up and we don’t have anything much to say to stop it.” The [Bill Clinton] ad itself raises intriguing, substantive, legitimate questions — and the ferocious, sputtering Republican reaction is proof positive that they know it, or at least suspect it.

The ad’s theme is that Obama made a courageous and risky decision to send in the SEALs. Here the President has history and facts on his side: it was a courageous and risky call. Had the mission failed, had it been another Desert One, the very people now criticizing the President for trumpeting the achievement would be beginning their second year of excoriating Obama for weakness and fecklessness. And anyone weighing whether to re-elect the President should take the bin Laden operation into account: it is a powerful exhibit that Obama is a steely Commander in Chief — a critical test for many Americans.

...I take what President Clinton says in the ad seriously: “Look, he knew what would happen,” Clinton says of Obama. “Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn’t been bin Laden? Suppose they had been captured or killed? The downside would have been horrible. But he reasoned, ‘I cannot in good conscience do nothing.’ He took the harder, more honorable path and the one that produced, in my opinion, the more honorable and best result.”

The way to put oneself in a position to take the harder, more honorable political path is to argue for one’s virtues in a vigorous way. That’s what Obama has done, and is doing. There’ll be more punches coming.

This week I have participated in more than one discussion related to climate change, environmentalism, and world governments responsibility to try to help protect our planet. Some of the disturbing things that came out of these discussions was the ability of the right to just dismiss facts, foster arguments of conspiracy, and portray the worst corporate offenders as the protectors of democracy. We have all heard the claims by the right that coal is clean, Mrs. Obama has declared war on the right of our children to be fat, and that the only thing standing between us and dooms day is big oil. For that reason I started searching some web sites to see what was fueling some of these comments when I ran across this video that pretty much hit home to me the disinformation that is being gobbled up by the right. I hope this brings home to you as much as it to me the propaganda that big business is hitting many of our citizens with, and just how many eat this stuff up.

This is less than a 5 minute video that I think you must see. The video shows dramatically the fear the right is using to advance their agenda. I have also included a couple quotes below from the right wing related to this topic. Please feel free to add your own favorite right wing quotes in the comments. 

''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.'' Michelle Bachman

 "The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."—Rush Limbaugh, on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, May 3, 2010

T1Truth

It is dangerous to challenge the funnel cloud of corporate and right-wing political advertising this year, but Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, has decided to fight back. She is running commercials that talk directly about the ads trying to prevent her re-election.

"They’re not from around here, spending millions to attack and attack,” said one of her recent commercials, showing clips from the opposing ads that have become ubiquitous in her state. “But what they’re doing to Claire McCaskill is nothing compared to what their special-interest agenda will do to you.”

It will be an uphill fight. Republican interest groups are outspending Ms. McCaskill and other Missouri Democrats by a 7-to-1 ratio; Ms. McCaskill herself is being outspent by 3 to 1. Though she has raised nearly $10 million, the amount could be dwarfed by the unlimited money at the disposal of Republican-oriented groups.

“Recall Walker” bumper stickers dotted the workers’ parking lot at the Georgia Pacific paper mill on Day Street here one recent afternoon, proof of their union’s role in the effort to oust Gov. Scott Walker from office early for his legislation limiting public employees’ bargaining rights.

But among the largest donors to Mr. Walker and his cause are the plant’s owners, the billionaire industrialists Charles G. and David H. Koch, the latter of whom has said of the recall election to be held in June, “If the unions win the recall, there will be no stopping union power.”

The recall vote here has been billed as a critical test of labor muscle versus corporate money. But it is only a warm-up for a confrontation that will play out during the presidential election, which both sides view as the biggest political showdown in at least 30 years between pro- and anti-union forces — a labor-management fight writ large.

The same national groups flooding the streets and the airwaves in Wisconsin — the Koch-supported group Americans for Prosperity on the right, the A.F.L.-C.I.O., teachers unions and the United Steelworkers on the left — are emerging as important outside supporters of President Obama and Mitt Romney, each side empowered by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

That ruling is not only giving wealthy donors like the Kochs greater options for pouring tens of millions of dollars into the presidential election. It is also giving unions — many of them representing workers in some of the major donors’ own factories — the ability for the first time ever to spend money from union treasuries for campaigning among nonunion voters.

The combination of the squeeze on state budgets, high rates of unemployment and the conservative movement’s revived energy provided an opening for Republican efforts, often business-backed, to promote tough-on-labor legislation in key states. Those efforts have succeeded in rolling back gains made by unions over decades, prompting vows from labor to fight back with newly engaged members shaken from self-described complacency.

One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea.

"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.

"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."

The claim appears to be a shift from Mitt Romney's November 2008 op-ed in The New York Times, headlined, "Let Detroit go bankrupt."

Mitt Romney has just clinched the Republican nomination, and according to GOP strategist Karl Rove, he has a lot of catching up to do. In fact, according to Rove, if the election were held today, Obama could destroy Romney by as many as 100 electoral votes:

Rove’s map shows that for Romney, even in the event that he wins all of the as-yet undecided 82 electoral votes, he would still have to flip a state that leans toward Obama in order to win – the most likely prospects being Pennsylvania, Ohio or Michigan.

Fortunately for Romney, he has at least one home court advantages in all of those states – all of them have Republican Governors. Unfortunately for Romney, Obama also has a home court advantages in those states. Read more;

Think Progresss: [Romney Attacks Stimulus At College That Took Stimulus Funds] "Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney campaigned with Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), who presides over one of the least job-creating states in America, today at Otterbein College — a school that benefited from the passage of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, commonly known as the stimulus."

The last time the Republicans were in charge they collapsed the economy and left us in complete economic and fiscal meltdown. We know this because we all lived it.

The American public has significant disdain for political advertising, especially those citizens living in battleground states where television and radio airwaves are flooded with campaign ads in the months leading to Election Day.  This election season, in addition to advertising sponsored by candidates, political parties, and issue groups, the American public is likely to witness a new form of political ads: corporate political advertising.  While corporations view their right to sponsor political ads as a victory for the First Amendment, political observers caution that such ads could drown out citizen voices in our political process.

In a controversial 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year removed a century-old ban against direct corporate spending on political campaigns.  The Courtoverturned the long-standing ban through its ruling in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission(FEC).  Citizens United v. FEC stems from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign in which Citizens United wanted to air Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute, feature-length documentary film critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY).  The FEC disallowed Citizens United from airing the film on the grounds that it violated existing campaign finance laws by expressly advocating for Clinton’s defeat. 

Under prior campaign finance laws established in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Supreme Court distinguished between “express advocacy” and “issue advocacy.” Read more;

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) notified the Capitol Police Thursday after receiving threatening phone calls, after a video of her appearing to criticize the Tea Party was posted on several conservative websites, according to a release from her office.

The video was first posted to Breitbart TV, created by the late conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, and then picked up by Glenn Beck's website, The Blaze.

The video shows Clarke speaking at a candidate forum organized by Prospect Heights Democrats for Reform.

"When I say dealing with the Tea Party, they came up in the hundreds of thousands. So we couldn’t walk outside of our office without tripping over Tea Party members. And these are individuals that had no problems with racial epithets, they had no problem with cursing, spitting and everything else, they came to intimidate members out of passing the Affordable Care Act," says Clarke in the video.

WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- John Boehner accused Barack Obama of cheapening the U.S. presidency over student-loan rates as the House was to vote Friday on keeping the rates from doubling.

"This week the president traveled across the country on taxpayers' dime at a cost of $179,000 an hour insisting the Congress fix a problem that we were already working on. Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House," the House speaker said at a press briefing.

"For the president to make a campaign issue out of this and then to travel to three battleground states and go to three large college campuses on taxpayers' money to try to make this a political issue is pathetic," said Boehner, R-Ohio.

"This is the biggest job in the world, and I've never seen the president make it smaller," Boehner said.

Super PACs and presidential campaigns are legally prohibited from coordinating with one another. But it's not hard to echo and amplify one another's message in the frantic pace of presidential elections. And on Friday morning, Mitt Romney's campaign released a memo that played off of the attack line offered the day before by American Crossroads, accusing President Barack Obama of being a popularity-obsessed, absentee president.

Political arithmetic is always suspect, and one should always examine carefully the claims of those seeking votes. Smart observers have learned to distinguish between the claims of political candidates and their advisers and proposals that have been evaluated by independent scorekeepers such as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

This principle was aptly illustrated by the “budget analysis” Mitt Romney’s chief economic adviser, Glenn Hubbard, recently put forward. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week, Hubbard constructs a budget plan that he imagines President Obama might propose someday, engages in a set of his own extrapolations and then makes assertions about it. He does not discuss the actual Obama plan or how it has been evaluated by the CBO. Nor does Hubbard invest his credibility in defending the claims that Romney has made about his own fiscal plans. He simply states that “Yes, President Obama and Mitt Romney have budgets with competing visions. But Gov. Romney’s budget makes tough choices” — without delving into the specifics or trade-offs that Romney’s “tough choices” entail.

The controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act has passed the House, despite privacy concerns and a veto threat from the White House. CISPA, designed to make it easier for companies and the government to share information about cybersecurity threats, passed 248-168, which isn't a big enough margin to override a veto, Politico reports. Some 42 Democrats backed the bill, while 28 Republicans voted against it.

The bill—dubbed son of SOPA by critics—was backed by Internet firms, including Facebook and Microsoft, but firmly opposed by privacy groups. The co-chairs of the House privacy caucus called CISPA "unacceptable," and urged lawmakers to vote against it, reports the Washington Post. "In its current form, this legislation would allow companies to share personal information about consumers with other companies, even if that information has nothing to do with cybersecurity," they said in a statement. The measure would "also free companies from liability if they share this personal, sensitive information." ProPublica has more on the bill.

WASHINGTON -- The latest Republican plan to reconcile the budget and preserve defense spending extracts even deeper cuts from programs to help the poor and Americans still reeling from the recession.

Although spending levels for the budget were set in the Budget Control Act passed last summer in the deal to raise the nation's debt limit, Republicans are pushing ahead with another plan that cuts more while trying to prevent the beginning of $600 billion in cuts over 10 years to the growth of the defense budget.

They are doing so because the Super Committee, which was supposed to find $1.2 trillion in cuts on which everyone could agree, failed, leaving the slashing up to a pre-agreed sequestration plan that extracts half the savings from the military.

Unless Congress acts, the sequestration begins at the start of 2013. Democrats in the Senate are arguing that the Budget Control Act counts as a budget, and therefore they won't take up debate on a spending plan for 2013, much less address Rep. Paul Ryan's House budget resolution.

Romney and his surrogates have revealed an ongoing Cold War fixation. Former Reagan Navy Secretary John Lehman and former Bush administration Ambassador Pierre Prosper, on Thursday derailed Romney messaging in a conference call with reporters by raising the specter of the “Soviet Union” and slamming Obama for not protecting Czechoslovakia — a country that was peacefully dissolved in 1993 and now exists as the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Obama is “withdrawing from leading the free world in maintaining stability around the world,” Lehman said. “What Obama calls ‘leading from behind.’”

One of the worst examples, according to Lehman, is happening at the top of the world.

“We’re seeing the Soviets pushing into the Arctic with no response from us. In fact, the only response is to announce the early retirement of the last remaining icebreaker.”

...The call was meant as a prebuttal to Vice President Biden’s foreign policy speech in New York Thursday, where he warned that Romney wants to return to a Bush-era foreign policy.

“He acts like he thinks the Cold War’s still on,” Biden said this month. “I don’t know where he’s been.”

Romney has not done much to burst that rhetorical balloon. After Biden’s remarks, Romney condemned Obama, but not without confusing modern-day Russia with the nation that came before it.

“Obama ‘entered into an agreement with the Soviets, excuse me, with Russia’ in the nuclear arms START treaty that effectively required the United States to reduce its weapons stockpile while allowing Russia to increase its stockpile,” Romney said on April 20.

The war of words between Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke continues.

Fluke responded to Limbaugh's latest attack during an appearance on MSNBC, telling Lawrence O'Donnell that the radio host has become "confused by his own propaganda." She was referring to remarks Limbaugh made Tuesday after she tweeted about interest rates on student loans.

"Sandra Fluke is just a poor, uh, isolated, alone little college student worried about her contraception at Georgetown," he said. "But now she's represented by the flacks in the White House—Hilary Rosen, Anita Dunn—and they're coordinating with Obama, scaring students about the interest rates on their student loans."

WASHINGTON, April 26 (UPI) -- Budget cuts may make the U.S. Army lay off 29,000 enlisted soldiers and officers, a Pentagon official said as GOP lawmakers sought to restore defense funding.

"I hate to throw out numbers, but I have seen numbers that will approach the enlisted category perhaps as high as the mid-20s -- 23, 24,000," Thomas R. Lamont, the Army's top personnel official, told the Senate Armed Services Committee's personnel subcommittee Wednesday.

"And on the officer contingent -- again these are very rough numbers and all based again on assumptions and attrition rates -- officers may go up to 4,500, maybe 5,000," said Lamont, assistant Army secretary for manpower and reserve affairs.

"There will be some officers -- and there will be some very good non-commissioned officers -- that will want to stay in the Army and will probably not," added Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, Army deputy chief of staff.

Lamont and Bostick were among military officials testifying a day before House Armed Services Committee panels were to begin marking up the fiscal 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill.

Every year the leading pseudo-Christian hate groups in this country host the “Values Voters Summit”. This convention is sponsored by many organizations characterized as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization made famous for its work fighting the Ku Klux Klan on behalf of civil rights.

This year Mitt Romney is invited to address the annual hate fest September 14-16, 2012. The event is sponsored by the American Family Association. The AFA spokesman is Bryan Fischer, who is famous for claiming that gays are responsible for the Holocaust, that gays created Adolf Hitler, and for falsely claiming a link between gays and pedophilia. Mr. Fischer has also attacked and demonized African-Americans, Hispanics, immigrants, and Americans of other faiths. Another sponsor is the Family Research Council, whose spokesman is Tony Perkins. He’s famous for his association with Ku Klux Klansman David Duke, once purchasing the mailing list of the former KKK Grand Wizard and Nazi sympathizer.  Mr. Perkins  is also known for cherry-picking (or using outright junk science) to spread lies and misinformation that demonizes his fellow Americans who happen to be gay. Both the AFA and the FRC, despite their reputation for repeatedly bearing false witness against their fellow citizens, claim to be Christian organizations.

Another leading sponsor of the summit is Liberty Council, whose “Director of Cultural Affairs,” Matt Barber, is a board member on yet another Hate Group, called Americans For Truth Against Homosexuality; which is known for repeatedly spreading deliberately false information about gay citizens in an attempt to demonize all gay Americans.

And these are the “good” Christians? Makes one wonder why a Christian school like Liberty University would also sponsor such a hate-fest and what kind of people run Liberty U.

Yet Mitt Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for President of the United States, see’s fit to address this gathering. The only thing missing is the Ku Klux Klan and a burning cross.

From the Financial Times:

“We can only win back confidence if we bring down excessive deficits and boost competitiveness,” he said. “In a such a situation, consolidation might inspire confidence and actually help the economy to grow.”

The above statement shows why austerity is simply one of the dumbest policies on the planet.  First, The EU region was already growing at a slow rate when people started to talk about austerity. 

The share of pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% of earners in the U.S. has more than doubled to about 20% in 2010 from less than 10% in the 1970s. At the same time, the average federal income tax rate on top earners has declined significantly. Given the large current and projected deficits, should the top 1% be taxed more? Because U.S. income concentration is now so high, the potential tax revenue at stake is large.

But will taxable incomes of the top 1% respond to a tax increase by declining so much that revenue rises very little or even drops? In other words, are we already near or beyond the peak of the famous Laffer Curve, the revenue-maximizing tax rate?

The Laffer Curve is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income "elasticity,"—i.e., that taxable income will change in response to a change in the rate of taxation. Top earners can, of course, move taxable income between years to subject them to lower tax rates, for example, by changing the timing of charitable donations and realized capital gains. And some can convert earned income into capital gains, and avoid higher taxes in other ways. But existing studies do not show much change in actual work being done.

According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion.

The State of the African-American Consumer Report found that black buying power is projected to reach $1.1 trillion by 2015, The Louisiana Weekly reports.

The study, which focuses on black spending, media habits and consumer trends, reported an increase in the amount of blacks attending college or earning a degree to 44 percent for men and 53 percent for women. It also found an increase in the number of African American households earning $75,000 or higher by almost 64 percent.

"By sharing, for example, that African Americans over-index in several key areas, including television viewing and mobile phone usage," said Susan Whiting, vice chair of information and analytics company Nielsen. "We've provided a better picture of where the African American community can leverage that buying power to help their communities."

As a result of above-average population growth and improved earning power over the past three decades, Latinos have been responsible for an ever-increasing share of consumer buying power in the U.S. Packaged Facts estimates that in 2009 Latinos accounted for more than 9% of total buying power, compared to less than 4% in 1980. The buying power of Hispanics exceeded $1 trillion in 2010, and the population includes a significant number of high-income households. With an estimated buying power of $616 billion, Latinos of Mexican heritage represent the single most influential segment of the Hispanic market. By 2015, Packaged Facts forecasts the buying power of the Latino population as a whole will reach $1.3 trillion.

NOTRE DAME, Ind., April 25 (UPI) -- Faculty members at the University of Notre Dame have demanded an apology from the Peoria, Ill., Catholic bishop for comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

Bishop Daniel Jenky, a member of the university's board of fellows, gave a homily April 15 criticizing Obama's policies -- particularly those on healthcare -- and urging Catholics to vote against Obama in the November presidential election.

"Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and healthcare," Jenky said.

"In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama -- with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda -- now seems intent on following a similar path," Jenky said.

Wisconsin lost 23,900 jobs between March 2011 and March 2012, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. It also lost more private-sector jobs than any other state.

Republican West Virginia Senate candidate John Raese came to Ted Nugent's defense at a campaign event, calling the rocker a "patriot" and saying that "it's a concern" that the Secret Service investigated after Nugent's inflammatory speech threatening President Barack Obama.

Nugent, said Raese, according to video of the candidate's recent speech, argued that Nugent's words were merely "a figure of speech."

It was an unusually specific figure of speech, if that was the case. At the National Rifle Association convention, Nugent told fellow gun enthusiasts that "if Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

Rush Limbaugh went after Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke again on Tuesday for what he called "coordinating" with President Obama to "scare students about the interest rates on their loans."

During his Tuesday radio show, Limbaugh read a tweet Fluke sent, which said, "#DontDoubleMyRate. Many students will see the interest rate on Fed #StudentLoans increase if Congress doesn't act by 7/1."

Limbaugh called Fluke's tweet a coincidence since she allegedly sent it thirty minutes before Obama told students at the University of North Carolina that their federal student loans will double if Congress doesn't act by July 1.

Yes, it's the first ad against Walker of the recall campaign.

He's been blanketing the state with ads paid for by a lot of out of state money.  Now the shoe is on the other foot. 

Read the CNN story, linked, and check out the ad on You Tube: 

Video: Scott Walker's Wisconsin, dead last in job creation

Now that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee for president, contraception no longer rules the national conversation.

But over the past year, many Republican lawmakers have made remarks that show either shocking cluelessness or open hostility to the idea of accessible, affordable birth control for women.

Here at HuffPost we've compiled a short video of the six worst examples from the past year.

As we enter into this election season and as it always seems small groups of special interests are taking over, we think it is time to take a look at what we were warned of in 1787. Their money floods the campaigns, their lobbyists sit daily in the halls of power, and we as citizens feel there is nothing we can do. We tend to think this is a new phenomenon although it is not. This has been a problem with our system of government since day one. In 1787 James Madison being a forward thinker published this paper in regards to many of the problems that he foresaw with our fledgling society. In 1787 Mr. Madison used the term "Factions" to describe special interest groups. What may be surprising to many is that within this paper, he did provide the solutions available for controlling these special interests, how it was to be accomplished, and who was responsible to do it.

We have included the complete paper below and have highlighted some specific areas that may be of interest. We have also included some commentary that is our opinion only. We do not profess to be Constitutional Scholars or experts on interpreting the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are fairly plainly written and we are only providing our opinion based upon common sense. After that it is up to you for how you wish to read this document and apply it to our society today.

I will warn you that it is a fairly long read and at the same time we challenge you to read and comprehend what Mr. Madison was warning us over 200 years ago. Sometimes being a citizen means that we have a responsibility to take the time to understand those things that affect us. Please pay special interest to his comment about how the federal government is better to address special interests over state government and then ask yourself the question why the Republicans wish to push much of their agenda back to the states.

James Madison, Jr.(March 16, 1751 (O.S. March 5) – June 28, 1836) was an American statesman and political theorist. He is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution” for being instrumental in the drafting of the United States Constitution and as the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights. He was the fourth President of the United States (1809–1817). He served as a politician much of his adult life. (Wikipedia) 

From the New York Packet.
Friday, November 23, 1787.
James Madison

Madison warns us of special interests (factions) taking advantage of our democracy.

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

Madison spells out how special interests need to be controlled.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

Above it seems as though Madison is saying that either of the two remedies would not be effective and below he acknowledges the causes for this being in our human failure of greed. He also describes exactly what we see today with the 99% and the 1%.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

Below, Madison expected special interests to act in a way contrary to the public good. Please pay special attention to the last line.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

Madison also realizes we cannot expect our politicians to do anything about this problem unless we as citizens stay engaged.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

Now he acknowleges we cannot stop the problem from occurring but we must focus on the effects of what the special interests will do.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Below Madison makes a great revelation that should make the GOP shudder. He is implying that a local government is less effective for the common good than a state government and that a state government is less equipped to keep the common good of the nation at hand than the federal government.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

In summary, Madison is telling us that special interests will always exist and that it is our responsibility to be vigilant about those that wish to push those agenda's. It is our responsibility to recognize when we are being played by them. And it is our responsibility to use our vote to contain them.

T1Truth

The Presidential candidate's years at Bain represent everything you hate about capitalism.

It was the early 1990s, and the 750 men and women at Georgetown Steel were pumping out wire rods at peak performance. They had an abiding trust in management's ability to run a smart company. That allegiance was rewarded with fat profit-sharing checks. In the basement-wage economy of Georgetown, South Carolina, Sanderson and his co-workers were blue-collar aristocracy.

"We were doing very good," says Sanderson, president of Steelworkers Local 7898. "The plant was making money and we had good profit-sharing checks, and everything was going well."

What he didn't know was that it was about to end. Hundreds of miles to the north in Boston, a future presidential candidate was sizing up Georgetown's books.

At the time, Mitt Romney had been running Bain Capital since 1984, minting a reputation as a prince of private investment. A future prospectus by Deutsche Bank would reveal that by the time he left in 1999, Bain had averaged a shimmering 88 percent annual return on investment. Romney would use that success to launch his political career.

His specialty was flipping companies—or what he often calls "creative destruction." It's the age-old theory that the new must constantly attack the old to bring efficiency to the economy, even if some are destroyed along the way. In other words, people like Romney are wolves, culling the herd of the weak and infirm.

His formula was simple: Bain would purchase a firm with little money down, then begin extracting huge management fees and paying Romney and his investors enormous dividends.

The result was that previously profitable companies were now burdened with debt. But much like the Enron boys, Romney's battery of MBAs fancied themselves the smartest guys in the room. It didn't matter if a company manufactured bicycles or contact lenses; they were certain they could run it better than anyone else.

During last week’s debate on the Buffett Rule, the GOP complained again and again that the rule was a political ploy because it would only raise a few billion dollars every year. Also it would hurt the economy and possibly turn Grover Norquist into Grover Norquist HULK who bashes Republican brains with primary challengers made of pure Rubio.

This week the GOP is set let Stafford student loans interest rates double to 6.4% on July 1.

Why?

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., and chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce said:

“We must now choose between allowing interest rates to rise or piling billions of dollars on the backs of taxpayers.”

The logic is simple. We can pile billions on the backs of taxpayers to help millionaires pay tax rates lower than firefighters and nurses but college graduates need to pay more now.

Priceless Video for Rick Santorum!

Rick Santorum should have thought about this earlier, but it is not too late now, before he aborts his campaign.

The Houston-based company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has been criticized for its work in Iraq, where it is the largest private contractor with revenue totaling more than $10 billion.

The company is under investigation for possible overcharges for fuel and food services connected to its Iraq contracts.

Halliburton said in July that it had received a subpoena seeking information about operations in Iran of its Cayman Islands subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd.

The company has argued that using a Cayman Islands subsidiary exempts it from a U.S.-imposed trade embargo against Iran, which is accused of seeking nuclear arms and funding terrorist networks.

Halliburton provided no details on when its current contracts in Iran would be completed or on the value of the work. The company generated about $80 million in revenue in Iran in 2003.

"

An exhaustive new study by media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting shows that the Sunday morning talk shows have been dominated over the last eight months by white, Republican men.

If the Koch brothers didn't exist, the left would have to invent them. They're
the plutocrats from central casting – oil-and-gas billionaires ready to buy any
congressman, fund any lie, fight any law, bust any union, despoil any landscape,
or shirk any (tax) burden to push their free-market religion and pump up their
profits. 

But no need to invent – Charles and David Koch are the real
deal. Over the past 30-some years, they've poured more than 100 million dollars
into a sprawling
network of foundations, think tanks, front groups, advocacy organizations,
lobbyists and GOP lawmakers, all to the glory of their hard-core libertarian
agenda. They don't oppose big government so much as government – taxes,
environmental protections, safety-net programs, public education: the whole bit.
(By all accounts, the Kochs are true believers; they really buy that road-to-serfdom
stuff about the the holiness of free markets. Still, you can't help but notice
how neatly their philosophy lines up with their business interests.) They like
to think of elected politicians as merely "actors playing out a script," and
themselves as supplying "the
themes and words for the scripts." Imagine Karl Rove’s strategic
cunning, crossed with Ron Paul’s screw-the-poor ideology, and hooked up to
Warren Buffett's checking account, and you’re halfway there.

“In Section 63, in verse 17 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Mormon Church we find this: ‘All liars, and whosoever loveth and and maketh a lie, and the whoremonger, and the sorcerer, shall have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death,'" Bashir said. "And from the Book of Mormon to Nephi, Chapter 2, Verse 34 we find this: ‘Woe unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.'"

Yes, the Sunday talk shows are all about Republicans, week after week. Peter Hart from the liberal watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has the results of eight months of monitoring four Sunday morning talk shows—ABC’s This Week, NBC’s Meet the Press, CBS’s Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday—from June 2011 through February 2012, and a very distinct lean to the right.

Republicans dominated one-on-one interviews, appearing 70 percent of the time—166 Republicans to 70 Democrats. The gender and race imbalance was even more shocking, with men dominating by 86 percent (228 male guests compared to 36 women), and 92 percent of guests were white.

The round-table discussions were no better.

There's plenty of convention content available on the group's web page and YouTube channel, but you won't find any footage of the Sunday afternoon discussion with Nugent — an NRA board member — that led Mitt Romney to distance himself from Nugent and prompted the Secret Service to schedule a meeting with him.

"If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year," Nugent told a crowd at the convention. That comment piqued the interest of the Secret Service, who'll be meeting with Nugent Thursday.