2016 and the Annoying Liberal Conscience

The 2016 buzz has begun and already we are seeing polling numbers and commentary on a potential run at the presidency by Hillary Clinton on the Left and Jeb Bush or other prominent conservatives on the Right. The comments underneath all of the liberal articles are teeming with posts begging for a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren ticket. This troubles me as a liberal because, although I know liberals tend to vote with a conscience, that conscience is a double edged sword that will come back to bite us like it has in the past.

Let me explain.

First, I should frame my viewpoint in terms of the analogous conservative equivalent. Hey, liberals. What do we tell Republicans about voting in hard core representatives from their conservative base? Yeah. You know what we say. Don't act like you don't. We tell them that Tea Party candidates are dangerous and not in line with main stream America. We tell them that extremist ideas are not good.

Well, isn't that the same thing Bernie Sanders ends up being? He's an extreme Lefty. He's our Ted Cruz. What chance does Ted Cruz have in a general election? What good does a Ted Cruz do for our country? Conservatives suck on his teat like no other just as liberals love a good Bernie Sanders appearance on TV, but the broader picture can't survive a Ted Cruz, so by the same token, Bernie Sanders is better left to fight our battles in Congress, not in the White House.

But your liberal conscience wants to argue with me over that just like Tea Party nuts want to argue with me over wanting Rand Paul to rise up and run. End the Fed. All that jazz. The same conservative conscience that turns its nose up at us wants a Rand Paul candidacy just like we want a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren candidacy. That's why primaries are so messy. Every candidate has to play to the base in primaries and the broader picture in the general election. Jeb Bush knows this. Hillary knows this. Sanders doesn't care. Paul doesn't care. Cruz doesn't care. Warren might care. I'm not sure.

What I do know is this. Clamoring for a Warren or Sanders ticket is primary talk, not general election talk.

But your liberal conscience can't take a Hillary for President ticket, can it? That's the next part of our conscience that screws us over. You would sooner stay home and not vote than vote for Hillary Clinton. You would rather sound all smarty smart with George Carlin quotes than use History to make the case that not voting is a bad idea. Look at the 2014 mid-terms. Look where not voting got us. Turn out always favors Republicans and the liberal conscience prevents us from gaining any ground during those elections because we have principles or something that sounds warm and fuzzy like that.

And your liberal conscience also splits the vote like with Nader and Gore. What happened there? Thanks, liberal conscience.

Listen up. We need a moderate liberal voice in the White House and a liberal conscience in the House and Senate. Why? Legislation is written in Congress. The power of the pen rides on the back of Congressional legislation. If we send Bernie and Elizabeth to Congress, they'll push bills that Hillary will sign. If we push our conscience into the presidential election, we'll get a Republican who won't go along with anything Bernie or Elizabeth sign off on.

I've seen liberal media lately talk up this idea of riling up the liberal base by standing up for liberal ideas and whatnot. That's all fine and good, but if we don't get exactly what you want, does that mean the fire has to be doused with your apathy? When you back out, you give the Republicans Congress and the White House. I don't mind Hillary. She's not a Landrieu who won't represent a liberal like me in Louisiana. Hillary is going to follow our lead if we send her the message we want in Congress. She answers to us through bills we get our representatives to push. We have seen this with Obama, haven't we? If we want something, we have to fight for it, even if the president in office isn't our ideal liberal. If we send Obama a clean liberal bill without Republican obstructionism in the way, we'll get what we want.

If you'd rather Nader us again or put us through another shellacking, go ahead and convince yourself the liberal conscience is a hard line we must toe. You're no different than a Teabagger if you believe that. The pendulum cannot afford to swing back that far Left after the troubles Obama has faced. If we didn't have such strong conservative negative advertising against us like talk of tax hikes, scary fake Socialism claims, or threats of driving up the debt, I'd say go ahead and stick to your guns. That's not the way American voters work under normal circumstances because they're dumb. Don't stay home. Don't turn your nose up. Solidarity is our ticket. The rest can be adjusted via Congress.

ABC World News Now looks to wrong audience on question about ACA signup problems

I was just checking Facebook before calling it a night and I came across a World News Now post in my feed that hit me as surprisingly out of place. The post asks Facebook users to let them know if you're someone who has used the Obamacare web site to sign up for health insurance. I find this odd, considering that people who don't have or can't afford health insurance probably don't use Facebook.

Let's think about that. If you are a struggling American, are you awake at 2am on a Sunday reading Facebook? Do you even have a Facebook account?

This makes me wonder if ABC is looking to get the answer they want by asking the question in a place where they know responses will be largely made by people who don't need to sign up.

I mean, if you want to make it look like rednecks are ignorant, wouldn't you go to a Toby Keith concert and ask them questions about classical music? You'd get the result you wanted, but it wouldn't be a valid sample.

If the TSA was targeted at LAX...

I do not write at this blog very often anymore, but given the state of this country and the rampant spread of paranoia, stupidity, and flagrance, I feel compelled to express myself here.

The news is saying that an eyewitness of the shooting at LAX which took place this morning in Terminal 3 claimed the armed attacker asked if he was TSA. If this is true, then it implies the TSA was the shooter's target. I admit speculation at this point is presumptive and dangerous, so without the facts, this post is merely theoretical in nature.

Given the rise of sites like InfoWars and the paranoia present in Right Wing politics, angst toward the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA has skyrocketed. From beliefs that the DHS is arming itself with ammo to speculation that TSA agents will now be armed, paranoia originating at sites like InfoWars has created an unhealthy environment that can only lead to more dangerous outcomes.

The paranoia has evolved into an overt hatred of the government and underneath that umbrella is where  the DHS and TSA both reside. It is no secret that people who are paranoid about the government post day in and day out about how much they do not trust the DHS or the TSA. To these people, it is a war. They are soldiers in a fight against some imaginary New World Order fantasy where their enemies use mind control devices (as in the case of the Navy Yard shooter) and subjugation is their perceived outcome should they choose not to resist.

So in my local environment, I have to deal with extreme Right Wingers and NWO conspiracy theorists. I have to put up with InfoWars fans. I have to put up with lots of crazy nonsense. The thing is, I do not know which one of these people will snap. Nothing tells me which of them is truly insane and which is just paranoid. I have to view all of them as potential Navy Yard shooters as a result.

If the angst toward the DHS and TSA is reaching a tipping point, then as InfoWars fans the flames of paranoia, we should also see a rise in activity amongst its followers.

How many of them are going to act on their impulses?

Who, then, do we hold responsible for fanning the flames?

I understand the need to vocalize dissent, demand transparency, and advocate free speech, but the responsibility is on these crazy sites and political officials to rein in the dangerous verbage. They are inspiring a whole group of people to snap.

Should it be revealed that our latest shooter was one of these crazies, then I think it is time for Americans to wake up to the reality that the enemy is not the TSA or the DHS, but those who are willing to kill based on some conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theorist would default to the ever popular "false flag" bullshit in response to this shooting. The "false flag" defense is one of convenience and proves to be a self serving blind eye to the insanity they have endorsed. Crying "false flag" absolves them of guilt when I feel we should come down hard on them.

Do not let your local nutjob get away with running his mouth this time. The Navy Yard shooting was a wake up call. We have a mental health problem in this country and these same nutjobs are armed. Make no mistake. If you don't side with them, they are perfectly fine with pointing a gun at you.

Denying they are crazy is denying that we have a mental health problem in this country. Do we have a problem or not? Okay, then. Deal with it. Don't say these folks aren't nuts.

David M. Draiman politicizes Rolling Stone cover

One of the problems with this country is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING becomes politicized. Whether it is the Zimmerman trial, Climate Change, or Boston bombing suspects, someone somewhere has to get their political jabs in. I specifically hate it when someone miscategorizes something as liberal when it is not.

The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.

Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:

YOU…DARE…TO…PUT…THE…IMAGE…OF…THE…BOSTON…BOMBER…ON…THE…FUCKING…COVER…OF…YOUR…MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???

Since when is it specifically ultra-liberal to glorify a terrorist?

It isn't. It hasn't.

Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?

Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.

In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.

While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.

Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.

Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.

If Michelle Malkin can cling to his comments, something is wrong with having said them in the first place. Opportunistic conservatives came right out of the woodwork to validate their overt hatred of liberals through Draiman's words. Had he refrained from politicizing the issue, we would be united together in condemnation, not getting angry over his tainted misrepresentation of liberalism. Instead of evoking disgust over the cover on the magazine, Dave Draiman has inspired a fresh cut of unsubstantiated anti-liberal hate.

You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.

In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.

This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/

Maher wasn't racist on Leno

I missed Bill Maher on The Tonight Show moments ago, but to see how he did, I went straight to Twitter for the commentary. What I found, in addition to a few hateful Republicans from Texas and Louisiana (not surprising), were complaints about Maher's choice of language. He apparently referred to Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained.

Some people on Twitter had a shit fit, crying racism.

Let me set you folks straight, ok?

Here's why it was not racism.

President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained are all terms representing how Republicans feel about Obama. Bill Maher is merely a voice describing the situation that is the racist attitude toward Barack Obama coming from the Right Wing types. Those nicknames are characterizations of Right Wing angst, not of Left Wing racism. Anyone who thinks such commentary is racist is a complete idiot, disconnected from the national dialogue present on the conservative side of the fence. 

In other words, you clearly don't get it. 

Maher does not believe Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, or Django Unchained. He understands that Republicans think Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. There are two Obamas. One is the real Obama. The other is Fantasy Obama, the one Republicans have made up in order to validate their disproportionate fear of a black man. Fantasy Obama is this big scary black guy who represents every stereotype they believe about black people.

It also is not a case of it being okay for a liberal to say something and not okay for a conservative to say something. In this instance, Maher is saying it is not okay for conservatives to perceive Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. He is saying it is not okay for them to be racist. He is not speaking in a derogatory fashion about the President. On the contrary, he is saying these are derogatory perceptions of the President held by conservatives. It's like if I said it's not okay for you to say the N word and in that very condemnation of you, I actually said the N word, not "N word." We're condemning you for your racism, not being racist. It's like if your five year old child said "shit" and in response you said "It's not okay to say shit." What you're doing is responding to my condemnation by saying "But you just said it." Your reasoning is like a five year old being a smart ass instead of learning right from wrong.

Any questions?

Would you rather us NOT talk about how the GOP views President Obama? Tell me why that is. Perhaps you are in denial. Perhaps you aren't aware of the problem. 

Tell me if you'd prefer that he would say "Big scary black guy" instead of the other terms. At what point does the message lose its value? The racism inside the GOP has to be called out. We can't sit here and say nothing.

(If you don't like that I called some of you idiots, here's a tip. Pay attention to the news. You are most definitely not up to speed on this particular issue. That makes you the idiot.)

Thoughts on the "threat" of tyranny

In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.

There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.

The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.

The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?

Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?

Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.

But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.

So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.

But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.

What if there's a tie?

In past presidential elections, I do not recall so much emphasis being placed on the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College on election day. Over the past two weeks, it seems as if that's what 75% of news sources mention, in passing or directly. I'm beginning to wonder why.

If I go to Gallup or 270towin and read their front page, in a matter of seconds, I'm going to come across talk of a tie. Should there be a tie, the reality is, the House picks the winner. Right now, the House is controlled by Republicans. That means Romney wins.

So do these people know something we don't? According to 270towin, there are 32 combinations in which a tie might occur as of today with about eleven states up in the air.

It's almost as if they are giving us a preview for the news coverage we will receive on election night and the morning following the election. It's almost as if the election is going to be rigged and then stolen. Imagine the hubbub should the House pick Romney. It will be no different than the events which transpired in 2000 when George W. Bush was handed the big win by the Supreme Court. The people didn't make this decision. The Electoral College didn't even make that decision. It went to the Supreme Court. In this year's scenario, it would be left up to the House, not the people.

It would further discredit the validity of the Electoral College and invigorate the push for our elections to rely solely upon the popular vote instead. I don't know about you, but I don't like the way the tie scenario is being fed to us. It's very suspicious that this possible outcome is so common a topic this year.

I mean, according to 270towin, Obama has a 74% chance of getting to 270 and Romney only has a 24% shot at the same goal. Why, then, does it even come to mind that the election would end in a tie?

Is this just media hype? Imagine the division in this country should the House be given the choice. Imagine just how much finger pointing and complaining we will have to endure over the next four years. Imagine all the doubt and distrust something like this would create.

A tie? That'd put us in some deep doo doo. Let's hope there is a clear winner on election night. I do not want to put up with a partisan decision. I would rather see the Electoral College play out as intended.

An Unstable Conservative Mind

While I will preface this post with an understanding that mental illness and violent rhetoric exists on both sides of the aisle, there is an overwhelming trend among the conservative ilk that continually makes liberals like me fear for our safety.

Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.

I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.

That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.

The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.

Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html

I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.

Paul Ryan did ask for stimulus money.

Here are screen shots of documents written and signed by Paul Ryan in referencing money being provided by the economic stimulus.

When Paul Ryan says he did not request money from the economic stimulus, he is lying to you.

Don't like it? Too bad. That's his signature there at the bottom of each of these documents.

Now, when he states that the stimulus did not work, surely he has to answer for the fact that, when making these requests, he believed the stimulus would indeed work. Folks, Paul Ryan is merely posturing for political purposes and personal gain now that he is the VP nominee. Not only is it a lie that the stimulus did not work, but the fact that he believed it would work calls into question his current mindset about government spending.

1. We've established he has difficulty with honesty.
2. We've established he has difficulty recollecting about his own actions.
3. We've established that he is saying things just so Mitt Romney can get elected.

As the adage says, a leopard can't change its spots.

This just in...

This just in...

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are reportedly getting a divorce. Fox News blames Obama and claims it is a liberal conspiracy to erode away at the sanctity of marriage and the American way of life. Mitt Romney will hold a press conference later today.

How Voter Purging and Papers Please are Linked: Republican Delusions

One of the things about journalism in the US that gets me going is how pundits respond to anything the Republican or Democratic parties do or say. When the news covers a story, it is often framed in such a way that makes an action or phrase sound so preposterous that the party in question has done something outrageous and unheard of. The fact of the matter is, whether you're listening to Fox News or MSNBC, the facts were twisted to cater to an audience who would naturally become suckered into believing something so outrageous when it is nothing of the sort, sort of.

Let me use the recent coverage of voter purging in Florida and the Arizona Papers Please ruling to illustrate the problem. I'll first describe the pitch (the delivery) and then I'll follow through with the explanation the news completely missed.

Voter Purging

The Pitch:
First, in the voter purging situation, the "goal" at first glance was to weed out fraudulent voting. Judging by the citizens who were purged, it was clear all the wrong people were getting caught up in the mess.

The Explanation:
Behind all of that, Republicans feel justified in purging these voters who largely vote for Democrats. Why? Republicans feel that they are the victims here. They claim to be the victims of a liberal conspiracy to allow illegal immigrants the ability to vote in order to steal the election away from them. In their minds, illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly corrupting the voting process to the point where Republican candidates lose. They feel as though purging the voter rolls will result in a course correction. This is why a Republican audience applauds Mike Turzai in Pennsylvania for saying a voter purge will lead to a Romney victory. Liberals foolishly respond, pointing out how Turzai's comments were an admission of rigging an election.

On the contrary, the Republican delusion is such that they don't see it as rigging the election, but adjusting the situation away from an incorrect belief that the election was rigged to favor Democrats. It's wrong, but it is their delusion. Liberals are left mouths agape for the wrong reason. Liberals need to begin framing unscrupulous behavior in terms of the Republican delusion and not the reasonable assertion from outside the Republican bubble.

Papers Please

The Pitch:
The Papers Please part of the Arizona law that was recently upheld by the Supreme Court has been perceived as a form of racial profiling whereby innocent Hispanic-American citizens would be stopped and accused of being an illegal immigrant just because they are hispanic.

The Explanation:
What you need to understand is, the same sort of Republican delusion exists here, too. You see, Republicans in Arizona and elsewhere believe that illegal immigrants are Democratic strongholds threatening the American way of life and unfairly victimizing (white) American citizens by taking jobs, leeching off government programs, and committing crimes. The Papers Please part of the law, to them, was not an attempt to profile at face value, but it represents Republicans who already profile all Mexican-Americans as illegals. To them, a person of color is not a legitimate American. To them, a person of color is a pawn of the liberal conspiracy against the Republican voter and of America itself.

The Conclusion:
So if you understand the delusion, then you can report on the story better. It will sound as though you are being flagrant and mean to your opposition, but it's the truth. If you admit Republicans are delusional and see the delusion for what it is, you can correctly assess their behavior. Then, you can call them on it. Anything less is feeding into the same stalemate we have come to know.

The same sort of mentality applies to their opinions toward unions and welfare. To them, Democrats are crooked SOBs. To them, a union equates to thugs. To the, welfare equates to lazy leeches. Pick a good system and they will demonize it, claiming victimization.



It's why Romney's "Sauce for the gander" comment resonated. To the, Democrats are unsavory and conspiring against them, so it's only fair to conspire right back. It's disgusting.

Will Ron Paul Split The Vote?

In modern politics right now, the more liberal media outlets are focusing most, if not all of their attention on the Republican primaries. The respective pundits hit all the high points, the Newt vs Mitt phenomenon, the Mitt vs Mitt phenomenon, and even the icky colorful Santorum Surge. These same media outlets have also mentioned that Ron Paul has largely been left out of the mainstream discussion, in part because he is not seen as a viable candidate. Yes, folks, MSNBC does cover Ron Paul, despite what your conservative friends have said.

But the coverage for Ron Paul has dropped off over the past few weeks because the primary results, while initially very strong for Paul, dwindled in comparison to the changes in the numbers for other candidates. Still, you know Paul has a strong backing by his supporters. You'll know them as the internet forumites who end their rants with "Ron Paul 2012." Sometimes they include an exclamation point. Sometimes, not.

So the support is there, right? He has a following. His supporters do not constitute a small group of people. In fact, they are quite large and in addition to that, they are extremely vocal, especially on the internet. Even one of my friends on Facebook supports old man Paul and scoffed at the notion of my perception of him as a crackpot. Sadly, he and I are no longer friends, but I can guarantee you this. Come election time, my former friend will most certainly still support Ron Paul.

With the primaries in full swing, it seems Paul has garnered more than a few delegates. When it comes time to pick a Republican nominee, what will Paul do with his amassed delegates? Will he run as an Independent? Will he run at all? Again, Ron Paul has been lost in terms of being on the media's mind, whether on Fox News or elsewhere. The voice of the Republican establishment knows Paul is a threat to them...but very few are actually asking the more important question. Will Ron Paul's presence in the 2012 Presidential election affect the outcome? Will he be to the eventual nominee what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore? Will he split the vote?

As I've already discussed, Paul supporters have lots of energy. Sadly, though, there is another group of Ron Paul supporters who pose a threat, but not to the Republican nominee. No. They pose a threat to Barack Obama. They are the liberals who want pot legalized. A woman I dated in Arkansas was one of these confused liberals. If any liberal actually goes through Ron Paul's voting record, they'll come to realize he is not very liberal at all and he would do away with many of the things these pothead liberals support. The thing is, they are angry about marijuana and they are also angry about the wars we have been fighting. Anger apparently leads to confusion, but the anger is strong enough for these liberal voters to cast their vote for Ron Paul. It isn't even a protest vote, a vote of no confidence in Barack Obama. It is a self-legitimized vote of support rooted in only a few issues, disregarding the rest of what Ron Paul stands for. These voters will split the Democratic vote, but by how much? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but they could be a threat as well.

I'm not sure the numbers are there on the Left to negate the Paul supporters on the Right, refuting the notion that Paul supporters are negligible in the grand scheme of things. They will most certainly have an impact on the 2012 election, but because they are largely libertarian conservatives, Paul will eat into the support for the Republican nominee more than Barack Obama. Perhaps a vote for Ron Paul ends up being a vote for Barack Obama. I don't see Ron Paul supporters as rank and file conservatives, people who will vote for anyone with an (R) next to their name, justified in the sentiment that any Republican is better than any damn Democrat.

The Childish Behavior Extends Beyond Congress

One of the things that is bothering me right now about the debt ceiling debate is not that we are at an impasse at the level of the Federal Government, but that we are regularly at odds across America. Right now, every news outlet is playing up the idea that Obama and Boehner are behaving like children. They even bring in reasonably sounding Americans to chastise the bickering. At face value, it looks as though the problem is with government. Americans recognize that the rest of the world is looking at us and shaking their heads.

But that's not entirely true. Reasonable Americans are not commenting about this stuff in forums. They aren't talking about this reasonably on Facebook. They can't bring it up on Craigslist without being flagged. The ideology is a systemic problem at the voter level. As I've said before, the inability to compromise is not a symptom of government, but a result of our own inabilities to compromise. The American people are turned against each other right now.

I don't think I can name one conservative leaning person last night who didn't piss and moan about Obama blaming Bush so early in his speech. Their heads exploded all over the internet with blame that was deserved.

I don't think I saw one conservative on the internet say we should raise the debt ceiling.

I saw many throwing out the talking point that the rich pay most of the tax revenue in this country.

I mean, people...come on. You're regurgitating the same thing over and over again. The problem isn't Boehner. The problem isn't Obama.

It's us.

We cannot come together to compromise. I cannot have a conversation with a conservative anymore. It goes nowhere. It's the same argument day in and day out. It always ends in the same place. All the same things keep being said. It's almost like clockwork. We are at an impasse at the national level because we refuse to compromise at the local level.

Blame yourselves. It's our fault. We're the children. There are no more compromising conservatives anymore. That's what needs to be fixed.

How do you feel about the Koch brothers?

If there's one incongruent thought floating around out there in conservative voter's minds, it's that while politicians are all the same, governed by private interests and corrupt money, when it's a Republican politician receiving the boost, it's okay. Yes, it's an extension of the IOKIYAR problem. In order to remain consistent, one would have to be opposed to corporate influence on the political process.

So here's my question and I'm asking it only to conservative voters.

What is your opinion of the Koch brothers?

Are you proud of them? Do they just belong to your "stick it to liberals" club? Are you okay with their money influencing your candidate just because you want your candidate to stick it to any and every liberal out there?

Or do you find their influence to be equally deplorable? How do you feel knowing that your candidate is not chosen by voters, but bought?

Let me know. I'd be curious to see just how angry you are at government corruption. After all, the Tea Party is nothing more than a Koch brothers' production. This isn't about unions. This isn't about Democrats. This is about your personal ethical standards by which you choose to live by. This is about what it is you are willing to support and what you refuse to put up with as a voter in America.

51 to 38 and how these polls don't matter

For those of you paying close attention to the Republican presidential candidate field, the polls regarding who will be the best possible option in 2012 might be grabbing your attention. The polls tend to imply that, although front-runners exist on the Right, when put up against President Obama, none of them have a snowball's chance in Hell. The competitive nature of these elections feeds the media monster and the ultimate goal is not to report news, but generate drama to boost ratings.

What our journalists aren't considering at this point is the Electoral College. They may be talking about individual state elections, but those are primaries and the implications regarding primaries can be derived to suit any viewpoint about the general election in 2012.

While Mitt Romney may lag behind Barack Obama in what, to me, is nothing more than the popular vote, anyone who was an Al Gore supporter knows just how meaningless the popular vote can be. What we should be talking about is how voter fraud and manipulative positioning will be an issue on a state by state basis. Individual politicized initiatives always get placed on the ballot in different states to improve voter turnout in favor of one party in particular. The popular vote doesn't tell me anything. I want to see the Electoral College map for each Republican candidate who could go up against Barack Obama. Is that too much to ask?

I know. It's early. I just feel like watching any news on the 2012 race at this point is meaningless without considering the E.C.

Ron Paul Quote Contradicts His Normal Self

Ron Paul is generally seen as the spokesperson for getting government out of our lives. He is seen as the person who wants bloated rules and regulations removed, allowing businesses to operate with more freedom.

But then you have this next quote, Paul referencing President Obama in respect to the War Powers Act.

"You could say, 'Well, we have a good president, he'll do the right thing.' Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that's why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people,"

Ah, yes. You cannot count on people being good people. Well, sir, we cannot count on businesses being good businesses, nor can we count on business owners being good people. Profit is a strong motivator for doing unscrupulous things. This reasoning is the whole point behind imposing restrictions on certain things. We do not live in an ideal world and when people are allowed to do as they please, there is no guarantee that they will do the right thing and innocent people often suffer for those bad choices.

Legalize heroin and in an ideal world, no, people won't run out and do heroin. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. People love their vices. People love mental escapism. People do partake. People will go out and do heroin because there is no legal accountability. People do it even with legal consequences in place, after all.

So I agree that the War Powers Act should be followed. I don't like that Obama and Congress let this get dragged out as long as it has. If Congress supports our actions in Libya, then suppor should have been issued days, if not weeks ago. The 60 day mark was hit, so the way I see it, our actions in Libya must come to a close. Of course, Harry Reid has officially said in an interview that the War Powers Act is confusing and needs revision. Maybe this is one of those instances where a revision would clarify things, but the simple take on the current situation is that 60 days is 60 days, regardless.

In other words, I'm trying to be consistent here, unlike Ron Paul. There should not be exceptions placed on States' rights vs Federal power. Government is government, local or national. People are people, State or Federal. Crooked State officials are just as bad as Federal abuses of power.

Because people are not always good people, we have the Civil Rights Act. We have Medicare. We have Social Security. We have Welfare. We have taxes. We have laws. We are trying to avoid not only unfair practices, but anarchy itself.

There will be two kinds of Deathers

At a minimum, after the death of Osama bin Laden, the conspiracy theorists will come up with at least two rants that are rooted by the same mentality.

One will be fairly straightforward. They will question whether or not Osama is really dead. Look on Twitter for the hashtag, Deathers. The conspiracy has already begun.

The second batch of Deathers simply question the motive behind the killing. They will purport that President Obama, when faced with a relatively apathetic public and opinion polls which aren't the least bit flattering, politicized the event, making him more of a political opportunist than a successful leader.

Both, sadly, hinge on the idea that President Obama is not at all trustworthy. Both rely on a general distaste for Obama that resembles not that of a partisan slant, but more of a SEC football fan. Lunacy is the only name for such assertions. From here on out, it is how I view any conspiracy theorist. No lunatic has a voice on my stage unless I am poking fun at their insanity.

Republicans position themselves to deny me the right to vote for Barack Obama

At this very moment, two Representatives in Louisiana are proposing a bill similar to what has been passed in Arizona pertaining to birth certificates and elections. In doing this, they create a situation where, if the officials cannot accept the documentation submitted to them by President Barack Obama, there is a good chance Louisiana will not let him on the ballot....And I will be unable to vote. Barack Obama has already shown a valid birth certificate, yet the crazy people aren't at all satisfied.

This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.

Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?

Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?

Is this the new way to steal an election?

This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.

Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.

Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.

Why secession no longer equates to leaving

Via a podcast download, I am currently watching Rachel Maddow from 4/12/2011. At this moment in the show, Rachel is covering secession, the Civil War, and state sovereignty. Like many liberal pundits, what Rachel fails to see is the reality behind the words being used by Conservatives. As a rational person, it makes sense to her that when Texans scream for secession, we should see it as a sign that these Texans want to leave the United States of America. What I must do in this post, however, is to introduce the idea that something else is going on that has nothing to do with the old world meaning of secession and more to do with the Confederacy which no longer resides "in the attic."

I won't delay my point until the end. Let's get right into it. When Rick Perry talks about secession, he speaks to a population of people. When Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky all propose laws which nullify anything issued by the U.S. Federal Government, they are collectively sending a message to the rest of us. This is not about leaving. This is about retaking the country. This is the South rising again. I have covered this multiple times in previous posts, but I've been ignored, predictably so, because my blog does not represent a much needed wider epiphany on the Left, and to a lesser extent, the Right.

These states are unified. They speak in one voice, not individual voices. The real irony is, they clamor for individualism, but speak as a collective group.

So while Rachel Maddow is spot on when pointing out how serious considerations regarding secession include loss of military protection, loss of Social Security, loss of financial funding from the Fed, and the risk that comes with going it alone, the reality she will not approach is this idea that collectively, these states will align themselves, essentially forming a new nation that likely resembles the old North/South paradigm, if not all out domination of the entire United States.

This is not about leaving. This is one group ready to take control of the entire country. It's the 2004 and 2008 election rhetoric come to life. There are two Americas. It's the flyover state angst. It's the middle America angst. It's the racism that is no longer under wraps.

In 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed President by the Supreme Court, that same morning, a wave of fear, apathy, and shame overwhelmed me. That morning, I predicted hard times, a situation we are currently enduring. In 2004, with his election, a new prediction was made. I said we were on the verge of a second civil war, although the term "civil war" may be inappropriate by definition. In the symbolic sense, it is fitting and serves to highlight what it is I'm afraid awaits America's immediate future.

So while my previous post has concerns over big business and the arrival of a fascist state, the alternative that I am much more afraid of is where the blood does indeed refresh a tree, but it won't be a tree of liberty. Blood could be spilled, our nation left in ruins. The reality is, this future will drive this nation into the ground and we will likely never recover from such a disaster of ideas.

Have we already lost?

The recent turn of events over the last few years has shown me as a voter that corporations control not only the politicians in DC, but our politicians at the local level.

When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...

We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.

We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.

I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?

Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.

You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.

Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.

So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?

This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?

When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.


When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.

"Imagine a world without Liberals."

That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.

So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.

A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.

Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?

If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...

Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.

When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.

When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.