President Obama's Weekly Address - July 21, 2012

Remembering the Victims of the Aurora, Colorado Shooting

Just Say 'Oops!' and Get Out (The 'Romney Should Have Quit While He Was Ahead' Edition)

By now we all know about the "you didn't build that" gaffe that wasn't a gaffe. President Obama was referring to roads, bridges, schools and infrastructure already in place, when he said business had help along the way. But just so we're clear, he's the full statement.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.) 

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. 

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So the Romney campaign, and some would say rightfully so in the world of negative campaigning, decided not only to quote the President out of context to show that he was maligning and dismissing small business and individual achievement, they quickly produced a commercial to further illustrate their point.



And there you have it. A pretty good, effective ad. If only it were true. The whole premise is based on a heavily edited version of Obama's quotes over three paragraphs. But one thing the Romney camp missed was the possibility that the person they were lying to for use in an opportunistic ad can't be controlled once the cameras leave.

Neil Cavuto thought it would be a good idea to interview the "star" of the new ad, New "Live Free or Die" Hampshire small businessman Jack Gilchrist. Cavuto asked what he thought of the President's comments... and it seems that Gilchrist knew all of them, not just the one line soundbite. (2:30 mark)

Gilchrist: "Well, I mean, there's truth to what [President Obama] says, I mean, Helen Bresnehan, Ms. Bresnehan was my eleventh grade English teacher and she made an impression on me that will last with me for the rest of my life. I can't even tell you what but she just sticks with me. I think my dad and his parents, they're great generations, on their back we built the interstate highway systems, bridges and whatnot. But we all pay taxes every time we put gas in our tank which go to maintaining the roads and keeping up the bridges. I think the military maybe, I don't know if it was Al Gore I'm not sure which that created the internet for whatever purposes it was intended but we all get the benefit from it since then, so ya, there's been some help along the way."

Watching the full Cavuto interview with Gilchirst is a little disappointing and unfortunate because while he actually agrees with the President's premise, he still accepts Romney's wrongly contextualized interpretation. But hey, I know a lot of successful businessmen that aren't the brightest bulbs or worse yet, willfully choose to believe something other than the truth in order to fit their narrative. I don't know if Gilchrist is the former or the latter, but his "Al Gore internet" jibe sheds a little light, doesn't it?

Finally, not only does Gilchrist fundamentally agree with President Obama that without infrastructure in place that only a centralized entity like the government can create (albeit with tax funds) business ventures would be much harder if not next to impossible, someone else agrees with Obama as well. Mitt. Freakin'. Romney!

Romney: "We value teachers, firefighters, people that build roads... so you really couldn't have a business if you didn't have those things."

They couldn't leave well enough alone. They kept hammering until they smashed their own thumb. Romney even tried it again with a Roxbury, Massachusetts businessman.

Company owner Brian Maloney, 69, agreed with Romney's assessment. "I take umbrage at the suggestion that people don't start and build businesses," Maloney said. "I started out with 500 bucks and worked with my hands to afford grad school at night. My wife supported me. Started a little body shop and was able to bring together people, one at a time." 

He added: "We don't need any more of government's help. We haven't had any. We've only had pain. It's overbearing. It's top-heavy." 

But in an interview with Boston-based reporter Jon Keller of WBZ-TV, Maloney acknowledged that his business received some government help. "The only way I was able to come here, because I had no money, was with an industrial revenue bond," Maloney said in the interview. Industrial revenue bonds are typically issued by local and state governments to attract new business to an area. They create low-interest loans for new development and startups.

That thumping sound you hear is my head banging against my desk. How many of these "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" morons are out there?! Mitt Romney wants to take advantage of every one of them. And it seems they're more than willing to oblige.

 

(Cross-posted at ABLC)

Mitt-mentum?

Posted by Long Island Weegie B.

Before we embrace another Republican president, let's just remember what happened under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and the 107th, 108th and 109th Republican led Congresses. In my opinion Bush and Cheney have lived up to the term "Worst. Presidency. Ever."

How quickly we forget while listening to the Fox Lies. The propaganda really does work.

What happened on W.'s watch (and I am just going from memory):

September 11th, two unjust wars, thousands of Americans dead by war or by natural disaster (remember a little place called Louisiana where dead Americans were floating in the streets and left to die on rooftops, in attics, and their homes?)

Then there was Terri Schiavo.  Congress made a mockery of the woman's privacy, death, and dragged her family through the mud for months as I recall. I find this particularly hypocritical and offensive as a government intrusion into a private discussion.

Hmm... what else?

Revision of posse comitatus, suspension of habeas corpus, expansion of eminent domain rights. With the changes in eminent domain the government can now take your property and give it to a private corporation.

It used to be the government could only take for a public good. Before, if Corp A wants your house, you'd say give me a million dollars and then negotiate until you get what you want and they get what they want. Now, if Corp A wants to build on your property they just get the governor to take it, pay market rate (not necessarily what it is worth), and gives it to them. Not hard to understand, your rights of property ownership just disappeared. Cases are still open in Florida about this.

What else...

...financial collapse, recession, depression, a nosedive in unemployment, the bank disaster (all of which we are still fighting to emerge from), the GM bailout, the housing collapse... outsourcing to China... the only thing he could have done to top it off was to fire a nuke at Russia.

Obama? He is trying to give everyone health care, green energy, tax the super rich, and rebuild the middle class. Yeah, yeah, he let the gays get married, he's black, and America is a deeply racist, bigoted country. I get it. But if we are really just interested in the economy and jobs, what does that have to do with anything?

For some reason, we are all genetically engineered to attack the word SOCIALISM. Well, socialism is a very good thing in moderation. We have Social Security, Medicare, and any number of other socialism based enterprises like the Armed Forces, departments of water supply, sewer departments, departments of traffic, etc. Last I checked, nobody wanted to disband the Army because they function as a socialist organization.

Socialism is no better or worse than Capitalism, Communism, or any of the other 'isms' out there with the exception of Libertarianism. Libertarians are social Darwinists and should be bludgeoned on sight. Most Corporatists are Libertarians in their basic design, except for eating those government bailouts when they fail.

In Socialism (which the US is not), the people own the means of production. Sounds good to me. The Hoover Dam: government built and people owned. Niagara power project: government built and owned by the state of New York. Tennessee Valley Authority? Same thing. In New York alone, George Washington Bridge, Robert F. Kennedy Bridge, Whitestone Bridge, Midtown Tunnel, Central Park. These are all products of Socialism.

Social Security, yes that too. It is your money, owned by you like a bank account so you should be very aware of what the government is doing with your money... because it is YOUR money.

I've gone far longer here than I wanted, so all I want to say is think before you jump to embrace an ideology that has failed for 30 years. Think before you blindly believe the patented lies that are being delivered by the corporate owned media. You see, that was deregulated too. Now the news is no longer fact based as much as it is entertainment based opinion (some call it lies).

Welcome to the Campaign, Ann Romney

In the world of politics, there's a "keep the families out of it" unwritten rule (consistently broken, by the way) that's bandied about as soon as someone attacks something said by a familial surrogate. Absolutely, children should be out of bounds. Sasha and Malia Obama, a young Chelsea Clinton in the 90s, the younger children of the Palin brood. They're victims of circumstance thrown into the spotlight through no fault of their own.

But the spouses of candidates are a different matter. If you immerse yourself into the political arena, you are now fair game. They actively campaign, give speeches, give interviews explaining policy positions, and travel with the candidate and the campaign. Campaign spokespersons paid to be there are one thing - they're connected to the chaos of campaigns and politics. But someone's wife? How dare anyone respond to someone's remarks when touting their husband/wife candidate? Just ask Michelle Obama. Whether you believe she was misquoted or not, her "really proud of my country" line was one of the highlights of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Just off the top of my head, I don't remember seeing very much pushback against Laura Bush because, well, she seemed likable and milquetoasty and didn't come across as a threat. I may be wrong, but I don't remember her stumping on the trail much either. Michelle Obama was/is a different story, as we all know, because of the fierce anti-Obama faction in this country; the I-want-to-take-my-country-back, she's-taking-away-my-dessert, and just flat out racist faction. But I digress.

From the beginning, Mitt's wife, Ann Romney, has been treated with kid gloves. I say this because the minute it was revealed that Mitt and Ann dabble in Olympic dressage horses and that Ann's horse will be at the London Games in a few weeks, the criticisms arose of their elitist stature. Then it was revealed that the Romney's took a $77,000 tax break on the care of the horse as a business expense.

So what did they do? They played the Multiple Sclerosis card. I don't say that lightly. Yes, Ann Romney as been courageously battling MS for the past fourteen years. And while I don't doubt that horseback riding can be beneficial to the health of an MS patient, really? A quarter million dollar dressage horse for which you took a $77,000 deduction as a loss on your taxes? Riding Ol' Bessie around the farm not good enough?

Today, Ann Romney cannonballed into the middle of the presidential campaign pool when asked if Mitt Romney would release more than his one year of tax returns.

 “You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially,” Ann Romney told ABC’s Robin Roberts. “He’s a very generous person. We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person who is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary for four years.” 

“We’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and how we live our life,” the candidate’s wife added.

Sorry, Ann. We're trying to look at where Mitt has been financially... if he'd only release his tax records, we'd see. And tithing is pretty much a requirement for the Mormon Church. Mandatory? No. But it's a commandment. And yes, unless he makes his financial life an open book by doing something as simple as making tax returns available, we're going to think he's hiding something. Illegal? Probably not. But something scathing like little to no tax rate in certain years. Oh, and was he Governor of Massachusetts? We seem to forget because HE NEVER MENTIONS IT. He must be really proud of his record as Governor, huh?

And then comes the kicker. "We've given all you people need to know..." You people? Did she mean the media? The American voters? The rabble? You know how we live our lives. Leave us alone! Let them eat cake!


Welcome to the campaign, Mrs. Romney. It's good to have you.

(By the way, pretty crappy softball interview, Today Show.)

McCain to Bachmann: Have You No Sense of Decency?

Kudos to Senator John McCain fighting back against Tea Party Queen and 21st Century Joe McCarthy, Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is claiming Secretary of State aide Huma Abedin is some sort of secret agent for the Muslim Brotherhood based on yet another wingnut conspiracy theory.

"These allegations about Huma [Abedin] and the report from which they are drawn are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman, a dedicated American and a loyal public servant," said McCain in a speech on the Senate floor on Wednesday morning. The accusations stem from a report by the Center for Security Policy. The organization is run by Frank Gaffney, who has been crusading against the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia law for years... 

..."The letter alleges that three members of Huma’s family are 'connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations,'" he said. "Never mind that one of those individuals, Huma’s father, passed away two decades ago. The letter and the report offer not one instance of an action, a decision or a public position that Huma has taken while at the State Department that would lend credence to the charge that she is promoting anti-American activities within our government." 

"These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis and no merit," McCain added. "And they need to stop now."... 

..."Ultimately, what is at stake in this matter is larger even than the reputation of one person," he added. "This is about who we are as a nation, and who we still aspire to be ... When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it."

This is what we are dealing with, folks. Outrageous, idiotic, uneducated liars of the first order. Who are the elected officials that signed on to the letters sent to federal agencies demanding witch hunts on Abedin? Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). These, along with Michele Bachmann and Iowa's Republican Rep. Steve King (surprisingly not among the signers), are the looniest of the loons. The inmates that run the Tea Party asylum.

And they are dangerous.

(I suggest you watch the video of McCain's speech here.)


_______________________________
UPDATE: Rep. Steve King may not have signed his name to the Bachmann letter in question, but I included him in the wingnut pile for reasons like this.

Think about it

POSTED BY JHW22

Think about it: The GOP constantly tries to tie the personal tax rates of business owners to the businesses they run. They want you to think that if a person's personal tax rates go up their business will suffer. If their personal taxes go down, they will hire more at their businesses.

Mitt Romney says he has the business experience to create jobs because of his 25 years at Bain.

SOOOO, if the GOP says that personal taxes are a direct factor in how someone runs a business and Mitt Romney says how he ran Bain is the reason to trust he can create jobs, shouldn't we be seeing as much documentation as possible on his taxes? 25 years of running a business can't be summed up in one year of taxes especially when that one year was a year he wasn't "running" that business.

If taxes = job creation. We need to see Mitt Romney's taxes, Bain's taxes, Bain's hiring and firing record.

Ya Think?!

From the "No shit, Sherlock!" annals of journalism comes this NY Times piece suggesting New Jersey Governor Tony Soprano may have hindered his chances for a VP nod because he's a bit over the top.

From: Christie’s Brashness Blunts Hopes to Join Ticket

...Mr. Christie’s star has faded as a potential vice-presidential pick. As polls show that his bluntness is striking more voters as bullying, Republicans close to Mr. Romney’s campaign say that the governor’s continued hostile encounters — including one on the Jersey Shore this month that was caught on video — have augmented fears that he is too unpredictable and too contentious, turning what was once viewed as a key strength into a drawback. 

A decision to pass on Mr. Christie would highlight the more cautious approach Mr. Romney appears to be taking — by all indications he has been leaning toward measured personalities like Tim Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor, or Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. This may reflect the lessons of the last presidential race, when a Republican running mate who seemed authentic and exciting went rogue... 

...Aides and advisers to Mr. Romney, who acknowledge that he was never going to be the safest choice, privately say that they are troubled by Mr. Christie’s temper, calling it unsettling and out of step with Mr. Romney’s temperament... 

...In the town-hall-style meetings that have become his preferred method of delivering messages (he has done 88 in 18 months), he boasts of his skill getting a Democrat-led Legislature to buckle. But what is often left out is that the changes were things that had first been proposed by Democrats who were coming in when Mr. Christie took office. 

“It’s like the guy who catches the little fish, then by the time he’s done telling you the story, it’s a 60-pound tuna,” said Stephen M. Sweeney, the State Senate president and a Gloucester County Democrat who initially proposed the pension changes and property tax cap.

So was it calling people idiots in town-hall meetings or his thin-skinned approach to hearing criticism on a Jersey Shore boardwalk from a constituent that has people second guessing his baseball bat to the knees approach? Or maybe it's his economic decisions based on politics instead of what's best for his state, like canceling the ARC tunnel project or blowing a $400 million federal education grant because of his disapproval on a teachers' union compromise.

But hey, you gotta love that tough guy persona, huh? 

New Jersey voters, you can only polish a turd for so long.

McCain: Homina, Homina Homina... Get Off My Lawn!

Mitt Romney's taxes. That's what we're talking about. Why won't he release his more than the tax returns he's made available when he knew he was running for president? What's he hiding? Well, maybe nothing, but the perception is that he does have something to hide, otherwise, why not release the forms?

When John McCain was asked why he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate over Romney after reviewing 23 years of Romney tax returns made available to the McCain campaign, John McCain said this:

...because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate," he said. "Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. ... Come on, why? That’s a stupid question."

Yes. You read that correctly. The McCain campaign thought Sarah Freakin' Palin was a better vice presidential candidate than, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and countless others when searching for someone who would be the Commander-in-Chief should something happen to John McCain.

Perhaps the McCain camp saw something in Romney's tax returns that made them cringe. Perhaps they saw something that they figured the American public would find just as problematic. We may never know.

But soon after Grampa Simpson realized he stuck his slippered foot in his mouth, he attempted to walk back his statement.

John McCain sought to clarify his remarks on Tuesday that he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate over Mitt Romney because she was the “better candidate” and not due to Romney’s tax returns. A statement released by his Senate office reads:

“Some in the media have chosen to take my answer today, in response to the question of why I did not select Governor Romney as my vice presidential nominee, out of context. I selected Sarah Palin because she was the best fit for my campaign, and my decision had nothing to do with the bogus tax return attacks currently being waged by the Obama campaign. I have the highest respect for Governor Romney and his record of public service, and he will make an outstanding president.”

But not such a high respect that he would have been an outstanding Vice President? Thanks, Senator McCain. You've made things very, very clear.

Senate GOP Filibusters DISCLOSE Act

If there's any question left at all where the Republicans stand on campaign finance reform or transparency, think no more.

Last night, Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader and resident Galapagos tortoise Mitch McConnell, voted against bringing a bill to the floor requiring disclosure of anyone who donates to independent groups that spent more than $10,000 on campaign ads.

Once the supposed leaders in campaign finance disclosure (remember John McCain?), not one, single Republican voted in favor of the ‘Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act of 2012’ or 'DISCLOSE' Act. Not even John McCain.

And what is wrong with wrong with disclosing who is behind the the financing of specific independent ads on either side of the political spectrum? According to a McConnell op-ed, he considers it "un-American." He believes it "punishes political enemies." How so if the bill is equally enforced towards ads supporting both parties? McConnell also says it's a First Amendment infringement on free speech. Well, if what you are financing is something you believe in, something you stand for, why would you be ashamed of attaching your name to it?

The truth of the matter is it has nothing to do with protecting free speech or punishing political enemies. Republicans are blocking a vote on this bill because the majority of anonymous money is funding anti-Obama ads. And for the last three years, the GOP has made it clear that their number one priority above all else is to make President Obama a one term president. If the roles were reversed and it were Romney who was in the crosshairs of most of the superPACS, I would posit that there would have been no such filibuster.

The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold except for the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending. But how are we to know where the money is actually coming from to fund the superPACS when the donations are anonymous? This loophole could possibly allow foreign entities to play a role in our albeit fractured political campaign finance system. Whether or not this is the most important reason for disclosure is a conversation for another day (I think it should be a major reason), but I digress.

The fact remains that Republicans would rather have millions upon hundreds of millions of dollars pumped into the political process without any care as to where it came from. It's dangerous. It should stop. And maybe one day it will when it's the Republicans who are on the short end of the stick.

Dumbass Quote of the Week

"He took a leave of absence and in fact, ended up not going back at all and retired retroactively to February 1999 as a result."  

~Romney senior campaign advisor Ed Gillespie, trying to explain why Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was listed as CEO, sole stockholder, chairman of the board and coffee gofer of Bain Capital through 2002 according to SEC documents, when Mitt Romney claims he left Bain in February of 1999.

Yes. Retroactive retirement. He said that.

Must Reads

Simon Maloy: Comically Awful Survey Says 83 Percent Of Doctors Might Quit Over Obamacare

Eugene Robinson: The GOP’s crime against voters

Roger Simon: Why don’t we love Mitt Romney?

Hamilton Nolan: Unions, Money, and the Politics of False Equivalence

John Nichols: Snow Mitt and the Huntsman: A Tale from the Dark Forest of Republicanism

Matt Miller: GOP to the uninsured: Drop dead

Charles M. Blow: Romney in the Lions’ Den

Jed Lewison: Mitt Romney sure picked a bad day to call the president a liar

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 14, 2012

It’s Time for Congress to Pass the Middle Class Tax Cut Extension

I'm Running for Office, For Pete's Sake!

The Romney Campaign demanded a retraction today from the Boston Globe regarding an article that solidifies Mitt Romney's years at Bain Capital lasted through 2002, not 1999 as he had previously stated.

Boston Globe editor Martin Baron told them to take a long walk off a short Boston pier.

We received your request late this afternoon for a correction regarding this morning’s Globe story. Having carefully reviewed that request, we see no basis for publishing a correction. The Globe story was entirely accurate. 

The Globe story was based on government documents filed by Bain Capital itself. Those described Governor Romney as remaining at the helm of Bain Capital as its “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” until 2002. The story also cited state financial disclosure forms filed by Romney that showed he earned income as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

Keep digging, Romney campaign. Keep digging.

Bad Ass Veep!

Here's Vice President Joe Biden kicking some serious ass in his speech to the 103rd NAACP Conference today.

Romney and Paco

The Onion has come up with an hysterical take on Mitt Romney and his attempt to court Hispanic voters.

WARNING: Not for the politically correct. (*Disclaimer: I'm Hispanic and I thought it was spit-take funny.)

Romney: Free Stuff? Vote for the 'Other' Guy

Despite Mitt Romney's less than stellar showing at the NAACP Conference yesterday, and his being jeered for saying he'd repeal the Affordable Care Act, he called it "Obamacare" as is the want of Republicans to call it (you know, because "Affordable Care Act" sounds like something positive), I was willing to give him a little credit for making the appearance. But soon afterward, things began to happen that has given me pause.

Bringing up unpopular position stances in specific policy issues when you're standing in front of a crowd that disagrees with you, is usually avoided by politicians, by and large. That of course unless you're looking for that confrontation to wear as a badge of honor and show it of to your base.

Soon after the NAACP speech, Romney was interviewed by Fox News Neil Cavuto and said this:



"I think we expected that, of course."

And since they expected it, it was a perfect opportunity to show the right wing base who their man was. "See? I provoked the NAACP into booing me. I'm your guy!"

Now, you may think this is a cynical take, but I didn't come to this conclusion until Romney came up with this jewel while speaking at a fundraiser in Hamilton, Montana. Romney told his donors of the NAACP convention attendees, "Remind them of this: if they want more stuff from government, tell them to go vote for the other guy -- more free stuff. But don't forget, nothing is really free."

So in front of a black civil rights group he says he knows what the African-American community needs better than President Obama, but when speaking in front of his base in Montana the same day, he points to all those black people wanting something for nothing. "Free stuff." "Vote for the other guy."

Yes, Mitt Romney, we understand who you truly are in your heart, and you really have made it possible to fully communicate what you believe. And we don't like what we see.

Romney Booed at NAACP... Surprised?

Well, you have to give Mitt Romney credit for going into the lion's den, knowing he was going to have a hard time trying to win the crowd over, and sticking to his message.

That being said, you and your campaign make a huge mistake speaking in front of the NAACP and telling them you know what they need better than your opponent... who just happens to be black.

“If you want a president who will make things better in the African American community, you are looking at him. You take a look!”

Oh, and we know you're dead set on repealing Obamacare (some would call it Romneycare for All). You don't have to mention it in front of a group of people for whom it would most help. My guess is it won't be well received. Video, please:




Dude... SERIOUSLY?

Definition of the Week

lib·er·tar·i·an (noun): just a fancy catch-all word [these days] for an asshole who’s pompously aligned him or herself with an impressive-sounding but entirely BS political movement in an effort to lend legitimacy to and to outright excuse selfish, asshole-ish behavior.

Brought to you by Chez Pazienza in describing Fox News hack John Stossel.

The Oligarchs Know Better, Don't They?

Editor's Note: I'd like to welcome a new contributor who I've known for over 30 years. After reading a few of his Facebook posts, L.I. Weegie has graciously accepted to submit an occasional post at my invitation.

Posted by L.I. Weegie

News has it that Mitt Romney is holding a $50,000 a head fundraiser in the Hamptons with the billionaire Koch brothers in attendance. The Koch brothers are major backers of Romney.

I don't know if anyone thinks about these things during their daily course, but I do and it scares the hell out of me. The Kochs are famous for their social Darwinist, libertarian views and their willingness to make others live by their ideals. Because they feel they are rich and right. They know better.

You see in their multi-billion dollar world of the super rich Koch brothers, the only reason someone is poor is because they are defective. They are doing you a favor letting you live and breath. These are the same guys who backed forced sterilization of the "feeble minded" for their sake, and the genetic betterment of the population.

Are you defective?

The question is, do you want a president who is and takes money from rich oligarchs? Romney only wants to be in office to steal. To steal for himself and his friends because in their eyes they know better. They know how to live, how to be, how to breed. We are just cattle - steak for the oligarchs' table.

Allen West's Slavery Complex

...or "Dumbass Allen West Quote of the Week."


Sometimes I really think that Republican Congressman and Tea Party nut job Allen West just says things to make headlines. He enjoys the spotlight. He's got Donald Trump Fever, that dreaded disease where diarrhea spews from your mouth just to attract attention to yourself.

Responding to a question about the increase of Americans getting Social Security benefits, he said, "that is an unfortunate consequence of failing economic policies coming from the president so that now when people are running out of the unemployment benefits, now they are looking toward going on Social Security disability… so once again we are creating the sense of economic dependence, which to me is a form of modern, 21st century slavery."

Yeah. A black man comparing Social Security to slavery and blaming another black man in the process.

Of course, it doesn't dawn on West to blame the "failing economic policies" to an intransigent GOP,  more worried about bringing anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills, as well as contempt charges against the Attorney General, to the floor instead of any inkling of a jobs bill. Why help the President create jobs and lower the unemployment rate when your main goal is to make him a one-term president?

And where is the proof that there is a direct correlation between the long term unemployed and those filing for Social Security disability benefits? But I digress.

Nutty West keeps bringing up slavery, whether it be in regards to Social Security or the self esteem that comes with being employed. Come on, Florida! Surely you can do better than this. You've been very disappointing since November of 2000.