Don't Let Them Destroy Medicare, Vote Them Out!

These are the people who in April of this year voted to replace Medicare with Ryan's voucher plan.  Elections are just around the corner, look for the names of the congressman or woman from your state and kick them out!  

I don't care if they are Republicans, Democrats or Independents, that is why I didn't specify their Party affiliation... But for some strange reason, I think they're all Republicans.  

We must replace each and everyone of them with Progressives, Liberals or  Independents.  We have to help our country move forward and our President by providing him with a Congress that will work with him and not against him.  A Congress that will care for all Americans, regardless of Party instead of the Congress we have now that cares not for the American people or the country but for Corporate America.  We have complained, we have been outraged, well now is our opportunity to do something about it.  These elections are extremely important,  vote and vote for America.  Vote Democratic all the way down the ballot.

Remind your friends and families who voted in favor of private insurance companies and against our seniors, your vote counts... USE IT!

ALABAMA
Robert B. Adelholt
Spencer Bachus
Jo Bonner
Mo Brooks
Martha Roby
Mike D. Rogers

ALASKA
Don Young

ARKANSAS
Rick Crawford
Tim Griffin
Steve Womack

ARIZONA
Jeff Flake
Trent Franks
Paul Gosar
Ben Quayle
David Schweikert

CALIFORNIA
Brian P. Bilbray
Mary Bono Mack
Ken Calvert
John Campbell
Jeffrey Denham
David Dreier
Elton Gallegly
Wally Herger
Duncan D. Hunter
Darrell Issa
Jerry Lewis
Kevin McCarthy
Tom McClintock
Howard P. McKeon
Gary G. Miller
Devin Nunes
Dana Rohrabacher
Ed Royce

COLORADO
Mike Coffman
Cory Gardner
Dough Lamborn
Scott Tipton

FLORIDA
Sandra Adams
Gus Bilirakis
Vern Buchanan
Ander Crenshaw
Mario Diaz-Balart
Connie Mack
John L. Mica
Jeff Miller
Richard Nugent
Bill Posey
David Rivera
Tom Rooney
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Dennis Ross
Steve Southerland
Cliff Stearns
Daniel Webster
Allen West
C.W. Bill Young

GEORGIA
Paul Broun
Phil Gingrey
Tom Graves
Jack Kingston
Tom Price
Austin Scott
Lynn Westmoreland
Rob Woodall

IDAHO
Raul Labrador
Mike Simpson

ILLINOIS
Judy Biggert
Robert Dold
Randy Hultgren
Timothy V. Johnson
Adam Kinzinger
Donald Manzullo
Peter Roskam
Bobby Schilling
Aaron Schock
John Shimkus
Joe Walsh

INDIANA
Larry Bucshon
Dan Burton
Mike Pence
Todd Rokita
Marlin Stutzman
Todd Young

IOWA
Steve King
Tom Latham

KANSAS
Tim Huelskamp
Lynn Jenkins
Mike Pompeo
Kevin Yoder

KENTUCKY
Geoff Davis
Brett Guthrie
Harold Rogers
Edward Whitfield

LOUSIANA
Rodney Alexander
Charles Boustany Jr.
Bill Cassidy
John Fleming
Jeff Landry
Steve Scalise

MARYLAND
Roscoe G. Barlett
Andy Harris

MICHIGAN
Justin Amash
Dan Benishek
Dave Camp
Bill Huizenga
Thaddeus McCotter
Candice S. Miller
Mike Rogers
Fred Upton
Tim Walberg

MINNESOTA
Michele Bachmann
Chip Cravaack
John Kline
Erick Paulsen

MISSISSIPPI
Gregg Harper
Alan Nunnelee
Steven Palazzo

MISSOURI
Todd Akin
Jo Ann Emerson
Sam Graves
Vicky Hartzler
Billy Long
Blaine Luetkemeyer

NEBRASKA
Jeff Fortenberry
Adrian Smith
Lee Terry

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Charles F. Bass
Frank Guinta

NEW JERSEY
Rodney Frelinghuysen
Scott Garrett
Leonard Lance
Frank A. LoBiondo
Jon Runyan
Christopher H. Smith

NEW MEXICO
Steve Pearce

NEVADA
Joe Heck
Dean Heller

NEW YORK
Ann Marie Buerkle
Chris Gibson
Mike Grimm
Richard Hanna
Nan Hayworth
Peter T. King
Tom Reed

NORTH CAROLINA
Howard Coble
Renee Ellmers
Virginia Foxx
Patrick T. McHenry
Sue Myrick

NORTH DAKOTA
Rick Berg

OHIO
Steve Austria
Steven J. Chabot
Bob Gibbs
Bill Johnson
Jim Jordan
Steven C. LaTourette
Robert E. Latta
Jim Renacci
Jean Schmidt
Steve Stivers
Pat Tiberi
Michael R. Turner

OKLAHOMA
Tom Cole
James Lankford
Frank D. Lucas
John Sullivan

OREGON
Greg Walden

PENNSYLVANIA
Lou Barletta
Charlie Dent
Michael G. Fitzpatrick
Mike Kelly
Tom Marino
Pat Meehan
Tim Murphy
Joe Pitts
Todd R. Platts
Bill Shuster
Glenn Thompson

SOUTH CAROLINA
Jeffrey Duncan
Trey Gowdy
Mick Mulvaney
Tim Scott
Joe Wilson

SOUTH DAKOTA
Kristi Noem

TENNESSEE
Diane Black
Marsha Blackburn
Scott DesJarlais
John J. Duncan Jr.
Stephen Fincher
Chuck Flesichmann
Phil Roe

TEXAS
Joe L. Barton
Kevin Brady
Michael C. Burgess
Francisco Canseco
John Carter
K. Michael Conaway
John Culberson
Blake Farenthold
Bill Flores
Louie Gohmert
Kay Granger
Ralph M. Hall
Jeb Hersarling
Sam Johnson
Kenny Marchant
Michael McCaul
Randy Neugebauer
Pete Olson
Ted Poe
Pete Sessions
Lamar Smith
William M. Thornberry

UTAH
Rob Bishop
Jason Chaffetz

VIRGINIA
Eric Cantor
J. Randy Forbes
Robert W. Goodlatte
Morgan Griffith
Robert Hurt
Scott Rigell
Robert J. Wittman
Frank R. Wolf

WASHINGTON
Doc Hastings
Jaime Herrera Beutler
Cath McMorris Rodgers

WEST VIRGINIA
Shelley Moore Capito

WISCONSIN
Sean Duffy
Tom Petri
Reid Ribble
Paul D. Ryan
F. James Sensenbrenner

WYOMING
Cynthia M. Lummis

Source: http://www.medicareresources.org/blog/2011/04/18/who-voted-to-kill-medicare-fight-back/
Contact your congressmen: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

In Union Lies the Strength

I continue scrutinizing Mitt Romney’s views on some of the issues on his page, anyone can find them on his website. The issue that caught my attention was his stand on Labor; particularly because we all know he is not a “job creator” rather he is more like a “job killer” so I was very interested in finding out what his “views” are on the subject.

Surprisingly, Mitt Romney’s opinion on the issue is too long. I will split my comments to make it easier on the reader and myself. This is the first of three posts on the issue of Labor.

It comes to no surprise that he is against unions. To mitigate his dislike for unions he elaborates on the past glories and accomplishments for the benefit of the American worker that unions have achieved in the past. But for Mitt Romney Unions are damaging businesses and they need to be eliminated or changed to be beneficial to corporations. For a man that has made a career increasing the wealth of Corporations at the expense of regular people and shows little or no remorse for the thousands of workers that lost their jobs while he filled the pockets of Bain Capital nothing but disdain towards Unions is to be expected.

On his site, if you read carefully, you will be able to understand what is what Mitt Romney wants to protect. He says on his page, and I quote, “But today, the effects of unionization have changed in ways that need to be recognized. Too often, unions drive up costs and introduce rigidities that harm competitiveness and frustrate innovation.” What he means by this is that Unions will not allow companies to abuse workers, to make them work in an unsafe environment and that unions demand that worker gets compensated fairly for the work they do. That is what companies have been striving for, pay less, offer less or no benefits and not be responsible for providing a safe environment where they have to spend money to secure the worker or provide them with the safety gear necessary to protect them, after all… that cost money and we all know corporations couldn’t care less for the workers, all it matters is the shareholders’ profits.

He goes on to blame Unions for manufacturing jobs disappearing from this country. As if outsourcing had nothing to do with it! He claims that most Americans believe that Unions in reality hurt the American worker. I hope this is not true. The only way the American worker can fight injustices, discrimination, unfairness and harassment in the workplace is through the Union. The only reason we have a 40-hour week, days off, vacations paid, health insurance and all the perks that we enjoy today and take for granted is thanks to the Unions. If we lose Unions in this country, and now that Corporations are “people” we will go back to the days when we had no rights, no one to defend us, or the money to pay for our legal representation. Slowly but surely the Right wants us to go back in time, a time when they had slaves but no responsibility. After all, even slave owners would take care of a sick slave – not out of the kindness of their heart, but as a protection for their investment; as a worker we will not even get that, we will be easily replaceable.

He has the audacity to accuse President Obama for “returning the favor” to Unions in exchange for the “several hundred million dollars” that Unions donated during his 2008 campaign. Taking him on his own word, who is making monetary donations in sums never heard of before during any other political campaign? We all know the answer, the Koch brothers and Citizens United. Never has a Union or a person donated $400 million dollars to a single candidate as they did during the Wisconsin recall elections. Does anyone truly believes that they are donating these fortunes so the working class can have jobs? Does anyone here is so naïve as to believe that Mitt Romney, the Koch brothers or Citizens United care at all for the middle class? Their long-time record says otherwise.

Romney talks with indignation about the American Automobile industry bailout. How dared President Obama bailed them out? Mitt Romney, once again does not care for the worker but the shareholders and creditors, in other words the 1% of this country. About the bailout he says: “Part of this entailed preferential treatment of the United Auto Workers [UAW], at the expense of other stakeholders and creditors – INCREDIBLY, the UAW was given a majority ownership stake in Chrysler.” We don’t hear the same indignation for bailing out the Bank industry and Wall Street after all they are NOT blue-collar workers and I am sure in Mitt Romney’s eyes they deserved to be saved, they deserved every penny. The bailout money received by the Automobile Industry, especially GM did give preferential treatment to their retired workers that were at risk of losing their pensions; second UAW though an agent independent from the Union had been paying for the GM workers’ health insurance since 2005, the workers in order to help save the company, were not getting vacation pay, holidays or overtime. I guess that any sacrifice a blue-collar worker did counts for nothing, blue-collar workers are nothing to Mitt Romney, only white-collar workers matters for him.

Mitt Romney closes the subject of the bailout saying that other companies are now worrying about the “caprice at the hands of government.” Those poor, suffering corporations are breaking Mitt Romney’s heart! The unemployed? They should do the same he suggested to students with little or no income: shop around and settle for less… I guess he believes that unless you are wealthy, you do not need money or a good and rewarding job, you must settle and be happy that at least you are lucky enough “to have a job.”

Interesting reading about Unions in the United States:


An Eclectic List of Events in U.S. Labor History

History.com - Labor Movement

Stem Cell Research

The second of Romney’s “Values” that can be found on his site is Stem Cell Research. As most if not all of his “opinions,” it’s a carbon copy of one of the many mantras used by the GOP and Mitt is firm on those values until something shakes his internal etch a sketch and suddenly he changes his “opinion.” However, I doubt this time he will change his position on any of the issues on his website, he is not running on his own personal views and values – he is running on what the Koch brothers and Citizen’s United order him to “believe in.”

Mitt Romney, like many other people on the right and some on the left, is uncomfortable with the use of “embryos” for scientific research and specifically for the developing and advancing of stem cell research. On his page, Mitt repeats what we have heard over and over again about the “dignity” an embryo deserves. Mitt continues to say that it is “…our moral duty to protect human life in its most vulnerable form.” That is ridiculous! To begin with, what is typically used to conduct stem cell research is not an embryo; probably these words are used because these are the terms most commonly recognized by all of us. What it is used are blastocysts. A blastocyst is nothing more than a cell with a structure that contains the necessary environment for the embryo to develop but IT IS NOT an embryo. A blastocyst is.0079 inches (the size of a pinhead) or smaller and at that stage the cells have yet to create what later we will recognize, if only through a vivid imagination, as an embryo. 

Blastocyst

An infertile woman prior to the In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedure, must submit to a series of hormone treatments and injections to secure a high production of eggs at a controlled pace. this is an expensive procedure which not always is covered by insurance. When the woman is ready, a specialist will surgically remove all the eggs produced, inseminate them in a lab and place the fertilized eggs in an incubator. From 3 to 5 days after the insemination, a number of those eggs are implanted back into the woman’s womb where the blastocyst cells will attach to the walls of the uterus. Sometimes, there are no more fertilized eggs left and this is the end of the procedure and if unsuccessful, the process starts all over again. But there are times where the procedure was a success and there are fertilized eggs left. What happens to the remaining fertilized eggs (blastocysts)? They end up at either one of two places: A cryopreservation tank or in the Biohazards trash bin.

It is obvious that the couples that opt for cryopreservation are in most part wealthy, since this is a costly procedure. Those couples that are not wealthy, especially if the procedure was a success, don’t even think of the many other eggs that were fertilized and not used. It isn't common for the donors to request the zygotes or blastocysts to be returned to them to provide “them” with a proper burial. Simply they end up in the Biohazards bin. That is what I find so ironic about the “moral duty to protect human life”… as far as I know, if the parents don't claim the fertilized eggs, no one complains about they ending up in the trash; the complaining and morality comes from finding a useful way to dispose of these cells. The immorality comes from using these cells, which otherwise would end up in the garbage, for any scientific research; it is then and only then that the holier than thou will yell about protecting the unborn. Placing the cells in a garbage bag? It’s perfectly fine, even “dignified.” Ending up in a science lab where that cell could help thousands of real people have a better future? Immoral!!! This is the only instance where it is preferred to be thrown away than finding a meaning for the creation and termination of any form of life, even one as primitive as this one. Only a very close-minded person would prefer disposal to usefulness.

Mitt and many others are against creating life in a lab from an existing blastocyst for the sole purpose of replicating the cells for stem cell research in other words, cloning. I am torn about this one. Not because I think it is morally or theologically wrong, but because we were raised watching horror flicks where we watched a mad scientist create "monsters" that later ended up trying to eliminate us. The simple thought of it sends chills through my spine! But we are grownups and we should overcome our apprehensions. If scientists cannot use the “embryos” that are going to be destroyed then, scientists should be allowed to clone. What should not be allowed is allowing the clone to develop further than a necessary.

Romney supports adult stem cell research and alternative methods and I think that too should be pursued. I believe that neither he nor I are scientists and we should leave science to those that know best for the sake of humanity. I am sure Mitt would not dare to tell a cardiologist how he should perform open heart surgery. Not long ago many viewed having a heart transplant with horror and apprehension and today its common practice. Then why do politicians persist in telling scientists what to do in a lab?

Life is precious and no one is debating that, but a person that has been born and is living should always be more important than a cluster of cells. How can you defend the “dignity” of a cell and disregard the right for a dignified life to people with Parkinson, congenital diseases, or those who are paraplegic or even quadriplegic or the millions of people that suffer from other ailments? For the people and the families that might benefit from these research is a matter of life or death, the success of this research gives them the hope that they will have their life back and most importantly, their dignity.

There is no doubt in my mind that if we want to move forward economically, technically, financially, judicially and scientifically we must vote as many Republicans out of Congress.  We must vote Democratic from the State Representatives, Senate and most importantly for our President Barack H. Obama.

Useful links about conception:

Fetal Development


Stages of Development of the Fetus

The 5 Horsemen of the Apocalypse

The forefathers of this great country wrote the Constitution of the United States as the basis in which this country should be founded, but were smart enough to realize that what they wrote would need to be adapted as time would pass because nothing is unchangeable and what made sense twenty years ago might not be too wise today. That is the beauty of our Constitution and why it has served as a model for democracies all over the world.

During the last 225 years, there have been many amendments to the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution is unchangeable (like the Bible) is outrageous and preposterous, only the Tea Party and extreme libertarians can believe that the law that ruled the nation two centuries ago can be applied today as originally intended.

According to Mitt Romney’s website, he believes that the Constitution’s words “have meaning,” as if the Constitution didn’t mean a thing for the rest of us. As usual, Romney has to appease the extreme right that, having no other alternative, is backing up a Mormon they would not even give the time of day if they had a choice. The Tea Party is supporting Mitt Romney in his candidacy for the Presidency regardless of how much they dislike him because they dislike President Obama even more. But Mitt knows that if there were a White, Evangelical, Right-Wing nut that would decide to run at the last minute, those campaigning and donating money for him would reverse their support in a blink of an eye, for that reason he has no alternative but to repeat like a parrot what the Teapers believe and stand for. That is why Mitt Romney is now implying that the Constitution should be kept as it was written in 1787.

Mitt Romney asserts, “The job of a judge is to enforce the Constitution’s restraints on government.” Where does it say that in the original Constitution? The Constitution clearly defines what the roles of the three branches of government are, including the Legislative Branch. There is no mention whatsoever about “restrains on government” but on Article V, there is definitive assertion about the legality of Amendments to the Constitution, but Teapers don’t like that article very much and I am sure that if they could, they would probably erase it.

Mitt continues to say, “At times over the past hundred years, some justices of the Supreme Court did not carry out that duty. There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history.” I am very glad Mitt feels that way, to tell you the truth so do I, why on earth these Right-Wing Justices (Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas) came up with constitutional rights for corporations, rendering to them the same rights of a person? Can corporations (1) create life (2) donate organs (3) be executed (4) get divorced (5) be unfaithful (6) go to church (7) cry (8) laugh (9) get married (10) die for this country? Yet, corporations for the first time in Global history are considered a person and all thanks to the Right-Wing Justices appointed by G. W. Bush and Reagan before him.

On his website, Mitt promises to nominate more judges like the ones that ignored the Constitution and who are enjoying their appointment for life to such lucrative and influential position, which by the way… where in the Constitution does it say that Supreme and Federal Justices are appointed for life? In Article III, Section 1 it reads: “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” It seems that “good behaviour” translates into life but why? I truly believe that we have been fooled into believing that we are stuck with the morons that wear the ropes in the Supreme and Federal Court. We must demand their destitution particularly from the Supreme Court on the grounds of "bad behaviour", borderline treason, having stripped our constitutional rights over the rights of corporations, going against the Constitution. No Judge should be serving for a life-term, not a Supreme or a Federal Justice. We have accepted what a bunch of attorneys have said Article III means, but even the Legal Definition of "good behaviour" does not translates into a life term. This is the definition of “GOOD BEHAVIOUR” according to a Legal Dictionary: "Conduct authorized by law. Surety of good behaviour may be demanded from any person who is justly suspected, upon sufficient grounds, of intending to commit a crime or misdemeanor. Surety. for good behaviour is somewhat similar to surety of the peace, but the recognizance is more easily forfeited, and it ought to be demanded with greater caution. 1 Binn. 98, n.; 2 Yeates, 437; 14 Vin. Ab. 21; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t. As to what is a breach of good behaviour, see 2 Mart. N. S. 683; Hawk. b. 1, c. 61, s. 6 Chit. Pr. 676. Vide @Surdy of the peace."

We already have five Conservative Supreme Justices; they already hold the majority and we can’t afford more of them. We need to change the length of time a Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court; maybe they should serve for the same length as the president, perhaps 10 years but definitively not for a lifetime. No Judge should serve for a lifetime; no one should possess such power!

Note:  I am using the same spelling as that in our Constitution for the word "behavior."

For Sale

Mitt Romney doesn’t waste any opportunity to claim that while he was the governor of Massachusetts he brought down the unemployment rate.  He keeps mentioning that during his reign, I am sorry, his governance of Massachusetts thrived and everything was peachy.  For that reason, I decided to research how much truth there was to those claims and see for myself what the unemployment rate was in Massachusetts compared to the rest of the nation. 

I was not expecting what I found.  It really took me by surprise.  I know he is a lair, but this information is easily obtainable to anyone who looks for it and the chart that I am providing is easy to re-create if you have basic knowledge of how to use excel.  It turns out that Romney’s “success” was no better than that of the nation.   We must take into consideration that the nation’s rate is an average of every state; it also reflects any natural disaster that has taken place in any of the states that affects the unemployment rates.  From 2003 to 2007 there were at least 10 natural disasters that affected the national unemployment rate, which didn’t affect Massachusetts.

I often wonder why Mitt Romney served only one term as governor and didn’t seek re-election.  After the research I did today, I came to only one conclusion:  Simply put, he walked away before the shit hit the fan.  In other words, he knew that the unregulated banking expenditures and the uncontrolled mismanagement of the Bush administration were going to bring chaos to every state and ultimately the country, and he was going to fail miserably at trying to weather the storm that was approaching.  Mitt Romney is an expert at bringing revenue to big corporations at the expense of the working class and small businesses; I think it’s safe to say we all know that.  What he has no experience at is taking a corporation that is bankrupt and make it wealthy again.  As proven record of his capabilities Romney always brings up his years at Bain Capital, the proverbial big fish that swallowed all the small fish it could find not the other way around.  Most of the companies acquired by Bain Capital were successful small companies that Romney drove to the ground to liquidate and produce the big revenues for Bain Capital, not once did he acquire a company that was failing and made it successful… Romney has no idea how to accomplish that huge task.  It amazes me to see that there are so many Americans that believe that he can take this country out of the recession it is in now.   Romney will not bring us out of the recession, instead he will drive this country to the ground; the question is… who will he sell us to?   

** data obtained from http://data.bls.gov

Casualties of War

I am not in a good mood. Truth be told, I haven’t been in a good mood since the Wisconsin recall fiasco, it is so bad that I promised to take a few days off from politics, but it is easier said than done.

I encountered a person in Facebook that confronted me saying that I have to be less aggressive, more persuasive and basically to go with the flow, this person obviously doesn’t know me; otherwise that would have never been suggested. I can never hide or masquerade my ideals in order for others to like me. I can carry a debate, we can have a difference of opinion but I will not change my values and if I am wrong, I will be the first one to admit it. I will try my best to offer the other person all the facts I may know or have at hand, but I will never lie in order to make others happy or others to like me. No one pays my bills but me, I have to be honest with myself first before I can be honest to others, those that don’t agree can either accept me for what I am or leave, as most things it’s a matter of choice.

I keep hearing that President Obama might lose the elections because the unemployment rate went up by half a point. I can’t believe that people are so stupid! How can they be so blind and not realize that the private companies are purposely not hiring in order to get rid of our President? To me it is so obvious, so clear that makes it incomprehensible that people are so quick to flip… and Latinos, Latinos are beginning to flip because they think Mitt Romney will be more pro immigration than Obama! They will hit Mexico before they can say “Orale” and if they vote for Romney, it will serve them well… I hope they enjoy the ride.

For those Latinos that haven’t done their homework, I will provide them with this entry from Wikipedia about where Mitt Romney stands on Immigration, gay marriage and minimum wage from the time when he was the governor of Massachusetts, I truly don’t think his views have changed any and if they have, I can assure you they are now worse, not better.

Illegal immigration

Romney vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have allowed illegal immigrants to obtain in-state tuition rates at state colleges if they graduated from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and signed an affidavit affirming that they intended to seek citizenship. Romney argued that the bill would cost the state government $15 million and that Massachusetts should not reward illegal immigration. A study by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation predicted that the legislation would generate over $5 million in state revenues; the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform disputed this conclusion. In 2005, the bill was reintroduced to the House and brought to a vote on 11 January 2006. The legislation was defeated 96-57.

On December 2, 2006, it was reported that a landscaping company Romney contracted to perform yard work at his home had been suspected of employing illegal immigrants. Romney said that he was unaware of the immigration status of the company's employees. A year later it was reported that the same company was still using illegal immigrants to work on Romney's estate. After this second report, Romney fired the landscape company.

Later in December 2006, Romney signed an agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency that would have allowed Massachusetts State Police troopers to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal immigrants they encounter over the course of their normal duties Under the terms of the agreement, a group of 30 troopers would have received specialized training allowing them to question and detain suspected illegal immigrants, charge them with a violation of immigration law and place them in removal proceedings.

The executive order pertaining to state police was consistent with Section 287(g) of federal immigration law. Section 287(g) is a program of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that deputizes state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.

The agreement was never implemented because governor-elect Deval Patrick, who had expressed strong opposition to the agreement before it was signed, revoked it a month later when he was sworn in.

Minimum wage

As a candidate for governor in 2002, Romney proposed indexing the minimum wage to inflation and raising the hourly pay for the state's lowest-paid workers from $6.75 an hour to $6.96 an hour starting January 2004, saying, "I do not believe that indexing the minimum wage will cost us jobs. I believe it will help us retain jobs.”

In July 2006, the legislature passed a bill increasing the minimum wage to $8.00 an hour, and he vetoed it. "I have spent hours reading a wide array of reviews on the minimum wage and its impact on the economy, and there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs, and the loss of jobs is at the entry level," said Romney when he vetoed the bill. He proposed an increase to $7.00/hour (which represented a 25 cents an hour increase over the existing rate.) The legislature voted on July 31, 2006 to override his veto (unanimously in the Senate) thus setting the minimum wage at the higher amount.

Same-sex marriage

Romney strongly opposed same-sex marriage during his governorship. He emphasized his desire to "protect the institution of marriage" while denouncing discrimination against gays and lesbians. "Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians," Romney said in 2004.

Romney attempted to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Romney criticized the decision as harming the rights of children:

“They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults…Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.

Romney subsequently released a statement in support of a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts state constitution defining marriage as existing only between "one man and one woman" in order to overrule the court's decision. His statement said, "the people of Massachusetts should not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to our society as the definition of marriage."

While consistently rejected same-sex marriage, there was a rhetorical shift in other emphasis around this subject during his time as governor, culminating with Romney rarely talking about protecting gays from bias and instead characterizing himself as a conservative stalwart in the battle against same-sex marriage and in support of heterosexual families.

The above, according to Wikipedia, is Mitt Romney’s proven record. Don’t be a fool and believe that he has changed his mind about any of these so important subjects, keep in mind the “etch a sketch” analogy used by his campaign manager… nothing he says in his campaign is true, except that analogy.

Mitt Romney will be the worst thing that could happen not only to Latinos, minorities and the middle class but also to America as a whole. There is no question why the Koch brothers are backing Romney and most Republicans… they are trying to secure cheap labor and increase their already obscene wealth at whatever cost necessary. For them, you and I are just casualties of war.

We must vote in great numbers even greater numbers than in 2008. Those of us that are unemployed should volunteer to be an election’s worker – not only will you have something to do but you can use the time there to make sure nothing strange or corrupt takes place or go to the nursing homes and offer to help the elderly fill in their absentee ballots, be prepared, be informed and clarify any doubts they may have. Offer a ride to the voting sites to those that don’t have transportation. If they have a disability and can’t stand in line offer to stand in line for them, do whatever it’s necessary but move and vote, vote for the Democratic or Green Party… our way of life depends on it.

Etch A Sketch, a Bible or a Blackberry?

Ever since Mitt Romney’s Campaign Advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, made the analogy of Romney's campaign with an Etch A Sketch no other statement has been more accurate or prompted the other candidates to speak their minds freely for us to have a better, clearer and irrefutable idea of what the GOP principles truly are: a never-ending adjustment to fit the needs of the audience but not what they truly mean or plan to do if they win the Presidency.

To begin with and thanks to that comment, we now know for a fact what up to now we suspected but had no tangible proof:  Mitt Romney will say and do whatever you want him to.  Like the Etch A Sketch toy, he shakes up and presents the image you want if by doing so he will get your vote.  What are Romney’s own ideals and ideas? Only he knows that for sure and even then I have my doubts, it must be really difficult to maintain your own concepts after you keep changing them to please others.

Now Santorum is claiming that to have an “Etch A Sketch” President, we might as well keep the one we currently have – I like his suggestion and I do hope that all the republicans out there listen and do exactly that: Vote for Obama over Romney!

I know that there are Independents out there that are undecided – Why? Beats me!  But they are.  Some say that they don’t like the “Obamacare” that will force them to purchase health insurance.  It’s funny that no one resents being forced to buy insurance for their cars or homes, if they happen to own their homes, but if they are forced to care for what is their main source of income – themselves – then it is the end of the world as we know it.  Others think that President Obama hasn’t done enough of what he promised, and resent him for it.  There are others that are not happy that we are still fighting wars and that Gizmo still is operating.  And the many excuses they provide for their indecision is endless.  I have a question for all of them, from all the Presidents that have led this country while you have been alive… Please, can you name one President that has fulfilled ALL his promises and all OUR expectations?  I am sure that there will be none and if someone provides me with a name, they will be lying because there is no such a thing here or anywhere else, not now not ever.

Having that hurdle cleared, we can continue to analyze what we are risking if we vote for Romney or Santorum in November 2012:

Mitt Romney: Considered the less extremist of the candidates on these primaries, Mitt Romney is offering a bureaucratic and protectionist approach towards big corporations and Wall Street.    Mitt Romney is a man that was born into wealth, not having to worry about a thing since the day he was born, he is your typical 1%.  For him it is normal for a person to own 5 luxury cars, an even great number of houses and have as friends the owners of Nascar or any other multimillion-dollar corporation, and these elites are his best buddies.  The "poor guy" doesn’t even know how to talk to the working class!  It is well known that you can judge people by the way they treat animals, specially their pets and we all know the answer to that one.  How can we expect compassion from a man that didn’t care for his own dog?  No.  He is heartless!  No wonder he says that he enjoys “firing people!”  It is a known fact that he will protect and promote corporations, not people; after all, he is a corporate man with no experience whatsoever on how to be a “regular” guy.  He also has a tendency to say whatever the people that is listening to him wants to hear and even his campaign manager agrees to this.  We owe Eric Fehrnstrom a great deal for the accurate description he gave of Romney’s campaign strategy as an “Etch A Sketch."  With friends like that… who needs enemies, right?



Rick Santorum:  All the sudden I have this urge to drop to my knees and pray… and I am agnostic!   Rick Santorum is a super religious man that envisions this country as a religious country.  For him, separation of church and State means that the State has no saying on what the church does but not the other way around.  If Santorum should win the elections, very remote possibility at this point, he will implement prayers in school and in every governmental office.  He will assign judges to the Supreme Court that shares his extreme religious views.  We can rest assure that he will push for banning abortions at all stages and there will be no exceptions to the rule.  It is a known fact that his wife had an abortion, to safe her life, but that doesn’t matter for this super religious freak if it is your life or that of your wife or daughter the one that needs saving.  All he cares is that there will be no abortions for any reason, so if the women in your life die... it was meant to be and, who are you to question God’s ways?

Santorum is not for the 1% but he is certainly not for the 99% either.  He is for small numbers, the smaller the better; his main purpose for running is to pay the debt and control the budget.  Very commendable if it was plausible at the times we are living.  Are we willing to do without enough police to protect us (I know, after the fiasco we are witnessing with the Trayvon Martin’s case we have to wonder if they are worth it); are we willing to lay-off half of our fire department?  Are we ok with the potholes on our roads?  A cut in our public services which will include public transportation, street lights, food stamps for those that are unemployed, Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly, a cut in our Social Security funds, reducing the unemployment benefits (which we have contributed to), etc.?  Most likely, Santorum will privatize most of the public services in order to cut expenses.  This means that we will have to pay if we want those services, otherwise, your house can burn to the ground before the fire department would do a thing about it – we’ve seen cases like this already in towns where they are privatizing fire departments.  Santorum believes that George W. Bush was a great president; that statement alone should raise all the flags! If Santorum gets his ways, government will have a saying on what transpires in a bedroom… talk about cutting expenses!! He believes that for the good of society, there cannot be pornography, he will prohibit them even at cheap motel rooms!  He is against antithetical sexual actions that according to him go against the traditional family… if it was up to him, he would monitor how we conduct ourselves while copulating.  He would probably fine us if we are wild and enjoying a good orgasm, since he probably doesn’t know what that is and envy can be a bad advisor.  He also has compared gay sex to bestiality and pedophilia.  What can I say?  The guy is a “jewel!”

President Barack Obama: If you ask me, he is the most sensible and reasonable candidate of all.  He inherited a chaotic presidency where the banking institutions were collapsing and where all the experts were foreseeing a financial calamity similar to the Great Depression.  He prevented that from happening.  That the economy has been awful?  True, but we didn’t fall into a Depression.  That he didn’t bring the troops home?  True, but we have no idea what the Generals on the ground have confided in him, I am sure there are good reasons for President Obama to continue that war and we will know one day.  President Obama has tried tirelessly to work for the American people, he had to compromise a lot in order to get things done, but he got them done.  That it could have been better?  Perhaps, but we have ourselves to blame, not him.  I blame all of us that thought we were invincible and stayed home during the 2010 elections hoping for others to do what it was our duty to do: VOTE.  So we failed and lost the majority.  That majority we enjoyed from 2008 – 2010 was not a true majority.  There were way too many blue dogs that sided with the Republicans and didn’t allowed things to progress.  From 2010 till now, with all the Tea Party representatives in Congress plus the old geezers from the GOP that remained, things have been even slower but still things are improving and things are getting done… Imagine what we can do if we had a stronghold in Congress, no blue dogs, just a super majority of real Democrats and Progressives, image what we can accomplish then!  So, unless you want the government to tell you how to make love and to control how many kids you can have; or unless you are one of the lucky ones that belong to the 1%... What are you thinking of?  There should be no doubt, no question in your mind.  Vote for the future, vote for Obama, after all… Etch A Sketch is so passé!

Can someone pass Santorum a bucket?

----------------------

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

- John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960

----------------------

Back in December 4th, 2010, Rick Santorum publicly rejected the separation of Church and State in a speech delivered at the St. Thomas More College of Liberal Art’s Symposium, referring to John F. Kennedy’s famous speech delivered on September 12, 1960. Recently when CBS host, George Stephanopoulos, asked Santorum about his speech, Santorum went as far as to say that he felt like throwing up when he first read Kennedy's famous speech script. Apparently, the reason for this repulsion was that John F. Kennedy (a Senator running for President at the time) stated in front of a Protestant congregation that his Catholicism was not going to be an impediment in his Presidency because he firmly believed in Separation of Church and State. It seems that Santorum has a "weak" stomach and even weaker intelligence.

Santorum said that “Kennedy chose not just to dispel fear, he chose to expel faith.” He went as far as to affirm that there was no separation of Church and State, “The idea of strict or absolute separation of church and state is not and never was the American model. It’s a model used in countries like France and until recently Turkey, but it found little support in America until it was introduced into the public discourse by Justice Hugo Black in the case of Everson v. The Board of Education in 1947.” It is not only sad but shameful that a person, any person, running for the highest position of the United States to be so misinformed and to know so little about the history of the country he or she is seeking to represent. It is his complete and utter ignorance about the history of this great nation that might have urged him to say that “the First Amendment was designed to protect churches from the government and nothing more.” How can a person be so ignorant and misinformed and be running for President? That is beyond my comprehension.

For those of you that might agree with his point of views, I have to implore you to read the history of this great country. I do know that most of you hate history and therefore don’t bother to read it and prefer just to repeat what others say, as long as you agree with it; but history has been written so we don’t repeat the same mistakes, for future generations to know what, why and how it happened and for all of us to understand it.

To begin with, many affirm that this nation was founded by Christians and that is not entirely true. Not all the Founding Fathers were Christians; actually, the majority were Deists. I will not try to proof or disproof this since that will lead us nowhere. However, the idea that they wanted to have religion as part of our way of government it’s completely false, quite contrary, they made sure to keep Church and State separate and I will try to prove this, not with my opinion which is just as good as yours, but with facts.

What John F. Kennedy said back in 1960 was and still is completely correct. Our Founding Fathers wanted the separation of Church and State – after all, the Separatist Pilgrims came to this country fleeing from England escaping religious persecution from the Church of England. That is the first unsubstantial proof; the Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom, from a Church not a government. When the Founding Fathers wrote Article VI of the Constitution stating that “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” I am certain that they were reinforcing that religion shouldn’t be part of or a requirement to hold a position in government. Actually, nowhere in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any other document drafted by the Founding Fathers you will see that the Bible was needed to take the Oath or Affirmation; actually not all presidents have used a bible  when taking the oath and the above article is the only mention of religion in the Original Constitution. You will think that if religion was that important for the Founding Fathers they would have mentioned religion or God more often, but they didn’t. Further, this separation is ratified by the First Amendment (adopted on December 15, 1791 and the one Santorum mentioned and used to reinforce his opinion) which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It is unbelievable that Santorum interprets this Amendment as the Church being protected from government but not the other way around. This Amendment is clearly separating the two, government can’t enforce a religion because we are free to worship as we wish, hence, government can’t worship, can’t be affiliated, associated or related to any religion. It is extremely difficult for me to understand why Santorum or the extreme religious people of this country can’t understand something as simple as this, except that fanaticism blinds them. I do know that those people will argue that they do know what the Founding Fathers wanted, how Christians were they, etc. You see, they tend to interpret things their own way, just like they do with the Bible… The problem is that, unlike the Bible, there are documents from the time, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, that destroys those arguments completely and without a trace of a doubt shows that the Founding Fathers wanted the separation of Church and State. Back in November 4, 1796 the new nation of the United States entered in their first treaty, this treaty was with Tripolitania, and was signed by John Adams.  This document leaves no doubt about the religious founding of this country. In the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, commonly known as the Treaty of Tripoli, this becomes irrefutably clear:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

This document is never mentioned because its not a very known document, but it states in no uncertain terms that this country, the United States of America, was not founded on Christianity.

So Mr. Santorum, vomit all you want… but Religion never had and shall never have a place in government just as government has no place in religion. You want God in your life? Do all of us a favor, go to church, pray privately and adore whoever you want, just don’t force the citizens of this country, who will be paying your salary, to believe in what you believe, after all, there are Atheists and Agnostics too and they constitute the 4th largest group in this country, there are more Atheist and Agnostics than there are Jewish, Mormons and Muslims… combined!



And the Plot Thickens…

For those of you that might not remember, the stars of the show were: Michele Bachmann and her sidekick Marcus Bachmann; Herman Cain; Jon Huntsman; Rick Perry; Ron Paul; Newt Gingrich; Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.

The Republican presidential primaries are turning out to be a very, very entertaining spectacle. Like a good soap opera, we have had the Insane (Michele Bachmann); the gay (Marcus Bachmann), ok, granted… he wasn’t a candidate, but boy, didn’t we have a field day with him!!; the dumb Macho man (Rick Perry); the synister old guy (Ron Paul); the guess star (Herman Cain); the rich guy (Mitt Romney); The educated and well-traveled (Jon Huntsman); the sex-maniac, unfaithful, egocentric and “guess what my religion is” guy (Newt Gingrich); the guy that seems good but is in reality fanatical and delusional (Rick Santorum). We’ve seen it all, and apparently, they’ll keep coming!

Nothing much can be said about the guess star, Herman Cain, except that I believe he spent too long so close to a hot oven that he might have “cooked” his brains a bit and that must be why he suffers from such a chronic case of bad memory and truly does not remember the many affairs he had or the women that had to put up with his unsolicited sexual advances. Maybe, since he was so used to timing pizzas or they would be free, not being able to perform for more than 10 minutes, he thought these sexual experiences didn’t count and were “free”… Poor guy, he only lasted for a few guess appearances and on December 3rd, 2011 his “contract expired”, but not without a fight.

My favorite, kind of the salt and pepper of this charade, was Michele Bachmann. Who doesn’t remember the statements given by Michele? They were paramount! One of the most memorable was "I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Florida, after the debate. She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine; that injection and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter." Her pathetic lies, the wild look on her eyes, her complete and utterly denial that her husband was gay; everything about her was so absurd that we didn’t know if to laugh, cry, or pity the woman. She and Marcus brought so much entertainment into an otherwise boring event that I don’t know about you, but I for one miss her! Without much fanfare, Michele was gone from the picture on January 4th, 2012.

Next in line of drop-outs, is Jon Huntsman. He was the most educated of them all. He was a bit arrogant. Ok, ok… a lot arrogant, but at least he had reason to be, damn it… the guy even spoke Mandarin! He tried very hard to fight a clean fight but, since he wasn’t getting anywhere with this tactic he tried to show aggression and, in his first attempt to show some teeth, he failed miserably! People could see he didn’t mastered the art of hypocrisy and ill intentions which are a pre-requisite to be a GOP contender so, with a sad look on his face that could bring tears to his mother’s eyes, quietly left the scene on January 16, 2012.

The cowboy, gosh… who can forget him? He was almost the male version of Michele Bachmann with a bit of Herman Cain just to make it more interesting. This guy, who really thought he had a chance to swim in a shark infested pool and be the daddy of all sharks, was devoured pretty quickly, you see, Rick Perry was as dumb as a doorknob and owner of a memory the size of a mosquito – not very good attributes for someone running for the presidency. This is one of his most memorable quotes, where he had the opportunity to show the world how brilliant he was: "I will tell you: its three agencies of government, when I get there, that are gone: Commerce, Education and the -- what's the third one there? Let's see. ... OK. So Commerce, Education and the -- ... The third agency of government I would -- I would do away with the Education, the ... Commerce and -- let's see -- I can't. The third one, I can't. Sorry. Oops” He couldn’t even remember his own plan! It was brilliant! But as all good things do have to pass, this cowboy rode into the sunset and went back to the lone star State on January 19th, 2012.

By this time, all we have left are: Newt, Paul, Mitt and Rick. The four horsemen of the apocalypses! If any one of them by any chance – whether Americans go crazy and vote for any of them or, as it is very likely they could do, fixing the elections – it will be the end of this country and we Liberals, Progressives, Democrats and Independent know this. The vision these men have for our country and the middle class is to be feared. But I seriously doubt this will happen.

Not even the GOP seems to have much faith in any one of them and is considering bringing into the picture two of their most beloved stars: Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. Will they accept to play into this soap opera? What will they be bringing into the picture? Of course, we know that Christie will be bringing about 400 pounds of lard with him and Bush more or less the same weight in crap coming as he does from the Bush clan; but politically and most importantly, from an entertaining point of view, what will they provide us with? I can’t wait for the next episode! Who will be the first of the 4 to leave the show with his tail between the legs? Count Dracupaul? Porky Newt? Saint Orum? Or Mitt Money?

Ah… don’t miss the next episode of this very interesting saga! Stay tune!

   

Working for the Jobless?

I am so glad that Congress came to its senses and approved extending the payroll tax measure. After three years of Democrats having to virtually fight for any measure to be approved by the GOP aka the Party of No, this time around there was no big fight to approve this measure. Being on an election year and with the Congress approval rate at its lowest (10% approval rate according to Gallup as of February 8th, 2012) is no wonder Congress and specially the Republican Party have decided to be benevolent and finally work, literally work, instead of simply occupy a chair and vote against everything suggested by the opposing party.

Now here’s the punch line… After openly and carelessly opposing anything that would benefit the middle class and the unemployed, at times even mocking the unemployed, John Boehner [R] has the audacity of blaming the Democrats for playing political games, in a statement published by the Associated Press, Boehner said “We are not going to allow the Democrats to continue to play political games and raise taxes on working Americans. We made the decision to bring them to the table so that the games would stop and we would get this work done.” First of all, I think that in negotiations everyone has to come to the table, not “bring them” or did Boehner personally grabbed the hand of each Democrat Congressperson and pull them to the table? No. Coming to the table, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, is what Congress should do to negotiate new bills and measures, the problem is… Republicans haven’t really negotiated anything in a long time, unless holding things hostage can be called negotiating, so I guess they’ve forgotten how Congress is supposed to work. Second, after 3 years of constantly blocking every measure, of constantly discarding benefits for the poor and middle class and giving priority to the measures that would only benefit the very wealthy and multinational corporations, does the GOP really think people will change their minds about the awful job Congress has been doing since President Obama took office? Does the GOP really think that Americans are so stupid?

Now, they want to take the ‘glory’ for simply doing their job, after three years of playing golf paid for with our taxes; after countless days of vacations and holidays, and after three years of perceiving a hefty salary for not working while the average unemployed American has to survive on $300 a week! Now they are puffing and huffing that they’ve worked for the American people, give me a break!

We must bear in mind that they managed to inflict some damage to the unemployed – they would not be Republicans if they didn’t do that – but they are not eager to let us know what they got away with “for the good of the American citizen.” Thanks to the Republicans in Congress, those unemployed will see the a reduction in the numbers of weeks for which they can claim unemployment benefits, from 99 weeks down to 73, and we can truly thank the Democrats who fought to defend the unemployed during this economic crises, Republicans wanted to bring it down to only 59 weeks!

Republicans brought a lot of nonsense to the negotiation table that thankfully was rejected by the Democrats. Among the things the Republicans wanted was that for a person to obtain their unemployment benefits, they had to obtain a high school equivalency degree or GED. Where do they come up with these absurd ideas? Do they talk among themselves and, as if a joke, choose the wildest and craziest idea among them to bring to the table perhaps in an effort to shock the Democrats? Now, please, can anyone tell me why, if I worked and paid into my unemployment insurance and as well as my employer and I get laid off, would I have to get any degree to receive what is rightfully mine? But of course, the GOP is constantly trying to ‘work for the American people,’ they just don’t say that the American people they work for must, in order for the Republicans in Congress to help them, have a bank account exceeding a million dollars – otherwise, you don’t qualify for them to keep your interests in mind.

Not another Bush!

Now, after having fun writing the previous blog, let’s talk about a serious political subject: Jeb Bush.

Rumor has it that the RNC is seriously thinking in introducing Jeb Bush in the primaries. I hear many Democrats are excited about this because they think this will translate into a sure win for Obama. I have my doubts. Democrats seem to forget that for the far right, for those that are always blaming Obama for the state in which the country finds itself today, the Bush family is the best that has happened to them since their private "holy grail": Reagan. We have all heard and read their comments about how great Bush was and how everything that is happening today is President Obama's fault, they tend to suffer from a chronic dementia that includes a serious case of amnesia. As the story goes, they cannot recall any wrongdoing from the previous administration. We all have seen the posters of “Miss me yet?” they so flagrantly show everywhere.

So, we must not take this rumor lightly. Jeb Bush has a Mexican wife, which the GOP will try to use to get the so desirable Latino Vote. Jeb Bush is far more intelligent than his brother, granted even a chimp is more intelligent than GWB, but the guy is not an idiot like his brother is. Jeb speaks perfect Spanish, with almost no accent, and he is well liked among many Hispanics. Regardless of Bush’s previous history, they will love Jeb, remember, for the far right nothing that took place 24 hours ago is to be held against any of their candidates!

We must begin a strong campaign against Jeb Bush, we can’t sit on our laurels and trust that people will remember how disastrous that last name has been for our country. The campaign against another Bush in the White House must start now and must not let our guard down.