Referendum in Ohio - America At the Crossroad

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Opponents of an Ohio law to limit public workers'  collective bargaining rights have started gathering signatures to get a  referendum on the measure.

In Wisconsin they have recalls, and in Ohio they have referendums.  In both cases, the result is a poison pill for the Republican party, which is going to suffer for it's slap in the face of the will of the American people.

I was pretty excited when the Democrats were thrown from power.  Like Bush, they were continuing to spend America off a cliff.  Republicans came in, promising to restore America's spending habits, and end the fiscal insanity that had rocked the nation for the last 10 years.  What did they do instead?  They went after unions. 

At the national level, the GOP is making a pretense of trying to balance the budget, but their attempt to bust the CWA, by (get this) passing a law in the House which says anyone that doesn't vote in a union election is actually voting NO (George Orwell anybody?), created a backlash among the majority of Americans who support unions.

At the state level, the GOP launched coordinated attacks at the same time in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Nevada, and other states, in an attempt to bust unions.  Why?  Because unions traditionally support Democrats.  Their cynical and psychopathic use of political power against American citizens has resulted in Cheesehead Armageddon, as Wisconsinites have mobilized resources to "throw the bums out".  And yet, the GOP has the audacity to call Americans exercising their Constitutional rights to a democratic process "thuggery".  Who are the thugs?  The unions?  How about the Koch Brothers, and other corporate interests, along with their Republican lackeys, who are attempting to subvert the will of the people, under the guise of balancing the budget?  In Wisconsin this lie has been exposed by their own actions.  What of the budgetary items in Walker's plan?  They have still yet to be passed, and are languishing in Congress, while the union busting provisions were ruthlessly shoved down the throats of Wisconsinites.  There is your smoking gun, folks.

Is it any wonder that Americans have buyers' remorse when it comes to the 2010 elections?  The GOP has lost Wisconsin, as total recall is in full swing.  In Ohio, a referendum is going to make it onto the ballot, and people are pissed at Republicans there too.  The first shots of slash and burn class warfare have been fired by the GOP, and the people are responding.  Right now, it sucks to be a Republican.

The first Republican presidential debate, scheduled for this May, has been rescheduled, due to lack of interest.  Only ONE potential candidate pledged to show up.  Do you think the rest of them know something he doesn't?  After all, who in their right mind wants to run on the platform that has exposed itself in America?  At this juncture, I would have to say to Republicans "Congratulations.  You have just handed the White House to Obama and the Democrats in 2012, and on a silver platter too".  Americans might want balanced budgets, but they don't want "batshit crazy".

Gutting Medicaid to Balance the Budget

From Politico:

House Republicans are planning to cut roughly $1 trillion over 10 years  from Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor and  disabled, as part of their fiscal 2012 budget, which they will unveil  early next month, according to several GOP sources.

A trillion bucks over the next 10 years is quite a bit, but it won't work, and will actually end up being more expensive than what is now in place.

1) The poor will simply get treated at emergency rooms instead of seeing their doctor.

2) The poor will wait until their conditions deteriorate before seeking treatment, which will then become much more expensive than it otherwise would.

3) With no more preventive medicine for the poor, they will be going to emergency rooms in droves, when they develop serious conditions that could have been prevented by treatment in a clinic.

In my opinion, this is a dumb move.  Even if you view poor people as leeches on society, gutting Medicaid is going to result in bigger expenditures in the long run.  Now there is ONE way to reduce the expenses that poor people cost the rest of us.  Just set an earnings limit of, say, 10,000 bucks a year, and everybody under that income gets taken to a field where they are all shot and then dumped into a mass grave.  You know, that would work for the disabled too.  I know, I know, this sounds cold as hell, but since we are talking about reducing the budget so that banksters can feel comfortable with all those bailout bonuses we are giving them, we are going to have to balance the budget someplace.  Since we are choosing to balance it on the backs of the poor and disabled,  let's just kill them all so they will no longer be a problem.  We can then, in church, raise our hands to the Lord, in front of the entire world, and let Jesus know that we did care enough about the poor to do something about them.  Hallelujah!

A Little Birther Batshit Insanity on Donald Trump

 From Newsmax:

Donald Trump, who has been making television appearances calling for  President Barack Obama to release his official birth documents, released  his hospital birth certificate exclusively to Newsmax on Monday.

Why would I post something here from Newsmax, the batshit insane media source, you ask?  Very simple, folks.  To show everybody here how batshit insane Donald Trump is:

1)  First of all, Trump has questioned Obama's birth certificate, calling it a fake, because there is no signature on it.  Guess what?  A few days ago, I pulled out my own birth certificate, and there is no signature on that one either, but it's the one Michigan gave me, when I requested a copy.  No problem.  But don't mind me.  I'm just your friendly neighborhood Kenyan peckerwood.  LOL.

2)  But here is why I posted the Newsmax link - To make fun of Newsmax AND Donald Trump.  Why go after one nut, when I can have twice the fun going after two nuts?  Logic 101, folks.

3) Are you ready for the fun to begin?  Drum roll, please.....

Thank you.

The birth certificate that Donald Trump provided to Newsmax is not an official New York State birth certificate. 

So I must question whether Donald Trump is really an American citizen, or whether, like me, he is also a Kenyan peckerwood.

4) An update to the link I provided shows that Trump, on his second attempt, did provide a real birth certificate, just like Obama did. 

5) Back to Obama.  His birth certificate was certified as real by a Republican governor, Linda Lingle.  Damn it.  I want Trump's certificate certified by the Governor of New York.

6) Donald Trump's birth certificate is not the long version.  Yea, yea, I'm rubbing that one in the birther's faces. 

7)  According to my link, Donald Trump has a plane registered in the Bahamas.  Was there a conspiracy to fly him to New York when he was born, so he could get a birth certificate illegally?  The world wants to know.

8)  Trump's mother was born in Scotland.  Egad!! Don't you know that, according to many "birther" experts, for someone to be a "natural born" citizen, BOTH parents have to be American citizens?

9)  If Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States, then neither is Donald Trump.

10) I am now looking to start a new group, and would like to see how many others would be interested.  The group will be known as the Donald Trump Birther Society.  The purpose of this group will be to question the eligibility of Donald Trump to be President of the United States.  I have contacted the infamous Obama birther attorney, Orly Taitz, to see if she would be interested in representing this new group in court, but I have bad news.  She turned me down.  She doesn't do character assassinations on white people.

Anti-Sharia Law in Oklahoma

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Last year Oklahoma voters passed a State Question that  blocked any use of Islamic or Sharia law in Oklahoma courts. State  Question 755 was ruled unconstitutional and unnecessary by the US  District Court.But now a new effort to prevent state courts in Oklahoma from using  foreign law is underway and this time, an effort is forming to fight it.

Muslims in Oklahoma are pissed, and are going to fight the law.  But that doesn't matter.  The bill, as proposed in Oklahoma is blatantly unconstitutional.   Let me explain:

1)  The wording of the bill, in it's present form, would exclude ALL religious law from being followed.  That means Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant too.  Many, many contracts are made which some of the terms are guided by religious law.  All these contracts would become null and void, which means that the First Amendment rights of people of ALL religions would be violated, per the establishment clause.

2)  OK, so remove the provisions that apply to all religions, other than Islam, and the law apply to Islam only.  Cool?  Nope.  That isn't cool either, as this would be favor the establishment of some religions over others, which also violates the First Amendment.

3)  But, if we allow Sharia law, wouldn't Muslims begin stoning to death adulterers, and those who speak out against Islam?  Of course not.  There are already laws against that.  Let me add that Jews practice Jewish law extensively, and you don't see Jews holding public executions of people who violate God's law, do you?  Of course not.

This is why the bill moving through Oklahoma is nothing but a bugagoo, based on nothing but fear tactics.  Reasonable people can allow the laws of the various religions to have an impact on the daily lives of those who follow those religions, just as long as it is Constitutional.  That, my friends, is the key to the whole thing.  As Thomas Jefferson once said:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure   from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment   was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it   would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the   holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected   by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend,   within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile,   the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every   denomination. 

In the spirit of Jefferson, let us all pray that the people in Oklahoma put down their pitch forks.

About wars, and those who support or don't support them

From one side, I heard some people at a political forum that I am a member of  bash Bush over Iraq, but give Obama a free pass on Libya. On the other hand, I hear many bash Obama over Libya, although they heavily supported Bush in Iraq. Both are wrong, and I want to address the why in this post. I intend to be hard on party hacks, whether Liberal or Conservative. Why? Because they all deserve it, no matter which party they are hacking for. I am going to start by responding to someone attacking Liberals in general, in a thread I read about Obama's war in Libya, and then equally apply the argument to those who attack Conservatives. What I am posting here is not rocket science, but simple logic. Let me begin.

I am not so sure that all Liberals are supporting Obama, although they bashed Bush, as stated by someone in another thread at the forum. One of the biggest Bush bashers anywhere, Cindy Sheehan, is using irony to blast the crap out of Obama. And guess what, her column actually makes sense, even if I don't agree with all the reasons she gives.

Read Sheehan's column before continuing.

Here's the thing about war - Protesters aren't necessarily Liberals, and Liberals don't always side with the president, regardless of political party. The same can be said about Conservatives. Remember the web site antiwar.com? It is a site that was started by Conservatives and Libertarians, who were really pissed at Bill Clinton getting involved in the Balkans. And what about the web site Americans Against World Empire? How about the web site Conservatives for Peace? A member from that organization wrote this article, which was published on World Net Daily. All Conservatives. So the left doesn't hold a monopoly on being against war.

The point I am making is that there are hypocrites on both the right and the left, who do give a damn about which party is in power before making a decision to bash the president over war policy. And there are those, on both the right and the left, who are honest, either in support of wars or against them. Just lumping everybody into categories, such as Liberal and Conservative, and using those labels to categorize all into just those 2 categories, actually misrepresents political leans. There is no "one size fits all" for either Liberals or Conservatives, unless one just hates either Liberals or Conservatives for the sake of hating Liberals or Conservatives. Unfortunately, there are way too many people who hate first and ask questions later. Such is what American politics has descended into.

Some Liberals, such as Cindy Sheehan, I actually have respect for, because their views don't change when a Democrat becomes president, and there are plenty of Liberals, like Sheehan, who are bashing Obama as hard as they bashed Bush. Of course there are also Liberals who only bash the other party, while giving their own politicians a free pass on the same things. Those are the Liberals I have no respect for.

And the same applies to Conservatives. There are some who are on Obama's side, as they were on Bush's side for doing the same. Although I strongly disagree with them, I do respect them because they are consistent, and not party hacks. To those conservatives who are bashing Obama over Libya, who also bashed Bush over Iraq, they not only have my respect, but also my support, as I believe like they do. The US has no business in Libya, and I can say it with a straight face. I didn't support Bush's war in Iraq (although I did support Afghanistan), and I'll be damned if I support Obama's war in Libya either.

To all those Liberals and Conservatives, who believe that war only matters if the other party is in power, and you guys all know who you are, I have a very short message for you.....

Take a hike.

Packaging with Dead Squirrels

LONDON — The strongest and most expensive beer ever created sold out within hours Friday, a Scottish brewery said, as they courted controversy by packaging the bottles inside the bodies of stuffed animals. BrewDog, the self-described maverick brewery, presented the beer -- which contains a record 55 percent alcohol -- inside the bodies of dead squirrels and stoats. Animal rights activists rushed to condemn the stunt. "It's pointless and it's very negative to use dead animals when we should be celebrating live animals," Advocates for Animals policy director Libby Anderson told BBC Scotland. "This seems to be a perverse idea."

Perverse?  What's so perverse about it?  Are leather shoes perverse?  How about  baseballs?  Me thinks that animal rights activists are going too far here.  The beer is being packaged in DEAD squirrels, not live ones.  Good idea.  Dead squirrels have no rights, not even animal rights.  In fact, I wouldn't mind squirreling away a few bottles of Shiner Bock myself.

Let's show the animal rights activist how we feel about their silly-assed complaining by taking up a collection to purchase a gift for them - Namely a copy of one my favorite books, 101 Uses for a Dead Cat.

The coming crash

Although not caused by the same market forces, there is an eerie parallel between what we are now experiencing and the Great Depression. There was also a recovery in 1930, after the crash hit in 1929. Then the second shoe dropped. I have been saying for a long time, in both the Bush and Obama periods, that the market would eventually go a lot further down than it has so far, and I still stand behind what I originally said. My original statement was that the Dow would end up between 7,000 and 8,000, and it looks like a CNBC analyst is pretty much saying the same thing.

Now I am no analyst, and I have no credentials, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a sizable bubble still exists. That would be the derivatives market. No matter how hard the government tries, it is not going to be able to stop that bubble from bursting. IMHO, and I have felt this way for a long time, the Great Recession is going to turn into the Great Depression, part Deux. I cannot see how this won't happen. Bubbles are still there, the government can only prop up the markets to a certain point, and the Fed can only lower interest rates so far. After all, how much below ZERO can the interest rate go? The Fed's back is now against the wall, and there is no more wiggle room.

As for whose fault this will be, I have said time and time again that it was President Clinton who signed the Gramm-Bliley bill that dismantled all the Glass-Steagal protections that were in place to prevent this from happening. Unfortunately, it is President Bush who is going to be unfairly blamed for something he was not directly responsible for. Obama will take some blame too, but for the short term, Clinton is going to be let off the hook. Not so in the distant future, when historians will look back on Great Depression II more objectively. 20 years from now, I have a feeling that this will become known as Clinton's folly.

In the meantime, get ready for a wild ride. It's coming, whether or not you want to see it. Right now, know that the small light you see, way down the tunnel, is the harbinger of the great freight train that is coming straight at us, and is surely going to run us over. Those who are prepared for it are the ones who will survive the coming crash.

  Read this article from CNBC.