Why I'm not a libertarian

Rand Paul has gotten into a lot of trouble recently for his comments on the Civil Rights Act.  He made them, then had to go back and retract a little, then had to reverse his comments completely.  The problem is that most people were accusing him of being racist, when what he was being was a true libertarian.  In all the discussions about whether he believes blacks should be allowed to sit at lunch counters, what was missed was that libertarianism is a flawed way of running a country.

This would probably be reason #153 as to why I love Rachel Maddow.  On the show where she interviewed Rand Paul she did hammer him over and over again about whether a private business has the right to deny service to anyone it sees fit, and Rand Paul countered that if you can tell a business who they can and can’t serve, then you can limit speech, etc.  For Paul and libertarians, if they’re real libertarians, any government interference is unwelcome.  For people like Maddow and myself, government sometimes needs to step in and accomplish what we cannot on our own.  There are times when society moves to slow, and we ask our elected representatives to pass laws to move us a little bit further along.  This is what it means to be a Progressive.  See the video below

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

Libertarians have an odd sort of attraction to both the left and the right.  The right because they favor limited government interference, however for Republicans that usually only means limited interference in business.  A libertarian, however, would never approve of a marriage amendment or spending on abstinence only education.  This is why some liberals fall for libertarian ideas, because libertarians favor the repeal of drug laws and wouldn’t ban gay marriage, because both those are limits on individual freedom.

The flip side is they believe people should be free without limits.  That sounds like a good thing, because it’s only words.  It’s philosophy without any grounding in fact. What Rachel Maddow attempted to show was the dark side to this unlimited freedom.  No government interference means that businesses can discriminate against anyone they see fit.  They can choose to pay women less for the same jobs, they can fire gays for no reason, they can dump toxic waste where they see fit, they can lie in advertising, they don’t have to run safety tests on their products, they don’t have to prepare food in sanitary ways, etc. 


Here's Rachel Maddow the next day:

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

Rand Paul and others try to argue that we don’t need the federal government to tell us that racism is wrong, but Woolworth’s wasn’t going to desegregate on its own and if it did, it would have been decades later.  Belief that business will act in its self interest and create safe products is not true.  We had an oil spill in the gulf and it was most likely due to a business seeking to skirt the safety standards of the United States.  (and of course Rand Paul defended them as well.) What more proof do you need to know that businesses will not do what is in the best interests of anyone but themselves.  Price gouging is against the law because if it wasn’t PEOPLE WOULD DO IT!

If we lived in small communities libertarianism might work.  In a small community any business that acted inappropriately could be ostracized and shamed by that community, but we live in a vast nation.  We have corporations that took money from people, then took money from the federal government when it mismanaged that first set of money and had the audacity to give its members bonuses.  They feel no shame.  What can the people do when they have no individual power?  They can use their power, through their elected representatives to pass laws to ensure that it can’t happen again.  Essentially saying, we allowed you freedom, and you’ve proven you cannot be trusted.  Much the way your parents imposed stricter rules on you as a teen when you stayed out past curfew or were caught drinking.  Most people think of the government as an outside force, when in fact it is comprised of people just like us (though some more arrogant and greedy, sure), who were hired to do what we ask them to.  It isn’t always perfect, and they don’t always come through, but I’d rather have them trying than the libertarian ideal of no one trying at all.

 

I resemble that remark.

On the heels of Arizona passing it’s immigration law, countless cities cancelling events, and the fear that Major League baseball will decide to pull next year’s all-star game (apparently it won't but maybe the players will boycott), any rational individual would try to lie low and see if the controversy blows over. Well, Arizona appears to be taking a page from Sue Lowden and has decided to draw even more attention to its racial attitudes. However, those attitudes just seem to confirm what the country already thinks of it.

The other day, Arizona governor Brewer signed a law to get rid of ethnic studies classes in schools. The reasoning given by Tom Horne, the author of the bill, is that these ethnic studies classes "promote resentment toward a race or class of people" (read: white people) and "promote the overthrow of the United States government".  Seriously, that what he thinks will happen if you have kids read Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

This echoes a fear that a lot of white people have that children are going to be taught history that diminishes what white people have done and, at worst, paint white people as the bad guys. The problem is, if you’ll pardon the pun, most of the history we’re taught in school white-washes our past.  Heck Pat Buchannan on Rachel Maddow claimed that "this has been a country basically built by white folks".  Forgetting to mention that it was done with a lot of free black labor.

I learned about the civil rights movement only because I read about it on my own. I even had a teacher who tried to say that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery but about economics. Yeah, I’ve heard those arguments before (here's a list of 5 from about.com.
-- The Civil War was about economics. Yes, the south didn’t want to pay workers a salary, when it could just buy them at a one time fee.
-- The War was about state’s rights. Yes the right of some states to keep and own slaves
-- The War was brought on by the differences between industrial and agricultural ways of life. Yes, and agriculture at that time involved…what was that again… oh, yeah…SLAVES!

Look, the truth is that there are hippie teachers who take glee in pointing out that Jefferson owned slaves at the same time as writing that “all men are created equal.” The problem isn’t with those teachers, as people on the right would have it, it's with trying to write only "shiny-happy" history.

What Jefferson and the founding fathers did is amazing. They were a group of intellectuals who “thought” about what the best type of government would be and then debated, made compromises and implemented it. That government stands as the sole remaining super-power in the world today. The fact that they denied women a vote and denied blacks even the most basic rights of humanity, is a big bad spot on our record. But just because they made mistakes (and a big ones at that) doesn’t mean we should just ignore those mistakes.

The United States of America has done a lot of bad things: Slavery, the treatment of the Chinese railroad workers, Jim Crow laws, Japanese Internment Camps, Vietnam massacres, the list goes on. The difference between the Right and Left on talking about these things is that the Right feels that even mentioning these things is to disparage or “hate” America. The Left knows that by acknowledging these events, apologizing and trying to make things right after the fact, is what makes us a great country. Saying we made a mistake, trying to make it right and ensuring that it never happens again is what movie heroes are all about.

Al Franken explained it like this: "But you have to love your country like an adult loves somebody, not like a child loves its Mommy. And right-wing Republicans tend to love America like a child loves its Mommy, where everything Mommy does is okay. But adult love means you're not in denial, and you want the loved one to be the best they can be."  Your parents could do no wrong and if someone criticized or spoke bad about your parents, you’d fight with them.

The Left is like a married couple. We know that our spouse isn’t perfect, and we’re going to have disagreements and sometimes they’re going to annoy the hell out of us. But, you work at it. You love them so you try to make things better. You try to find a solution that doesn’t end in dissolution. At least that what you should do if you’re an adult.

So when Horne heard about these African-American and Mexican-American studies programs, he reacted like a child upon hearing his parent being denigrated. “You take that back! You shut up!” In all honesty these courses just teach that someone other than old white men had a hand in crafting our nation. It teaches these students that people like them made a difference; it makes them feel a part of history. If you have kids that are interested enough to take these classes and learn about American History or read world literature, why would anyone try to stop them? Teachers have a hard enough time getting students interested in lessons, why take away something that might actually hold their interest?

On a political level, why would you sign a bill that targets “ethnic” groups on the heels of signing a bill that many believe targets “ethnic” groups? I predict a ban on Mexican radio stations next with some flimsy argument as to why it needs to be eliminated. “It’s not that we don’t like Mexican music, it’s that the beats of that music cycle at a frequency that is harmful to salamanders.”

Good luck Arizona, I hope you find your way.

When will they admit they're wrong?

There comes a time when you have to admit you're wrong.  Whether it's because you said, "I turned the dishwasher on," only to find that all your dishes are still dirty and the soap is sitting in its holder unused.  Or, because you believe that business should operate without any oversight or regulations, only to find that they end up buying credit default swaps on bad CDOs or not keeping their mines up to safe standards.  Sometimes you have to admit you're wrong.

The news these days is filled with items that should have people (and by people I mean politicians as well) reevaluating their stances on certain issues.  It should, but it doesn't.  An American citizen is captured for attempting to set off a bomb in Times Square and he was caught with good police work, not torture or by dropping bombs.  However, the issue on the right is whether he should have been Mirandized.  These are lawmakers, they do understand that if you don't make someone aware of their Miranda rights, any information they give us might not be admissible in court.  Meaning when you tried to convict him of a crime, he might go free. (I won't even mention the Lieberman bill.)

Then there's the Drill Baby, Drill crowd.  We have a major ecological disaster in the gulf, and they don't admit that maybe 1. we need to make sure we regulate the oil industry, 2. maybe oil isn't the easiest thing to drill from the ground, and 3. it can cause a big mess when something goes wrong.  At least Arnold Schwarzenegger said it made no sense to drill off of California after the spill, but Palin couldn't let it go.

And, shouldn't this spill lead us to some environmental legislation.  Well, we have this bill that Sen. Kerry and others are going to pass.  Of course, it probably won't do anything really substantial, but it is a start.  And maybe thanks to the oil spill there won't be an amendment for more oil wells off of the coast.

And what about Protecting the Constitution, Arizona passes a law that allows police to violate your 4th amendment rights, and it was passed by a Republican majority and the tea parties aren't marching on Phoenix!

I would just like every once in a while for people to say, "you know maybe I should re-think some of my proposals and stances."  Instead it seems that everyone is sticking to their ideological guns.  Intellectual honesty is all I want, but maybe that's too much to ask.

Fox has to stop with the Crazy

It's like Rupert Murdoch watched Citizen Kane and decided he wanted to be Charles Foster Kane.  "We'll just make up the news and report it, if someone says we made it up, we'll accuse THEM of bias."   Thank goodness for the Daily Show, a Media Matters for the casual political geek, calling foul when Fox steps out of the box.  Unfortunately the Daily Show is unbiased or it would have to devote every show, every night to policing FOX.  Could I recommend a Daily Show spin-off in the vein of CSI and Law & Order - Daily Show: FVU (Fox Viewers [or Victims] Unit)

Below a segment where Fox makes up out of whole cloth a connection between a White House logo and Muslim flags.  They had to find something to criticize about this summit because the President accomplished something and it's about peace. 

My favorite line from the Daily Show was, "We called the White House...because, I guess, our phones work."

Keep up the good work.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
A Farewell to Arms
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Mike Huckabee compares gays to drug users

I knew Mike Huckabee was religious and doesn't believe in evolution, and I knew he didn't support gay marriage, but I didn't realize how intolerant his beliefs were. In an interview with The Perspective, the college of New Jersey's magazine, he compares Homosexuality with Drug use and incest: (from the article)


Huckabee went on to draw parallels between homosexuality and other lifestyles that are considered by some to be morally aberrant. “You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal,” he said of same-sex marriage. “That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.”

He also affirmed support for a law in Arkansas that prohibits same-sex couples from becoming adoptive or foster parents. “I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family,” Huckabee said. “And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.”

“Children are not puppies,” he continued. “This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?”

He also had the audacity to claim that Don't Ask, Don't Tell only affects a small group of people and no one in the military is asking for a change:


Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, remains in favor of keeping in place ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,’ the policy that requires the military to expel openly gay service members. “I wouldn’t support a repeal if I were commander-in-chief,” he said. “You don’t see foot soldiers out there demanding it. I’m not sure that’s the most important thing we ought to be doing for the military.”

“[‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’] touches an extraordinarily small group of people,” Huckabee continued. He dismissed calls to amend the policy as “primarily a posturing point for political purposes,” and an attempt to “force something on the military that they themselves haven’t pushed that hard.”

 I guess the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mullen and Secretary of Defense Gates both support the repeal.  As for a small group, over 13,000 soldiers have been dismissed by this policy.  Not to mention the number of Arabic translators that were dismissed at a time when we're waging a war on terror with people who happen to speak primarily Arabic.

Mike Huckabee wants to be President, and we can only hope he'll keep giving interviews like this to keep that from happening.  I know there are people who agree with him, but his beliefs run counter to reality.  Of course that means he'll probably get decent support from the tea party as they also don't really subscribe to reality either.  So those of us who believe that equality includes all humans will have to make sure to that we get to the polls in greater numbers than these "agents of intolerance".

Daily Show response to START treaty coverage

When I heard Obama had reached an agreement with Russia to reduce our nuclear arms, i knew the Republican reaction would be predictably against it (at least vocally).  Thanks to the fine folks at the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I didn't have to spend all day searching for why they were hypocrites.  I know they no longer use the phrase, "The most important television program, ever!" (which they stopped using after 9/11 out of respect) but they really should start again and this clip is one of the reasons.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bang Treaty
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Why the Tea Party won't last - part 2

Even Your Name is From Hundreds of Years Ago.

You can’t fight progress. Ask the horse and buggy people, telegraph operators, heck even newspaper people if you can fight progress. Trying to go back to some previous time is not a recipe for success. In fact I’m trying to think of one successful retro-movement. I’m not talking about fads like bellbottoms coming back into style, I’m talking about real social movements. The only regressive movement that seems to have any success is the anti-gay marriage movement.

Homosexuals deserve to enjoy the same rights as heterosexuals, it’s an inevitability that they will be allowed to serve openly in the military and get married. Yet the forces against this progress seem to be successful, for most of the reasons that the Tea Party movement isn’t: They have a clear message (gays can’t get married or serve in the military), it’s mostly grounded in reality (gay people are real, but they aren’t trying to destroy marriage) and they have a clear goal (they have anti-gay marriage propositions and voting initiatives that they pass). But they are on the wrong side of history. Being gay isn’t a choice and it can’t be cured. So the reality is that a segment of our population is being denied equal rights. And the denial of rights to anyone is the wrong side of history.

Take Health Care, most other western nations offer their citizens some type of universal coverage. America is actually late to the game. And that government takeover the right talks about? All America is requiring is that all of its citizens purchase insurance from private insurance companies. The Hospitals will still be privately run (unlike England where they are state run) and there is no government insurance agency. Everything is still in the private sector. So once again the Tea Party movement isn’t grounded in reality.

Even Social Movements Need the Target Demographic

The final reason the Tea Party movement is going to fail is that it isn’t embraced by young people. Almost every major social movement, every revolution, every lasting social change is started or embraced by the younger generation. Even our revolution was made up of people mostly under 50, many under 40. Alexander Hamilton was 19-21 at the first constitutional convention. Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration. Martin Luther King, Jr was 26 when he led the Montgomery bus boycotts and 34 when he led the march on Washington. Rosa Parks may have been 42, but predating her on refusing to give up their seats was Irene Morgan, who was 27 (she helped overturn segregation on interstate bus rides), Sarah Keys (whose age I can’t find but she was a private in the Woman’s Army Corp), and just nine months before Parks infamous ride, Claudette Colvin a 15 year old refused to give up her seat on the same bus line. Heck, Jesus who you may know as the founder of Christianity, died in his early 30s.

What you aren’t seeing is a bunch of protests at college campuses in the name of the Tea Party movement. The Iranian election protests were on Twitter, students marched on Tianamen Square, Ron Paul is a major political name due to his popularity on college campuses. And of course there was this guy named Obama.

Some people know you have to get them when their young, it’s why the conservatives on the Texas school boards and Kansas school boards work so hard to stay in power. They can decide what the textbooks say, and can feed our children the version of the facts that best fit their ideology. (Funny that conservatives are the ones who claim that liberals “indoctrinate”, when it is conservatives who are literally rewriting school books.)

But what about the Tea Party?

Quick google search for tea party turned up quotes from a:
54 year old,a Retiree,  Guy who receives Social security, woman 67, man 50, 

And image searches don’t help much either. I had to really search to find anyone who looked under 40. Try it yourself, do a Tea Party Google image search. If you find a picture that is less than 50% people over 50 I’d be surprised (and children under 12 don’t count).

Even though the Tea Party will not last, it doesn’t mean it can’t make life hard on those of us trying to move the country forward. How can we speed up their demise? Do the exact opposite of what they’re doing: Have a clear message, have clear achievable goals, keep the young people energized and keep painting the Tea Party as the party of the past and ours as the party of progress. That’s how Obama got elected, how Clinton got elected, and it’s even how Reagan got elected. We have to remember that a majority of Americans (53%) elected Barack Obama. And every congressman was elected by of majority of their constituents. If the tea party movement represents a majority of the American people, then we’ll see that reflected in the polls, but if the Democratic majorities are any indication, the United States has been turning towards progress. If the Tea Party movement is still around in 2012, it won’t be because they’ve been successful, it will be because we’ve not worked hard enough to defeat them.

Joe R.

Why the Tea Party won't last - part 1

Note: I've split this post into two parts due to length. I'll post the second part on Wednesday.

The Tea Party would like to think of itself as here for the long run, possibly replacing the Republican Party as a national party. That the Tea Party movement is a large movement with many members is not to be denied, but can they actually achieve anything? Are they a new political party or just a passing fad?

If you look to the social movements of the past you’ll see that the Tea Party just doesn’t have what it takes. Even the people they claim to admire, our founding fathers, did more than just throw tea in a river out of anger. The founders weren’t randomly angry at the king, they had legitimate grievances, and they took specific actions to change things. There are four reasons the tea party will not last: They do not have clear goals and objectives, they have an inconsistent message not grounded on facts, their direction is backwards rather than forwards, and their movement is not embraced by young adults. It is these four things that make a social movement historical as opposed to a footnote.

So, you’re mad. What are you going to do about it?

First, the Tea party movement does not have clear, ACHIEVABLE, goals or objectives. They have vague goals like lower taxes, or no taxes, getting government out of our lives, etc. When you look at movements of the past that were successful they had clear goals and objectives. The civil rights movement of the 60s was not out to end racism (though that was a hope), they were out to change the laws that made racism seem legitimate. The woman’s suffrage movement didn’t have as it’s goal to make men see women as equals (though that was the hope), it’s goal was to give women the right to vote. By having a clear goal that is achievable your movement can affect social change. There is less racism today (but as events over weekend of the Health Care vote show it is by no means gone) thanks to the civil rights legislation. Hilary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are testaments to the social change brought about by the suffrage movement (though the small number of female senators is testament to how far we still need to go). If the Tea Party movement were to have a clear goal that it could achieve, something that could be voted on, it might have some staying power. Vague ideas with no actionable items are philosophy not government.

Totalitarianism: or how a President elected by 66 million people enacting legislation he said he would pass once he became President is somehow subverting the will of the people.

The Tea party also has an inconsistent message that is not grounded on reality. The civil rights movement and the suffrage movements were trying to correct wrongs that ACTUALLY existed. Black people in the United States could not eat at lunch counters, sit in the same sections or use the same water fountains or toilets as white people. That was the reality of the United States in the sixties. The Tea Party talks about government totalitarianism, socialism, government takeovers, none of which are real. Many tea party members are on medicare and don’t want government run insurance. They simultaneously want more government regulation of corporations and less government meddling. If the tea party movement wants to last it’s going to need an actual message that is grounded on facts.

As a liberal I believe that government can help people, because I’ve seen in my own life that it can. So when I support health care reform it is because I’ve seen that there are people who have insurance who get sick and have their coverage dropped (reality), then these same people have to struggle just to live, literally LIVE (reality). Arguments that there is going to be a government takeover of hospitals (fiction), Death Panels (fiction), the government coming between you and your doctor (fiction) may help keep people scared, but they do not make for a lasting movement because once people see the reality, they won’t follow the movement anymore. Claims of socialism, fascism and communism (which aren’t synonyms) will only take you so far.

Next: Why you may not understand their music but you still need their support.

What's wrong with the Republican party

I was working on a post about all that is wrong with the current Republican party, then I read this: An open letter to conservatives from Talking Points Memo and decided I should probably just post a link to it, since I can't match the amount of citations it achieves. It's one thing to make claims about conservatives and Republicans, it's another to have an example for every single critique. In a word this blog post is awesome. And something everyone should have a permanent link to.

Here's how it begins:

Dear Conservative Americans,

The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.

First, the invitation: Come back to us.

Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors, religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have work to do even before you take on that task.

Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational. Worse, it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole, historical inaccuracy and hatred.

If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:

Continue reading

Obama signs health reform into law

I was at work during the signing, but thanks to the internet and CNN.com I was able to watch this historic moment. I work for a company that has a little over 60 employees, and while it pays a good wage, doesn't offer insurance. Thanks to this bill I may finally get coverage. (I live in Texas so there's a chance Perry and the Attorney General may try to keep me from getting it.)

Even if I don't get coverage many other Americans are going to benefit from this program. Part of the reason I'm a liberal, and vote Democratic, is due to the fact that it was Democratic programs that allowed me to attend college. It was the government helping me out, that allowed me to get a degree. Private loans cannot compare to Federal student loans (both sub & unsubsidized). It was the Hope credit that helped make it affordable. The fact I get to deduct my student loan interest from my taxes helps me. This is all that the government has done for me. Now here is what the government is going to do for you:

A list of some of the things that this Health care bill will do:

* This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone.
* This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday.
* This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need.
* This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool.
* In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years.
* This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections:

* This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer.
* This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees.
* Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies.
* Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders.
* Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges.

Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses:

* This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable.
* This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same.
* This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64.
* This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.'

Source:
Nancy-Ann DeParle
Director, White House Office of Health Reform

It's not perfect but it's a start.

Different ways of thinking

The first year of the Obama administration has been one of intense debate. There were debates on bailouts, the recovery act, health care, the war on terror and on and on. The problem is that there are two ways of thinking about problems: the scientific and the non-scientific. I use science because those are the two types of degrees you can get in college: a liberal arts or a science degree. (There are other degrees you can get, but they basically boil down to these.) It is those two types of degrees that shape the way you debate about issues.

The difference in these two ways of thinking is why there are never any solutions to our problems in Congress. I was watching a debate on the Daily show between Jon Stewart and Marc Thiessen on “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EIT). The problem with this debate is that Thiessen believes he’s right because he has evidence to support his argument. Stewart thinks he’s right because he has evidence to support his opposing argument. Well if there is evidence to support both arguments, then how can you tell who is right?

(In the interest of full disclosure I have a degree in Psychology, which is still considered a liberal art not a science)

In the liberal arts, such as history, literature, and the social sciences, arguments are made by finding evidence to support your argument. In a typical assignment you would present a thesis and then offer examples that support the thesis.

In the sciences, such as biology, physics and chemistry, you present a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it. If you believe that x causes y then your hypothesis gains evidence if you show that x causes y. But that’s not where science stops. Science then tries to see if “w” causes y, or “g” causes y. If those things are also true, then what does it mean that x causes y? Only science approaches questions in this way.

Let’s take the enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) argument. If EIT gets us intelligence that prevents attacks, that’s a good thing and you have evidence for your thesis. However, intelligence that prevents attacks has been gained without using EIT. So now the question is, do we need to use EIT?

In most discussions there isn’t a way to answer these questions because you can’t normally run experiments to prove these sorts of hypotheses. You can’t assign people to random groups of EIT and non-EIT. Unless you’re lucky (or unlucky) enough to have the federal government unofficially run the experiment for you. All we have to do is take all the intelligence that was gathered by both methods (and I do mean all, you can't pick and choose), have an independent group rate the data on how useful it was (use scientists with no interest in public policy), then compare the two. If it turns out that there was a 60/40 or 70/30 difference between the two methods of interrogation, then you have your answer.

That, unfortunately, would only be the beginning of the problem. Let’s say that it turns out that EIT is 70% more effective than non-EIT, should we use it? I ask this question, because the same question can be asked about stem-cell research. Using embryonic stem-cells is much more useful, than using adult stem cells. The difference is probably more than 70%, however most people who would support EIT would NOT support stem-cell research that uses embryonic stem-cells. Their argument is that using embryonic stem-cells may save lives, but it is morally wrong. People who are against EIT argue that it may yield results, but it is morally wrong also.

(Of course, if it turns out that you get more useful data using non-EIT, then there isn't really any debate to be had.)

So I guess all I really did was postpone the argument. We have a way of discovering the truth, but not whether it’s right or wrong (morally). At least if we knew what was true, then debating on whether it’s right or wrong would mean something.

Goes without saying

Democrats refuse to work with Republicans.

Democrats raise taxes.

Why do Republican’s get away with making these claims? Partly it’s because reporters don’t engage in debate with the people they’re interviewing (so they don’t seem biased), but is also because Republican’s (and Democrats) are speaking to their bases, their supporters. When speaking to people who agree with you, you don’t have to worry about facts. That’s seems like I’m calling them liars, what I mean is you don’t have to make your case because they already agree with you. Ones supporters accept as given something others would require evidence for, before they believed. “It goes without saying.”

If you believe in ghosts, then the door shutting on its own is proof that the house is haunted. If you don’t believe in ghosts, then the door shutting might be due to air pressure changes in the house, (like happens in my apartment) or any number of other reasons.

If you believe that Democrats like big government, then you probably don’t know that Clinton reduced the size of the federal government only to have George W. Bush increase it. If you believe that government can’t solve social problems then you ignore the civil rights movement, or the fact that social security and Medicaid have helped millions.

Whenever anyone makes a statement, and I mean anyone whether you agree with them or not, you should ask yourself, “is this true, or am I agreeing out of a preconceived notions?” Is this a fact or a belief? Be skeptical, but in the true sense of the word. A real skeptic accepts as facts ideas that have ample evidence for them. A skeptic doesn’t dismiss everything as opinion, but seeks to eliminate questions by finding more evidence. The more evidence for a position, the more likely it is to be right.

So when you say, “they’re all in the pocket of the corporations.” You’re wrong, and are part of the problem. Because as long as you spread the blame on every Senator and Representative, then those that are truly responsible will get away with their obstructionism and live to obstruct another day, while those who are trying to do the right thing get swept out of office because they were painted with the same broad brush as the obstructionist. When you don’t vote because you think your vote doesn’t count (another truism), the status quo wins. If everyone who disagreed with the way things are going now actually voted, things would change. That’s something that many in power would rather go without being said.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It's been fun watching Republicans talk about compromise as if it were a synonym for capitulation. Here's what happened with Health Care: Democrats had a 60 seat (if not vote) majority, but they still tried to put everything they could in the bill that Republicans would want and take out everything that Republicans would find even remotely offensive. After all this, the Republicans still claim that Democrats refuse to cooperate.

We could talk about how they get away with this sort of rhetoric, but that's a blog for a different day. What I want to talk about now is what compromise really means. Compromise is about two people making concessions to achieve a middle ground. Let's put it in simple terms that anyone can understand: let's say you have a group of people and they want to order a pizza. There are ten of you. 4 want supreme pizza, 3 want pepperoni, and 3 want veggie. What the Democrats did was forgo supreme pizza completely even though the majority wanted it. The democrats decided to order pizzas for everyone that was half pepperoni half veggie. The Republicans refuse to eat the pizza because they only want pepperoni, and now believe we should start ordering from scratch. That's not compromise, that's ... well being a child. Only children refuse to eat with others because they don't get what they want, and when you give in to them, still cry about the unfairness of it all.

When I see Eric Cantor or John Boehner talking about "starting with a clean sheet", i think of a child whining about having to share with others, and sad because they don't get to dictate how the game is played anymore. The sad part is that we as Democrats let them get away with this. I don't have children, but for those of you who do, how long would you allow your kids to get away with this sort of behavior? How long are we going to let Republicans get away with it?

Is Fox News a real news organization?

There's been quite a bit of fuss over the Treasury Dept. trying to exclude Fox News from interviewing Kenneth Feingberg (maybe it's because they insist on calling everyone Obama appoints a "czar"). Obama, and many of his staff, have said Fox is not a real news organization and shouldn't be treated as such. If you've ever watched the documentary Outfoxed, you probably share this view. But to be fair I decided to take a look at all the major news websites and see if I could tell a difference.

This is a single snapshot of today at a little around 4pm CST. I reprint, you decide.

Here's cbsnews.com



The main article is critical of Obama, so that's good. It means they're not part of the LIBERAL media. The rest is different news headlines about different subjects.

Next is abcnews.com



Again, mostly headlines, different from those on CBS. The only questions here seem to be fair minded, not pointed and they are asked in the right hand section in a paid ad and an ad for 20/20.

Here's CNN:



Lots of headlines here. Nothing good or bad about Obama, or even healthcare. That's weird.

How about the EVIL MSNBC.COM (which is also NBC). Surely that website must be all LEFT leaning?



Well there is Nancy Pelosi on the left hand side. But the main article is about NATO agreeing with General McChystal that Afghanistan needs more troops. And there's a headline about "politics at play as Obama talks energy at MIT". I would expect a left leaning headline to be more like: "Obama courageously speaks truth at MIT".

NOW FOR FOX NEWS. See if you can tell the difference.



Here's the problem with the site. Commentary is mixed with headlines. "Too Much of a Good Thing" about the public option "being pushed" by Nancy Pelosi. Under that is FOX FORUM: YOU can still stop Obamacare. First, it's encouraging it's readers to "stop Obamacare." That's not what a news organization should do. Second, it should be called Health Care Reform because that's unbiased. A commentator can call it Obamacare, but a NEWS organization shouldn't. Like Olbermann and others can refer to the Bush Tax Cuts and how they were bad, but news organizations shouldn't.

Headline: Obama loses bid to control press. A more accurate headline would be "exclude" press. Control press sounds more like he was mandating editorial content. It's not like the Obama administration sent someone on air as a commentator (or how about three)without saying they were being paid.

Another FOX FORUM: time for Obama to quit attacks, grow up.

These aren't polls off to the side or listed as commentary. They're right under the headlines as if they're news.

Finally, here's The Nation website which is an unabashedly left wing magazine. They are dedicated to news and commentary (and say so)



Each of these articles is meant to convey information and a point of view. Yet looking at them they're more subtle than FOX. The first article is meant to convince you that we should leave Afghanistan not send more troops. The question, Is it worth it? is more nuanced than "Is Obama threatening press freedom?"

When a self-proclaimed Leftist Liberal magazine hides it's position more than a "NEWS" organization, maybe Obama and Axelrod have a point.

Rep Grayson is my hero

Rep. Grayson is my new hero! Hopefully he doesn't have some scandal waiting to come to light. You know the Right Wing is digging. Till then, enjoy his "lead, follow or get out of the way" speech before congress.

Here's his speech at the Florida Democratic Party Convention: What it means to be a Democrat.

More about ACORN

I posted previously about ACORN, and how evidence is needed when making claims about the "evils" of this or that. And while I still believe that ACORN is an organization that needs to be reformed, it's not an evil organization. Rachel Maddow puts it best, which is why she's my favorite pundit. Ms. Maddow approaches every issue from a frame of "what is the truth" here, not "what is my point of view" and is one of the most sane talking heads out there. Who else could hear Pat Buchanan utter the phrase, "white people built this country" and still remain civil. Rachel can, and that's why her reporting on ACORN is so important.

At first blush it can seem like more of the usual, "sure it's bad, but you're worse" arguing. But the most important issue here is this: There is still no ACTUAL CRIME. On my previous blog I mentioned that there was never any actual voter fraud. In the current case, a crime was talked about, but nothing actually happened. Now this, even to me, seems like parsing, but when you consider Blackwater, KBR, and others, ACORN is like some guy who talked about committing a robbery and Blackwater is Dillinger (without the likability). But Rachel makes the point even better.

From youtube, because it doesn't seem to be on MSNBC.COM




For a party that always demands everyone be treated the same and no one deserves special treatment, Republicans sure don't put their money where there mouth is. Or, perhaps one can't talk with a mouth full of money.

ACORN: A teach-able moment

Acorn: a Teach-able moment

I was wrong, you were right. I want so much to modify this statement, but I shouldn’t. That’s what THEY do. The thing I want us to learn from this moment is that it’s O.K. to be proven wrong about something. Evidence is all I need to change my mind.

The evidence against ACORN, before these events came to light, was flimsy, circumstantial. Submitting a false voter registration is not the same as voter fraud. “Prosecutors believe ACORN workers were not scheming to permit illegal voting, but rather trying to get paid for work they didn't do.” (reference) It’s just evidence that sometimes people are lazy and don’t want to actually try to get voters to register, so they sit down somewhere and fill out the forms themselves. Since no one was actually going to vote, it doesn’t actually do anything. It may have inflated voter rolls, but not actual votes.

This new event, on the other hand, is horrible. And not just because these people believed some guy who looks like a Halloween version of a pimp, but because this is actual abuse, and is actually illegal. And the reason I know that, is evidence. This isn’t unsubstantiated rumors. This isn’t hearsay. This isn’t suspicion, this is evidence.

This is what’s lacking from every other criticism of Obama and Democrats in general. There are actual parts of the Health Care bill that deserve criticism. And the new Baucus plan is getting plenty of that. We can debate whether having everyone covered would reduce costs, since Hospitals would be paid for almost every procedure that is done. Costs would be reduced because records would be online, and centralized. We can argue those points, but no one is.

Evidence, facts, support of your position: that’s all we liberals are asking you to give us to convince us that you’re right or that we’re wrong. Or at least to get us to consider your side, if not agree with you. So the thing we can learn from ACORN, is that if you want to convince me, you better bring evidence.

Rebuttal to Rebuttal

I loved Obama’s speech, but then again, I love Obama. So no surprise there. So to the fun part: The Republican Rebuttal

The rebuttal was obviously written before the speech was ever given, or Representative Boustany wouldn’t have started out with the lie (which Obama refuted in the first few minutes of HIS speech) that you will have to give up your healthcare and switch to a government program. Or, maybe I’m naïve and he would have said that anyway. Heck, if you listened to Obama’s speech you’d see that Lord …uhm…Rep. Boustany essentially wanted the same things Obama did, including “let[ting] families and businesses buy insurance across state lines”. That’s funny, that sounds a lot like the Health Exchange the bill proposes.

Before I started rebutted the Republican Health Care proposals I had to find them. Last night when I tried to go to healthcare.gop.gov it said “invalid host name”. It was as if even the internet knew that GOP and healthcare don’t mix. It’s now working, just not immediately after the speech.

I did eventually find the “common sense” reforms that some Republicans were offering, but it still seems that there is a disconnect between Republicans and the American people. I read through Roy Blunt’s suggestions (His was the first listed, but I’ll read through the others later, if for no other reason than to rip them apart like I’m about to rip Blunt’s), and it seems Republicans think that the Americans have the money to buy coverage right now, they just aren’t incentivized to do so. One of Blunt’s proposals:

“ Brings greater fairness to the tax code by extending tax savings to those who currently do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on their own. This provision would provide an “above the line” deduction that is equal to the cost of an individual’s or family’s insurance premiums.
• Provides immediate substantial financial assistance, through new refundable and advanceable tax credits, to low- and modest-income Americans”


Alright, so I dish out (based on the cheapest individual plan I found so far) $150 a month and in April I’ll get that money back. Wait, no I won’t!

This is one of those ways that Republican’s always make things sound good. It’s a tax savings, woo hoo! However, this isn’t really money back. (or as I’m about to show much savings)

Let me explain. When you do your taxes, all the money that is withheld from your paycheck is considered your total payments.

After you adjust your income, you use a tax table to determine what the tax you owe is.

If your payments are greater than your liability, you get a refund, if not you owe. Based on Blunt’s plan, you reduce your Adjusted Gross Income, dropping you into a lower tax bracket so you get a bigger refund.

Let’s see how this works out for a single female with an adjusted gross income, before Blunt’s tax credit, of 30K. The taxes she owes are: 4108.75 (based on last year’s totals), she had withheld from her paycheck $4476 (using my totals from 2002, which is when my AGI was around 30K) so she gets a refund of $367.25.

Now with the Tax savings from Republican plan: (let’s let her pay my premium for a year, $1800) so we adjust her gross income by this amount. $28,200. Tax she owes: $3838.75. Refund: 637.25 a difference of $270. WOW! Sign me up. I’ll gladly pay $1800/year for an extra $270 on April 15th. Who wouldn’t? Oh, yeah…everyone. The above the line tax credit would get NO ONE to sign up. Thanks Roy Blunt, congressman from Missouri, you did absolutely nothing to solve the uninsured problem.

Though I will say that the second part might help as a “refundable& advanceable” tax credit would be like the Earned Income Credit which might actually help you afford coverage, depending, of course, on how they define “low- and modest-income Americans”. No confusion on the Democratic plan on who they’ll help: HR3200 says it will offer credits to people up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. (which means if you’re making 3x the FPL you get assistance: A family of 4 making $66,000/yr would get help.)

I encourage you to read Blunt’s proposal. It has many other items it claims will reduce costs or help people, but in actuality it won’t. Quick examples:
1. incentives to use health savings accounts
2. “Encourages (not mandates, which means, “we’re not going to force you, you do it if you want”) states to create a Universal Access Program by establishing and/or reforming existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable coverage. (short version: Encourages nothing)
3. Promotes prevention and wellness by giving employers and insurers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes. (Now I can legally give that hot blond a raise, instead of that fat dude)
4. Encourages the creation of health plan finders to provide patients with the tools to easily find the right health plan that best meets their needs. (Encourages again, you know I can encourage my dog to pee outside all I want, if I don’t take him outside, he’s going to pee on the carpet.)
5. Makes health care more convenient by eliminating bureaucratic red tape to expand access to Community Health Centers that are so critical to underserved areas, both in large cities and in rural America. (I can go to that Health Center, where the doctor charges me $80 upfront to tell me there’s nothing wrong, and I waited 2 hours to see, As opposed to a $25 co-pay to see a traditional doctor with insurance. Thank you Republican party.)

What all this shows me is that the Republican party has a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem, and what the average American needs. The Democratic plan would solve the problems of the affordability and coverage, the Republican plans won’t. Especially when the Democratic plan mandates that large Employers like Walmart (the largest employer of people in the US would have to offer affordable health insurance to their employees. That’s a lot of low-income workers getting coverage for the first time. The Democratic plan also sets limits on how high a premium can be, what better way is there to control costs than that!

I hope the speech at least rallys the Democrats if nothing else. We only need 51 votes in the Senate to pass the bill, we need 60 to stop a fillibuster. Hopefully the Blue Dog Democrats will at least prevent the fillibuster, and allow the majority to rule. At least that’s my hope.

jr.

An email forward

I get email forwards from friends who like to keep me on my toes, politically. And I enjoy responding to them. It's been a while since I blogged here, so I thought I'd share one. Enjoy

[note: their comments are in regular script, mine like this sorry it's a bit long]

A couple definitions (provided) by dictionary.com.
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Facism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Stalinism: the principles of communism associated with Joseph Stalin, characterized esp. by the extreme suppression of dissident political or ideological views, the concentration of power in one person, and an aggressive international policy.


This is A Time For Courage
April 15, 2009
Ladies and gentlemen, This is a Time For Courage.
We are gathered here today on the Plains of West Texas in common purpose. We are here to remind our government that this is our country. We the People are still in charge, and our government is still our servant and not our master. This is a great point, but which “people” do you mean? If our country was made up of only 100 people, not all of them would agree on most courses of action. So our government is set up by majority rule, but only kind of. I’ll get more into that later. But for now we’ve got 100 people who want different things, so how do we decide on a course of action? We let the majority decide. If the people breakdown like this 40% , 20%, 10%, and everyone else is less than 5% what would you do? Majority rules. The difference is that 52% of the country voted for Obama, and 52% support having the govt. create a health care plan to compete with private insurance compared with 46% who oppose. (and because I want you to find this info for yourself.)If that was the vote, what would you do? Let’s make it simpler. If you wanted pizza, but the other 4 members of you family wanted burgers, do you get pizza? That is democracy.

Our Nation's founding document is The Declaration of Independence.It tells us that our rights come from God and not from a small group of Elite men and women. (this is just snark, but the Declaration was written by a “small group of Elite men and” NO “women”)

Our Constitution starts with the words "We the People." Our Constitution was written for ordinary Americans like you and me. Our Constitution protects us from our government and from the politicians. The constitution also protects us from ourselves. Earlier when I said our government is set up by majority rule, but only kind of, this is what I was referring to. Our constitution sets up a series of checks and balances, not only on the different branches, but on us the American people as well. That’s why the House of Representatives is apportioned the way it is, to act as a check on public passions. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers again, or for once even, to check if I’m right.

Our President has complained that our Constitution gives ordinary people too much protection. He has ridiculed us for the high value we place on our Bibles, our guns, our personal property, and our Liberty .He tells us we do not deserve to keep the money we have earned. If you show me where he actually said this, I’ll concede the argument. I will happily vote against him in the next election.

We are told freedom has not worked. By whom? Personal responsibility, free enterprise, and Liberty have not been effective. Once again, by whom? Our government will now make more of our decisions for us. I assume you mean your individual decisions, because otherwise you don’t understand what a government is for.


Other than our military, I can think of not one government agency I have ever found to be helpful. I hope your post office remembers that next time you mail a letter. Not to mention the Hwys that you drive on, or the park you take your kids to. And speaking of our military, how about those Navy Seals blowing the heads off those three terrorist pirates? Don't you just wish our entire government would function with such efficiency, professionalism, and courage? Funny, that was the Obama administration. The previous Administration couldn’t catch the mastermind behind 9/11. Not to mention the current administration organized the release of two journalist held hostage in Korea.

We watch in disbelief as our beloved United States is weakened economically, militarily, and morally by a Radical President and his eager accomplices. He’s only been if office a little over 200 days. You can’t blame the weakened our economy (bush tax cuts), military (stretched thin by Iraq and Afghan wars) or morals (spied on it’s own citizens, tortured prisoners, held prisoners with no evidence) on the current president.

What has taken generations to build is systematically destroyed and replaced with the same Socialist Evil that brought poverty, destruction, and despair to untold hundreds of millions. Actually, Communism & Fascism brought those things about. Dictators keeping all the weatlth for themselves. There aren’t really many actual “Socialist” countries around, and most of those are troubled because they are recent democracies. Most are socialist/capitalist (socialist public plans/private businesses) amalgams and they are doing just fine, and have better living standards than we do. Think France, UK, Sweden & Norway.

The problems we face today have occurred because we have not defended our Nation from Socialism. For too long we have allowed the wrong people to make the worst possible decisions. I have to say this sentence would have a lot more evidence if you replaced Socialism with unrestricted Capitalism. You see our country needs Capitalism. It’s how innovation is brought about, it’s how we find new cures and new technology. However, profit motive in areas that effect Human living standards (ie. Housing, healthcare) lead to people making “the worst possible decisions”. Walmart suing Deborah Shank for reimbursement on her medical expenses (which they dropped – story here), or insurance companies dropping coverage from people once they get sick (see Rep Barton, Republican from Texas, discussing this). The truth is capitalism is one of the reasons slavery was around for so long, and the reason there used to be 80 hour work weeks, children working in factories & no minimum wage. Sometimes you have to force businesses to do the “right thing”.

The Bible warns us of class hatred. The Radical leadership of our government daily fans the evil flames of class envy. The bible does not explicitly warn of “class hatred”, but I could be wrong and look forward to seeing the verses that state such. The bible mostly speaks of a classless society, when it’s not preaching that the lower classes are the best and most righteous. The Sermon on the mount Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek/for they shall inherit the earth. That was too obvious, & easy, how about this from Deuteronomy 15:7 If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. That’s what we’re trying to do.

Our European and Canadian friends beg us to not make the same Socialist mistakes they did. This is simply not true. Even opponents of the British system would rather have it, than nothing at all. (here’s an article from the UK (which was a response to Investors business daily attack on British Healthcare)

The President of the European Union warned our President that his Socialist economic plans are taking the World down the "road to Hell." He did use the words, “road to hell” but he was referring to much more than “socialist economic plans” here’s an excerpt from a CBS article on the subject:
Topolanek, who will remain EU president until a new Czech government is established, bluntly said that "the United States did not take the right path.".

He slammed the U.S.' widening budget deficit and protectionist trade measures - such as the "Buy America" policies included in the stimulus bill, although Obama has said he opposes protectionism in principle.

Topolanek said that "all of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the road to hell."

"We need to read the history books and the lessons of history and the biggest success of the (EU) is the refusal to go this way," he said.

"Americans will need liquidity to finance all their measures and they will balance this with the sale of their bonds but this will undermine the liquidity of the global financial market," said Topolanek.
Article here

The path to power for Socialists includes taking God and guns from the citizens. Without spiritual and physical protection, people cannot defend themselves and their Liberty . They soon become slaves. This isn’t really true, and the slave thing is overly hyperbolic. Norway has a large hunting population and they have socialist programs (universal health care, fully funded higher education, etc), the UK has strict laws governing guns, but you can still own one and join a gun club so you can say it’s for sport (much the way Americans claim an AR-15 is for hunting).

We are angered that our President apologizes for the exceptionalism and heroism of the United States of America . We are deeply troubled that he told others the United States is not a Christian nation. Never did the first part, the second part was in reference to the fact that our country has people of many faiths (catholic, protestant, jew, muslim, etc). We were founded on Religious freedom, the Protestants came here in the 1600s to flee religious persecution, that’s why we have so many faiths.

We are angered that we have been called cowards and racists because we oppose Socialism. Socialism is not racial. Socialism is an equal opportunity destroyer. You were not called cowards and racists because you oppose socialism, you were called that because (many elements of your side) use racial slurs when describing the President.

We are angered that a recent Department of Homeland Security report has singled out our military men and women who are returning home as being radical threats. Not true, the report said that “returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country.” (fox news) [note: I try to use fox news links when possible, as most people who subscribe to these views trust this source]

The report also characterizes you and me as right-wing extremists and radicals because we favor smaller government and lower taxes. Once again, misrepresenting the truth. The report is about militia and anti-government groups who advocate violence. Lest we forget, before the bombing of the WTC, the last major act of terrorism on our shores was by two radical right-wingers Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh. This is what Homeland Security wants to prevent.

You and I are average citizens who believe just like most of our fellow Americans. We want our government to leave us alone and to keep its hands off our money, our religion, our guns, our private property, and our lives. This, and the following statements, sort of contradict basic tenents of Republican ideology. Democrats generally pass tax cuts for the middle class while increasing the tax burden (raising taxes if you will) on corporations and people making over 250k a year. Republicans generally try to give preferential treatment to certain religions, while Democrats try to keep religion separate from politics. No one cares about your guns right now, though it is true Democrats generally want stricter gun control, but for the most part we’re content to just keep full auto weapons illegal. Both sides disrespect private property. Republicans are probably a little worse about this, because they generally side with business rights. Not to mention, the border fence. If the border fence was actually put forth, the government would have to seize a lot of private property near the border and make it federal land. (article here)

We demand that our government stop spending money it does not have. Where were you guys during the Iraq war?

Stop confiscating our money and private property. See border fence above.

Stop printing money. Uhh…OK? (snarky, sorry)

Stop subsidizing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the other failed financial institutions and companies. You do realize that with the tax breaks we give big corporations we essentially subsidize oil, phone, cable, airlines, telecom, etc, right?

Mr. President, stop appointing tax cheats to positions of power and influence. Were you asleep during the Bush presidency? Two of the people Bush wanted to appoint had to drop out because they were paying illegals as housekeepers and not paying taxes on it, Linda Chavez & Bernard Kerik (who was a police commisioner by the way).

Or how about Michael Brown, head of FEMA whose previous experience was with “the International Arabian Horse Association, (IAHA), from 1989-2001. After numerous lawsuits were filed against the organization over disciplinary actions, Brown was forced to resign.”

Mr. President, secure our borders. Exodus 23:9 Do not oppress an alien; you yourselves know how it feels to be aliens, because you were aliens in Egypt.

Mr. President, do not divert money from our missile defense, F-22 Raptors, and other vital military equipment. This gives encouragement, aid, and comfort to our enemies. Protecting us is your number one job. The missle defense system has only worked once and it will still cost $49 billion more, but the last attack we had was from guys with box cutters who used our own planes against us. Most of the countries that have the capability of launching an attack against us are our allies, with China and Russia being our most iffy allies. And even then the missile defense system was only successful against a static attack, China and Russia have sub based nukes, which means the Missle Defense System wouldn’t even have time to track it before it hit us.

The F22 Raptor is one of the coolest planes we’ve ever built but it’s never seen combat, we have several already made, and the program has already cost $65 Billion. Even without the F22 our only true match in air warfare is Britain. That’s because most other nations have our old fighter planes. If any nation wanted to get into a dog fight, even without the F22 we’d still wipe the floor (sky?) with them.

And by the way, even scrapping the F22 program, Obama still increased defense spending. And he intends to increase the size of the army and marines. So I don’t know what the problem is.

Mr. President, do not give voting rights to millions of illegal aliens and felons. You have no more right to create new voters for your benefit than you do to use our money to buy the 2010 and 2012 Elections. I’ve tried not calling anything a lie, but this is an outright lie. This is unsubtantiated fear mongering pure and simple. I welcome seeing any news report or statement from the White House that proposes this.

We gather peacefully here today because there is a growing concern for what our government is doing to us and to our future. We fear for the very survival of our Republic. This is more fear mongering. The Republic is strong and has survived a Civil War, you mean to tell me that passing Health Care or raising taxes on the upper 1% is going to destroy it. We survived two major contested elections (read about the election of Thomas Jefferson, seriously). We survived the corrupt Grant administration. We’re a strong nation, perhaps you should look up our history a little. French-Indian wars, Civil War, Slavery, 2 World Wars, Depression, Cuban Missle Crisis, Cold War, etc, we’re still here.

Yet there is much to make us hopeful and to fill our hearts with optimism and courage. This is still our country! It still is your country, it’s just that 52% of it doesn’t agree with you.

The Constitution of the Unites States belongs to We the People. Our Constitution still protects us from our government. Call every possible elected official, including our President, Vice President, and the Speaker of the House.Demand that they stop stealing our money and giving it to ACORN and their other political supporters in order to buy votes.
Call Senators Cornyn and Hutchison, and Representative Neugebauer. Thank them. Urge them to do much more. Remind them now is a time for action and not for campaigning.
Volunteer to work on our 2010 Census. Confront ACORN. Keep our Census honest... We must not allow our President to take control of our Census for his political advantage.
We must replace as much of our Far Left Congress as possible in 2010. Get involved... Do not let the ACORN control our 2010 Election. This just preys upon the ignorance of people as to what ACORN actually is and what they did. But I will agree, if you can you should volunteer to work for the Census.

Talk with someone every day who does not understand our nation's history and our great heritage. Tell them why the United States is a good and prosperous nation. It still remains that brightly lit city on the hill. It still is the best hope for all mankind. (DON’T BE SNARKY) You don’t seem to understand the nation’s history or heritage, so I’m responding to you. (OK THAT WAS SNARKY) The United States is a good and prosperous nation because we allow multiple views to exist and we allow people the freedom to express those views. We have a representative democracy that may not please everyone, but it does what the MAJORITY of people want while attempting to protect the rights of the MINORITY.

Talk with all of the young people you can find. They are our future. Many do not understand what they have and that their future is being destroyed. You know, this rhetoric has been around for over a century now and no one’s future has ever been destroyed. Why would you assume you’re right now. Social Security didn’t bring about the end of our country, neither did Medicare or Medicaid, nor did integration of our schools or military. Letting women vote wasn’t the end of the world. Electing JFK, didn’t hand our country over to the Pope. Rock & Roll and Rap didn’t destroy us. For that matter, Movies did not eliminate the Theatre, nor television eliminate movies. The thing most people should understand, and our children should understand, is that anytime anyone says anything is going to “destroy/ruin/kill” something, they’re usually wrong.

Encourage your elected State officials to pass legislation that will protect us from our Federal government. This is a time for strong peaceful action. Let us pray that We the People can quickly return our government to its Constitutional responsibilities.Our President and Congress were elected to be our servants and not our masters. Once again your President and Congress were elected to be your REPRESENTATIVES, to make decisions in your stead. Remember the 100 people example at the beginning. (I know it’s been a while.)

May God help our President and Congress to quickly realize the error of their ways and stop their reckless and unwarranted spending, cut our taxes, and reduce the size of our Federal bureaucracy. One last reminder that it was Bush who engaged in unwarranted and reckless spending and increased the size of our federal government, and only cut taxes for the upper 1% and for corporations.

If they do not, may God grant us the courage and determination to vote them out of power next year. Good luck with that. That’s how America works.

May God richly bless and protect each of you, and our Constitution, as together we pursue Liberty !

Delivered at the Lubbock , Texas , TEA Party by Dr. Donald May No it wasn’t it was delivered in Conroe, TX outside of Houston
Watch him here:
Part 1:

Part 2

This should be on the front page of every newspaper in the USA instead of being swept under the rug and kept off the news broadcasts. Our news media sucks, plain and simple. They are not "reporting the news,"-- they are telling us what THEY want us to hear and that is not reporting the news. One more step toward Socialism. Let's keep this going so everyone will know the truth.

WOW I even have to argue against the tag line at the bottom. This isn’t on the front page of every newspaper because…who the fuck is Donald May? They wouldn’t put my speech on the front page of a paper, why would they put this guy’s? Though I do agree the media sucks, but for the opposite reason you do. The problem is they are just “reporting the news”, allowing two sides equal weight, even though sometimes one side lies. And that goes both ways: Democrat and Republican.

This is, of course, when the media isn’t obsessed with Octomoms or former child stars turning into adults.

Anyway, I look forward to evidence from the other side.