Cowboy Hats

Roy Moore, (R)  refuses to step out of the Alabama senate race, after credible allegations of sexual misconduct over the years. Republicans in Washington, DC seem a bit flustered, and would rather see a different candidate, one with fewer character flaws, run. Well, well, well.The Trump White House does have a weapon with which to deal with members of Congress and the Senate when it finds itself at odds with representatives of the American people. Does anyone remember the comments of John Kelly,  Trump's Chief of Staff, when he recently attacked Florida Democrat Congresswoman Frederica Wilson? Ms. Wilson thought Donald Trump's remarks to one of her constituents, a gold star widow, were crass and unfeeling. After she said this, the attack from the White House ensued, despite the fact that Wilson represents American citizens.

The solution seems simple: the Trump White House should just badmouth the candidates and representatives it does not like. After all, it is okay to treat an honorable Democrat that way; why not a dishonorable Republican? The truth is, Donald Trump and his staff should not interfere with the electoral choices of any American citizens, but he does, from time to time. He attacks Democrats, and he attacks Republicans who put their constituencies ahead of the Trump agenda. So why not denounce the behavior of someone who is immoral? Roy Moore has a habit of getting removed from office, and does not appear to care about the law, or the American people. What's wrong with speaking about these things, in addition to current allegations, from the White House? Or is the White House only a launch for attacks on decent people, not on those who actually violate the law?

Perhaps the Chief of Staff likes Roy Moore's hat better than he like's Frederica Wilson's hat. Yeah; that's it. Seriously......if the Republican party has problems with individuals such as Roy Moore, it should start putting Americans ahead of agendas that are not good for America. As for those Christian Republicans who keep defending Roy Moore, perhaps someone should ask them why they would stand with someone who truly isn't above reproach.

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Donald Trump Lacks Manners: Declined Invitations

Wow. A fancy inaugural ball for a flamboyant, rich narcissist, and people already do not want to go. Not even for the forty-fifth president of the United States! John Lewis, (D) Georgia, recently declined and told his constituents that he wasn't going because he felt that the election was not won honestly. That was all; he just didn't want to go. This is the same John Lewis who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. in Selma on March 7, 1965, and was beaten black and blue by law enforcement. Instead of thanking Lewis for his devotion to his country and for responding to the invitation, Trump got on Twitter and insulted Lewis and his district, referring to Lewis's district, Atlanta, Georgia, as a "shambles" and "crime infested". Not only has Trump forgotten that New York is a rather "crime infested", as well; he has completely breached etiquette for a president in such a situation. Rather than responding to the declined invitation on Twitter, it would have been much more gracious for incoming President Trump to simply send Congressman Lewis a hand written note expressing regret at the declined invitation and hope to work with Lewis soon. That is all that needs to be said by a president when an invitation is declined.

At this writing, there are twenty-three United States senators and congressmen declining invitations to the inaugural ball, and the list is growing. There is also a list of dignitaries planning to give the swearing in ceremony a miss. This is a big deal, and should serve as a wake-up call to the president elect concerning etiquette and manners when an invitation is either accepted or declined. Donald Trump should, by this time, understand that there are many, many people who shy away from circus atmospheres and do not care to attend unruly events hosted by the nouveau riche. Haven't Trump's rallies already been violent enough?

Abbie Hoffman Moment

Catholics Told To Vote For Racism

A Catholic church in San Diego, California is threatening its loyal members with an eternity in the underworld if they vote Democrat. Inside the foyer of the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, some leaflets stating that Hillary Clinton is "under the influence of Satan" were found. While this is ripe fodder for comedy, it is also a pathetic attempt to scare innocent people and influence an election. So much for the quote of Jesus, himself, saying, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God, that which is God's." (Mark 12:17) The fictional deity is in obvious opposition to dictatorship and fear tactics. Maybe these Christians and their leadership should listen to him.

Lying Politicians

 

Above is the Politifact graph depicting the number of lies and truths told by various politicians, in proportion to all of their statements. After fact checking, President Obama is the most honest one to have recently run for president, followed by Hillary Clinton. Like it or not, Democrats have the market cornered on the truth in 2016. Remember the aversion Donald Trump had to fact checking for his first debate with Hillary Clinton?

The Answers Are Blowing In The Wind

 

It looks, after the first presidential debate, as if the answers to the questions that are put to Donald Trump are blowing in the wind, but not coming from the candidate. How could the Republican Party have nominated this man to run for president?

Deplorable Is As Deplorable Does

Hillary Clinton described few of Donald Trump's supporters as a "basket of deplorables". She was not discussing their backgrounds, their lifestyles, or even their appearances; but their behavior. There is a very long list of violent incidents at Trump rallies, and no one else in the presidential race for 2016 has attracted or incited as much violence as Donald Trump. It seems rather obvious that those who openly show support for Trump by attending his events can, at least, be called disorderly; so why has Trump's running mate, former Indiana governor Mike Pence, become irate that Hillary would say such a thing about Trump's supporters? Possibly, because Mike Pence is a lot more fluent in "deplorability." After all, he is the one who used campaign funds during his 1990 run for Congress in Indiana to pay his personal bills. He dropped out of that race because of the resulting scandal.

Maybe while Donald Trump is running his mouth about Hillary Clinton's observations about those who attend his rallies, he could take a minute to wish her a speedy recovery from pneumonia. Not that she won't recover; she certainly will, but isn't it a lot more polite and less deplorable to express concern and well wishes?

Trump Learned Nothing From Watergate

In addition to his lack of empathy toward parents whose son died in 2004, while fighting in Iraq, Donald Trump has gone for the international jugular vein and invited hackers in Russia to commit espionage by hacking email accounts owned by government officials, most notably Hillary Clinton. Standing before a live microphone, he actually asked them to hack and reveal sensitive information. It's almost as if he thought that sort of thing was legal, and without any risks!

Hacking and wiretapping with the intention of influencing an election is hardly original. Trump apparently has forgotten 1972, when Nixon unlawfully recorded conversations of his political opponents. Of course, an obvious difference between Nixon and Trump is that Nixon was intelligent enough to understand that such actions are against the law, and attempted to hide his involvement when the news broke. Trump, it seems, either does not remember Watergate, or failed to learn from it.

While Clinton could have handled her email correspondence more safely while she served as Secretary of State, invoking the criminal element of another country, particularly one that is not one of our allies, is dangerous. It is also something that is no laughing matter, so if Trump is jesting, he should learn self control. Why would a presidential candidate laughingly request that others make a crime victim out of his opponent?

Abbie Hoffman Moment

We Now Need Kobach's Permission To Drop Out Of An Election

Kris Kobach, a major co-author of the Arizona "papers please" laws, now not only wants sole power to tell us who can and cannot vote in our elections here in America.........one must obtain his approval in order to drop out of a race! That's right, Chad Taylor decided to end his run for a seat in the Kansas senate race, and now Kris Kobach has filed suit against him! At first glance, this appears insanely funny. We have a politician who thinks he is an emperor actually demanding legal action against someone who has changed his mind about running for political office and demanding that the former candidate run for office despite the change of heart, against his will! This is something your blogger would expect to find in a Monty Python skit, but no....she has found it in Kansas!

Aside from the ludicrous aspect of Kobach's demand, there are three very serious problems with
refusing to allow a candidate to drop out of a political race. First, the very notion that another elected official can control who runs, or does not run, in an election is completely undemocratic. If Kobach wants to go this route and take Taylor's choice away from him, he should at least appeal to the Kansas Democratic Party to take a vote on the matter and to nominate someone else. But even then, many candidates, especially at local levels, run unopposed. One person should not have the power to determine the choices of voters in an election. Second, if Kobach wins this nonsensical lawsuit and forces Taylor to run, Kansas will, in the event of Taylor's victory, have a senator whose desire was to do something other than represent Kansas in the Senate. Kobach has no right to impose such a paradigm. Third, an elected official can always resign. If Taylor were to win and resign, a lot of time and money would be wasted. Not to mention the money taxpayers will spend on the lawsuit and on Chad Taylor's defense.

It's bad enough that Kris Kobach wants to stop minorities from voting and marginalize any American who does not appear to descend from Anglo Saxon ancestry, but now he wants to tell us who can run, thereby controlling elections from both ends. Hopefully, Kansas will just dismiss this frivolous lawsuit.

Greg Orman, the Independent candidate who actually stands a chance of beating  Pat Roberts for Senate in Kansas.

Chad Taylor Drops Out Of Senate Race

Chad Taylor, (D) District Attorney of Topeka Kansas and Senate Wannabe, not to be confused with Chad Taylor, guitarist in Live, has dropped out of the race for Senate in Kansas. This is good news, as this blogger will no longer be faced with the choice of voting for someone who actually tried to stop prosecuting domestic violence in Topeka and still has not filed charges in the death of Caleb Stewart, a baby who died in a Topeka daycare; or the choice of voting for republican Pat Roberts. It looks like the choice is now between Pat Roberts, and Independent Greg Orman.

Chad Taylor Thinks Kansas Wants Blood

Whoa! Not only has Chad Taylor forced this blogger to assist the senile and Republican Pat Roberts in another meaningless victory in the Kansas senate, he even makes incriminating statements about his career path while doing so! A recent poll about the upcoming senate race showed Chad Taylor leading incumbent Pat Roberts by five percentage points. About this, Taylor was heard to say, "This poll simply confirms what we're hearing as we visit with real Kansans throughout the state -- they are ready for new blood!" WIBW News

Blood? After the way he has managed the job of District Attorney, that's a very strange word for Chad Taylor to use publicly. His job performance in Topeka has been controversial, and there have been complaints, including outcry over his 2011 announcement that because of a budget cut, his office would no longer prosecute domestic violence. He was forced, by popular opinion, to change his mind. It seems that the people of Topeka Kansas were not ready for domestic violence to become legal again.

Something Kansans should think about, now that our Democrat candidate for the senate has made mention of "blood" is the place of children, particularly children of middle class parents. Along with the rest of the nation, Kansas has experienced more cases of violence against children over the past decade. Chad Taylor's attempted stance on domestic violence was disturbing enough, but it seems that only some children, primarily the children of the upper middle class and richer, are worth any of his precious time or prosecution dollars. There's a very strong chance that Chad Taylor's assumption that voting Kansans feel the same way he does about middle class children is wrong. Most Kansans care about children. If the media in Kansas gave better coverage to cases about children who die needlessly, Chad Taylor would have been forced to answer for his lack of attention to some of their cases, just as he was called out on his refusal to prosecute domestic violence cases. There is still one question Mr. Taylor has not answered: what about Caleb Stewart? Caleb died in February of 2013 at a daycare in Topeka while his parents were at work. His family is still waiting for answers and justice. Blood is a very incriminating sound bite for the senate hopeful.

Paul Davis Throws His Hat In The Ring

House Minority Leader Paul Davis, (D) has thrown his hat into the ring to run for governor of Kansas, against Sam Brownback. He is less flamboyant than Brownback, more down to earth, much more concerned about the quality of public schools in Kansas, and does not lead public prayers. He's already looking good, and the "D" for Democrat doesn't hurt, either, although Davis has a reputation for working with both parties. His website is Davis For Kansas.

 

 

Republicans Have No Regard For The Law

 

 

Here we go again....it's almost like 1995 all over again, but with a few differences. The differences

most sources cite are things like different economic conditions between then and now and less polarized partisanship between Republicans and Democrats, but a big difference that seems to be overlooked by a lot of media sources is this: the Affordable Care Act is now law, and in 1995, there was no such law. In 1995, the dispute was about balancing the budget without necessarily ignoring the law. In 2013, with the Affordable Care Act as of yet not implemented, thanks to Republicans with no regard for federal law, the government is shut down because John Boehner wants to continue voting, and taking up space, in these sessions, as if the Affordable Care Act had not been signed into law. Since it has been signed into law, the only way to balance our budget lawfully is to take it into consideration. Boehner doesn't want to do that, and has the dramatics cranked up to full blast in defense of his inalienable "right" to ignore the law. That's the big difference between now and 1995.

 

Do All Republicans Cry?

"i personally think your article is worthless fecal matter. maybe you should fact check obamas terrible record and how he will bankrupt this country completely. republicans just dont want to give the money they make away to worthless unemployed welfare recipients.maybe you should move to a communist country if you really believe the liberal garbage you just spewed!"

This comment was sent to me, not only on this blog, but in a couple of different places on the internet. Apparently, we have a sore loser on our hands. Obama's record does not bother me. Obama reformed healthcare and dealt with Bin Laden. Obama also didn't let the auto industry disappear, and has refused to sell out to the Koch Brothers. He also stopped campaigning after Hurricane Sandy and did his job, while Romney collected goods that the Red Cross told him they could not transport or use, and threw them away after posing beside them for the camaras. By the way, the people who were affected by Hurricane Sandy are some of the people who will benefit from the money you don't want to give. They are from all walks of life, not just stereotypical "welfare recipients".

Programs for relief for those living in poverty do not take more than five to six percent of taxes paid by everyone, and if you are bellyaching about "food stamps" in particular, that's between three and four percent. Most of the beneficiaries of those programs are children, and I would certainly never vote for a lawmaker who wanted children to quit school and go to work. So the single digit percent you do not want to pay is probably going to stay in place. By and large, the rest of those "unemployed welfare recipients" are pretty much employed, since there are time limits to what they can receive in benefits. As long as they can work, they are required to work. If it's healthcare you are running your sillyassed yap about to me, I think everyone is entitled to medical care, whether they can afford insurance or not. Once again, most of the people whose insurance is bought with your tax dollars and mine are children, so shut up! And when adults become ill and cannot work, they shouldn't be bankrupted or turned away by doctors and hospitals. Other than that, schools, libraries, and city infrastructures are also things that are paid for by Republicans and Democrats alike, and we should be budgeting MORE money for schools, not LESS.

As for "giving away the money you make", my self righteous complainer, there was once a day in my past, when I was at work, assisting my employer in his quest to make money, when the hospital emergency room telephoned me to let me know that my infant son had been taken there by ambulance with a fever of one hundred and six. My employer complained that without me, he could not make as much money, and threatened me with disciplinary action if I left early to care for my son. The truth here is, the money made by that company was made, not only by the company owners, but by all the employees, as well. Thereby, the money made was not only the company's, but mine, as well. My employer attempted to step on me, but I took care of my family anyway. Since he was unable to replace me at the drop of a hat, he was stuck with a mom who loves her children on his payroll. You see, there are too many people in this country, and on this planet, for things to run in as uncomplicated of a fashion as you seem to think they should run. The person who fought in the wars in which your country engaged, but is unemployed now, still made money along with you. The person with a disability is also not "worthless", as you stated. As long as you travel on OUR roads to reach your place of employment and make YOUR money, and as long as you send your children to OUR schools, and use the services of OUR police force, and a myriad of other commonly shared ammenities, you cannot really claim that you are "giving the money you make away". Obama is not bankrupting this country....businesses like Walmart are, if you really think that welfare is the biggest problem. Many of Walmart's employees are not paid a wage that enables them to live without using some of those services you decry. Yet you do want someone to ring up your purchases promptly when you shop at Walmart, don't you? Why is your money more special than that person's money? Why is your time at work more special than that person's time at work?

The "fecal matter" here was written by you......with little to no punctuation and absolutely no fact checks. And you are pathetic enough to withhold your signature or your name. I do not have to move to a Communist country. I am American, and I get to stay here. Obama won the election, you are just going to have to get used to it.

Pat Robertson Thinks Adultery By A Republican Is Not Sin

How very interesting. Pat Robertson's reaction to the discovery by the media of the affair General Petreaus has been having with Paula Broadwell was basically that "no one is perfect", and it's almost okay with God. That isn't the position he took on Bill clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But then, General Petreaus is republican, and Bill Clinton is Democrat. So it is not a problem if someone who is in the white, conservative, little christian club does something that isn't right, but it is a problem if someone whom the little christians do not like does something that isn't right. We've all seen this before folks. Christianity, functioning at it's best. Only the veil is wearing thin, as many Americans are beginning to see through all this nonsense.

The deal is this: an affair had by someone with an important job generally does not affect the ability of the person to do that job, if the person was qualified and committed in the first place. The only person who should have had a problem with Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinsky is Hilary Clinton. It was no one else's business. And it was not President Clinton's job to "set an example" for anyone. It was his job to run the country, and he did a good job of it. General Petreaus, on the other hand, allowed classified documents to become compromised, as a large number of classified files were found in his mistress's home. While she does, or did, as the case may be, possess a security clearance, her clearance was to do her OWN job, not to snoop at information related to Petreaus's job. THAT'S a problem. And Pat Robertson is also mistaken about the idea that gender would give a person a reason to defy a vow and a committment, such as marriage. Both parties in a marriage should rightly trust one another, and respect is a two way street.

Employers Threaten To Fire People If Obama Wins?

I thought American elections ran on SECRET ballots, and I thought it was each citizen's prerogative to vote for whoever he or she chooses. But the owner of Westgate Resorts thinks that bullying is how elections should be won. David Siegel contacted all of his employees to let them know they need to vote republican, because if Obama wins, he will have to keep paying taxes and reduce the size of his company. Waaaaaaa! As if the former republican administration had nothing to do with the state of the economy! As if! Here's what the lying crybaby said:

"If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company," he wrote. "Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone."....Yahoo News

Now; not only is the economy NOT the fault of the president, a NEW president is NOT a guarantee of financial smooth sailing. If David Siegel must lay off employees during a democrat presidency at this point in history, chances are quite strong that he will have to do so during a republican presidency. In addition to threatening his employees, he's falsely implying that everything will be fine if Obama loses. That's not true.

He also apparently feels entitled to more than one vote, via dictating the votes of his employees: "In a version of Romney's "47 percent" remarks, Siegel added that "people like me who made all the right decisions and invested in themselves are being forced to bail out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed 42 years of my life for."....Yahoo News

There are too many people on this planet for the population to act as a collection of autonomous individuals at the sacrifice of acting as a community. David Siegel did not earn his empire by himself. It never would have happened for him if others had not been involved. While he prides himself with making "all the right decisions", I would bet that luck had a little to do with the fortune he has amassed, as well. And now, to protect his fortune, he is using his fortune to threaten others to vote for his candidate! His logic is a bit twisted, anyway. I made all the right decisions when I had my children. I invested everything I had in them. I also worked, and the fact that my children and family were important to me was a source of friction in the workplace. There were no rewards there for putting one's children first. I didn't get rich, but I won't be told that I made the wrong decisions, just because my income places me in a catagory of humanity that "doesn't matter" to the Romneys. Bush Jr. started a war. He did not care how many parents had invested everything they had in their children; the young people were simply Bush's for the taking, to fight his war. Do we support this war with enterprises that operate in our own country? No! In fact, that's a major difference between this war and WW2. Why isn't David Siegel upset about that?

Mitt Romney has made it clear that he has no intentions of investing in the middle class. Almost half of Americans don't matter to him. David Siegel's employees enjoy the same chances of stability or lack thereof no matter who wins the election.