Of Values and Vaginas… or is it the Value of Vaginas?

As I have been doing, I am continuing reviewing Mitt Romney’s “issues” as cited in his website, I will give my opinion of his comments about “Values.” This section is extensive and I will break it in three sections, today I will review the first section of those values: “Abortion”

We all know that there is not one single Republican candidate that is openly pro-choice; even if personally they might sympathize or agree with the pro-choice movement they will never say this publicly because that would represent the end of their political career. I do believe that Romney is truthful when he says he is pro-life and I applaud him for it. However, Romney claims that “almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem.” I do not agree, at least not completely. I agree abortion is a problem but I think that when he refers to “all Americans” he means his base, since this issue has been a constant battle between the parties and groups. Romney believes that people of “both political parties” know that more than a million abortions a year cannot “be squared with a good heart” and perhaps he is right but, are those “all Americans” ready to offer and approve an economical and financial support to the millions of babies that would be born if the mothers wouldn’t end an unwanted pregnancy? I seriously doubt it. There is nothing more sacred to a Republican than a fetus but a child that is alive should never be a burden to society. They believe that the mother should deal with it after all no one told her to open her legs, “she should have held an aspirin between her knees” instead of being so irresponsible, they would say.

On the same subject, Romney says that he believes life begins at conception and that he wants the laws of this country to reflect his views. He proposes that the next step to right what he believes is wrong is to overturn Roe v. Wade because that law was the result of “judicial activism” and the decision to decide if an abortion should or should not be legal should be left to the people and not unelected judges. The problem I find with his opinion and that of pro-lifers is that they want the law to change based on their own opinion and views in complete disregard to the opinions, views and rights of the opposition. Abortions have been performed since the beginning of time when a woman decided not to have a child and did everything possible to end that unwanted pregnancy. Terminating a pregnancy in a safe environment by a professional will only serve to prevent losing two lives instead of only one. The only reason pro-lifers are against a woman having an abortion is because it is against their religious believes, nothing else. These same people have no problem enforcing and supporting the death penalty and some of them couldn’t care less about human life; we have seen too often in the news how they are willing to kill practicing abortion doctors, their staff and the women who go to their offices seeking professional help to end a pregnancy. Making abortions legal and accessible to any woman that needs one should not be based on religious views; if your religion and beliefs prevent you from having an abortion then don’t have one. Is your religious belief that by having an abortion a person is committing a capital sin? Let them burn in hell. If you don’t agree or approve of terminating a pregnancy, no one will force you to have one however, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then you are imposing your personal and religious beliefs upon the rest of the nation. The law should never be based on religious beliefs and personal views; that is what churches are there for.

If elected, Mitt Romney will also promote health care workers to “follow their conscience” instead of the Hippocratic Oath; allowing them to refuse performing an abortion if they personally don’t agree with this practice. I don’t really have a problem with this; after all, I think that if you are a neurosurgeon you will never have to perform an abortion. If you, on the other hand, are an OBGYN you probably can perform abortions but I doubt you will be forced to perform an abortion. If there is such a probability, I believe we have enough religious hospitals in this country where these doctors can work at and of course, most OBGYNs have their own private practice. 

Mitt will also revoke funding for abortion advocates such as Planned Parenthood. I truly hope that means that he will support increasing the funds for Medicaid, Food stamps, HUD and Welfare so the millions of children that will be born into impoverished homes can at least go to a doctor and have decent nutrients as they grow up. But we know that will never happen, republicans are against abortions but they are also against supporting what in their opinion are social “parasites” living off the system.

But he is not content with controlling the vaginas of American women, oh no! He proposes that America should expand their vaginal obsession to China. Who on earth does the Chinese government think they are restricting women from having another 20 million babies in an already over-populated country? How dare China impose any control over their population? They should be like us, imposing control over the American vaginas to force them to keep popping kids as if raising children and providing them with a decent life was free! I must ask you… what is Romney’s obsession with China? Is this a tactic he would use if (may the Spaghetti Monster have mercy on us!) he becomes President to evade paying our debt to China?

Romney closes the “Abortion Value” (didn’t know abortion was a “Value”) by saying: “Americans have the moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect American’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.” I have to laugh at this because they are NOT protecting the weakest “among us” since an embryo is not among us and those same ideals and sanctity do not extend to the fetus once it has passed (alive) through the birth canal. Mitt is a vagina freak, who probably would love to have many vaginas at his service.

Vaginas of America, Unite in defeating the Republican Party that wishes to control you since they can’t have you! Tightly close those legs, open your mind wide and move those facial lips… Give them a piece of your mind the next time you hear them deciding what you can do with your own vagina!

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."

Mitt Romney Defends Vaginas if they're Made in China...

With the elections fast approaching and beginning to be assaulted by an endless amount of propaganda from the right, I gathered enough courage and checked Mitt Romney’s website.  Needless to say that I couldn’t care less about what is in his page so I went directly to what interested me:  his proposed plans.  There are so many issues on his page (don’t confuse it with plans, understand the difference) that I will tackle one issue at a time.

One issue on his page is very interesting, it’s about China.  It begins by claiming that China has experienced “a dramatic growth” during the last 30 years surpassing Japan to become the world’s second largest economy after ours and how fearful we must be of their capabilities.

Romney sees China as a military threat and even when he tries to soften his opinion, it is clear that he fears China – and perhaps we should – but so far China has not interfered with us.  China has, however, intervened in other countries affairs and even has participated in ballistic actions… just like us.  Mitt Romney believes that there is a high possibility that there could be “the potential for conflict with an authoritarian China” and we must discourage China from attempting to intimidate or dominate “neighboring states” (states?).  That job belongs to the United States apparently, we are the only ones that can intimidate or dominate countries not neighboring us but countries on the other side of the world, such as China.

Mitt Romney claims that China has accelerated its military.  As long as I can remember China has had a strong military if only by the sheer numbers of their militant force; it wasn’t by chance or luck that the Soviet Union never successfully invaded China.  It is a shame and embarrassment that Mitt Romney is not aware of this fact.  Regardless, to "protect" China’s neighbors, Mitt Romney proposes expanding our naval presence in the Pacific and to create a strong military presence in the region.  While we are there, we should sell armaments to the neighboring countries and train militarily them.  Mitt Romney claims that the over expansion of our military in the region, plus equipping and training China’s neighbors will not be perceived by China as an invitation to conflict… How stupid does Mitt Romney thinks China is?  Does he really believes that if we do this we will not provoke China?  If he truly believes this, he is dumber than I thought.

Further on the same issue, Romney wants to pursue a “deeper economic cooperation” with China’s neighboring countries and like-minded nations through the formation of a “Reagan Economic Zone.”  As it is already customary with Romney, he names a very catchy “reform or plan” but fails to provide the specifics as to what the plan or reform entails.  What the heck is a “Reagan Economic Zone” anyway?  Does he realize that, even by his own accord (“after 30 years of growth”) China was capable to grow as it has because of Ronald Reagan’s reforms?  Are we now pursuing to do the same with other countries in Asia?  Is Romney selling us to the Far East?  I think he might be considering it after all, that is what he does best:  sell.

The part I found hysterical is his opinion about defending the Chinese people’s Human Rights.  Mitt Romney says that it is obvious that any changes that occur in China it must be from within, however we, the United States of America, play an important role in encouraging the “evolution” of China.  I think he meant to say “revolution” but since he has always been a coward he’s probably afraid that China might read it, so he disguised it as “evolution.”

Mitt Romney closes the China Issue with what I think is a joke and a good one too:

“A Romney administration will vigorously support and engage civil society groups within China that are promoting democratic reform, anti-corruption efforts, religious freedom, AND WOMEN’S AND MINORITY RIGHTS.  It will look to provide these groups and the Chinese people with greater access to information and communication through a stronger Internet freedom initiative.  Mitt Romney will seek to engage China, but will always stand up for those fighting for the freedoms we enjoy.”

Now, tell me that’s not hilarious!

First of all, we cannot dictate how China supplies its citizens with Internet.  We cannot control what filters China applies to the Internet network within their borders.  That is an outright lie and Mitt Romney knows it.  Second, how dare he talk about anti-corruption and women’s rights?  How can he say this with a straight face when our rights have basically disappeared thanks to “Citizen’s United” and the Koch brothers?  Where the Republican Party, through the bills they have passed or are trying to pass, is constantly screwing every single American woman by inserting a new bill into their vaginas on a daily basis?  Where are the rights of the Women in THIS COUNTRY, Romney?  I guess the vaginas from another country deserve more freedom and have more rights that the ones in America…. Shit, for Romney the seal “Made in China” has more value that the one “Made in the USA.” 

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