3 Women Have Much More to Fear from Romney

Three women who looked to be 35-40 were overheard recently ragging on President Obama and carrying on about how he's from Kenya and a Muslim and that the country is going to h.e.double hockey sticks (my euphemism, not theirs) if he's re-elected.

Not only do these women obviously rely exclusively on Fox and other right-wing media for information and "news", they are worried about the wrong thing.

I am sure that there's not a chance in the world that President Obama is likely to break into their homes and assault (euphemism for another word) them.

I can't same for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and their Republican friends, such as Missouri Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin who claimed that women who are victims of what he described as "legitimate rape" have some kind of magical ability to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant as a result of that rape.

Another Republican Romney buddy, Indiana Senate candidate and Romney endorsee Richard Mourdock claimed that pregnancies that result from rape "is something that God intended to happen."

Then there's Wisconsin state assemblyman Roger Rivard, who's running for re-election and had been endorsed by Paul Ryan when he said in an interview that his father once told him, " 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.'"

So, while Messers Romney, Ryan, Akin, Mourdock, Rivard or any of their ideological brethren won't be personally breaking into the homes of the three overheard anti-Obama ladies or personally assaulting them, they are in far greater danger should those men attain/retain positions of leadership in this country of being revictimized many times over should they or anyone they know be unfortunate enough to be raped by anybody. 

I'm a Socialist? Thank you!

The theme of Public Radio's "This American Life "this week was "Red State, Blue State" and included stories of friends (or former friends), relatives, elected official and co-workers who had differing political views. It included sisters who could hardly speak to each other, one man married to the sister of another man's wife who said if his sister-in-law's husband votes for President Obama, he wasn't going to let him eat any of his astoundingly good barbeque, tri-tip steak, pulled pork and prime rib sandwiches for the four years of Obama's second term.

In most of the interviews, the biggest insult the conservatives could unload on liberals was "socialist." Oddly enough, none of those who were so labeled thanked their antagonists for putting them in such august company since Jesus could be considered an uber socialist.

Matthew 25:35-40 – ³⁵“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

Mark 12:13-17 – ¹³And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. ¹⁴And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” ¹⁵But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” ¹⁶And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” ¹⁷Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

If Romney Were President

If Mitt Romney were president today, 60 million Americans facing $20 billion in "Sandy" damage would be SOL -- or hoping that the state they live in could somehow help them out. That's because disaster relief would no longer be a function or responsibility of the federal government and FEMA would no longer exist, thanks to Romney.

The state of New Jersey, for instance, which brought to its knees by that storm, being solely responsible for preparation, rescue and recovery from the horrendous damage "Sandy" wreaked is about as ludicrous as expecting a patient that has open-heart surgery to sew him/herself up and assume her/his own care, including vital-sign monitoring and IV drips.

"Sandy" made NJ Gov. Chris Christie a true believer of the need for FEMA and other federal assistance. This is what he said:

  Christie told news outlets that the president’s response had been “outstanding,” said that coordinating with the administration had been “wonderful,” and remarked that “the president has been all over this and he deserves great credit.” He even told Fox News the president had done a “great job for New Jersey” while staying above the fray about politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/in-superstorm-sandy-new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-praises-president-obamas-crisis-leadership/2012/10/30/89769e32-22b5-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html

  New Jersey Governor Chris Christie thanked President Obama for his help in the face of Hurricane Sandy, and praised the president’s leadership Tuesday. http://www.examiner.com/article/governor-christie-praises-obama-s-leadership-aftermath-of-sandy

That's just one of the reasons I'm voting for President Obama. Others include:

• Middle-income Americans' mortgage, education, child and other vital tax deductions will NOT be at risk, like they are likely to be under Romney.
• Pay parity is more realistic.  The Lilly Ledbetter Act, which enables women to know if their male counterparts -- same work, same experience, same training -- are being paid more than they are, and to sue their employers if they are, is a start. Obama will sign into law the Fair Pay Act, which will ensure that women are paid 100% of what their male counterparts earn, not just 73-77%, which is now the case.
• Women's access to healthcare, preventative care and screening for breast and cervical, including reproductive information and pregnancy prevention methods will not be eliminated as they are likely to be under Romney.
• Insurance-company ban on from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
• Stopped the country’s plunge off the economic cliff and ended the Great Recession created by GWBush and Republican Congress fiscal irresponsibility.
• Substantially cut taxes for working Americans -- twice.
• Private-sector job growth for the past 36 straight months.
• Robust and increasingly profitable U.S. auto industry and related businesses.
• Tough on terror and terrorists.
• Strong leadership regarding natural and national disasters.
• Ended Iraq war, ending Afghanistan war, strong leadership in not starting any new wars.
• Protecting consumers from predatory financial industry tactics by creating the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau.
•  Will keep intact the Affordable Care Act (ACA)/Obamacare with provisions that:   

Ø     Provides healthcare coverage for millions who previously were uninsured, including people under 26 years old who can stay on their parents’ insurance plans.

Ø Reduces a major reason for skyrocketing rise in healthcare costs – insurance premiums – by requiring 80 percent of premiums to be spent on actual care.

Ø     Ends insurance-premium discrimination against women.

Ø    Extends viability of Medicare and benefiting those who use the program in at least two ways:

      Covering preventative procedures such as annual physical exams, which Medicare previously didn’t cover, and other screening procedures, all of which is much less costly than trying to treat chronic and acute diseases after they have become advanced and create collateral damage

      Closing the prescription drug “donut hole” and allowing price comparison

      All reforms paid for by reductions in costs, not by increased fees to users or costs to taxpayers

·         Being able to achieve major accomplishments despite a Congress that will do nothing that he proposes – even measures that were, in fact, initially Republican proposals, such as the ACA insurance mandate, which was part of Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract with America" – that would benefit the country for fear that it might help his re-election.

Here’s proof:

Ø  Republicans have mounted the worst filibuster record in Senate history, blocking bills that would have increased employment and blocking key appointments, including judges, to the detriment of the justice system

Ø  The McConnell rule, which Mitch McConnell articulated two years ago as “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” That’s the Republicans’ #1 priority.

      Not create jobs

      Not reduce the unemployment rate

      Not improve the economy

      Not national defense

Ø  While defeating President Obama might be the Republicans’ political objective, making that their number one governing objective has not been and still isn’t in the best interest of the country or the People

It is beyond me why anyone, and certainly why any woman, would ever vote for a Republican and not vote for President Obama.

Evaluating a Job Applicant

Much ado is being made over presidential candidates' tax returns these days. The biggest to do is over 2012 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's -- or the fact that he won't make the past several years public. His attitude is pretty much, None Of Our Business.

Yet we learn that Romney gave 2008 presidential candidate John McCain 23 years of his returns when McCain was considering Romney as a vice-presidential running mate. That was part of McCain's "vetting" process, we are told.

Romney's recently announced running mate Paul Ryan told George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" that he provided several years of his tax returns to Romney as part of Romney's "vetting" of Ryan.

What strikes me in all of this kerfuffle is that even though Romney would have served in John McCain's administration, had McCain chosen Romney to be on his ticket and won the election, and that the same would be true of Ryan and Romney, neither Romney nor Ryan would have been working for the presidential candidate who tapped them. Both would have been working for us, The People.

The same is true of the presidential candidates themselves. Romney would be, just as President Obama is, working for us. Thus, we should be vetting them. Tax returns provide vital information about not just where and how they accumulate assets, but what they do with those assets. We should demand that their returns be made available for public scrutiny. Should they refuse to do so, as Romney has done to date, that should be considered a deduction from their qualifications.

Just as we as employers in evaluating the qualifications of job applicants -- be they direct employees for a business, a contractor to reroof our house, a plumber to plug a leak, a babysitter to care for our children -- if they refuse to provide information we think pertinent to their character or ability, would we hire them anyway?

What's Wrong With This World?

Following is an email exchange I had with a neighbor the day after the Sikh temple tragedy in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. I share it here because she and I both know that, even though we have never gotten into debates, we have different views on various issues: 

MY NEIGHBOR:

The stress of yesterday's attacks at the temple is just so awful.  It's 
amazing 
> how something like this touches a community. We were at a soccer game 
yesterday 
> when my friend's husband was called away (he's a Franklin detective).  Then 
> another mom received a message that her husband, a Milwaukee cop, was being 
sent 
> over there.  I know a member of the Sikh community also and still don't know 
if 
> he was there or worse, one of the casualties.  (My daughter) is friends with a young 
gal 
> who was there and posted it on Facebook.  Some friends of ours lives a block 
> from the killer's home and were evacuated last night. It's all just so 
extremely 
> sad. And to have something like this happen in our quiet community. What is 
> wrong with our world??  I'll be anxious to hear if they have any updates at 
> 10:00.

ME:

e --
Yes, once again a mass shooting invades a quiet Wisconsin community. Wasn't it 
Brookfield where some guy killed several people in church a few years ago? If I 
recall, people there just like in Aurora, Colorado, said the same thing -- how 
can something like this happen in a quiet little place like this?
> 
> 
> What's wrong with this world, you ask?
> 
> 
> You probably didn't expect me to answer, but here's what I think:
> 
> 
> There's a lot wrong, particularly in the U.S.
> 
> 
> 1) Violence is glorified. It permeates everything -- music, movies, television 
shows, video games, sports, domestic and foreign relations, political views. 
Violence is, and is promoted to be, the "court of first resort" in this country.
> 
> 
> 2) Intolerance has become an American value. Socially, culturally, 
religiously, politically and in just about every other way. If you don't like 
the way a person looks, acts, believes, etc., we've been desensitized into 
thinking that "taking 'em out" is the American way.
> 
> 
> 3) "Self" reigns supreme. Americans have become so egocentric that the only 
thing of value is what benefits "me."  "Sense of community' is becoming a ghost 
town. The individual "I's" don't want to take care of anyone else -- especially 
if it might cost "me" any money.
> 
> 
> 4) We turn young people into killing machines, send them into very real 
psychologically distorting guts-oozing and blood-spurting, shoot-first-don't-worry-about-questions-or-consequences 
combat situations then expect them to march back into the normalcy of quiet 
little towns and suburbs to be loving family members and healthy productive 
citizens.
> 
> 
> 5) Gun worship and the obscene promotion of only one half of the 2nd Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution -- "...the right to bear arms..." -- and pretending the 
other half -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a 
free State ..." doesn't exist. And being in denial of the context and times in 
which those words were written.
> 
> 
> 6) The fantastic success those with agendas, such as the very profitable 
financial gain from gun sales, have had promoting the ridiculous notion that 
"guns don't kill people, people do" when the evidence is so stark. Here are 
handgun death stats for last year alone:
>  Great Britain - 8
>  Sweden - 21
>       Switzerland - 34
>  Germany - 42
>  Japan - 48
>  Canada - 52
>  Israel - 58
>       United States - 10,728
> 
> 
> Well, if it's people who kill people and not guns, those stats don't speak 
very well for people in the U.S., do they, especially given that many other 
countries, such as Sweden and Canada have rather liberal gun laws. Yet guns per 
capita in the U.S. is off the scale compared to other countries -- about 90 per 
100 residents. (I'm not for banning gun ownership in this country, but am for 
some sanity regarding sales.) 
> 
> 
> That said, there's an awful lot good about our world, too. 
> 
> 
> Your observation about the way yesterday's tragedy touches a community gives 
me hope that it might be possible to snatch 'sense of community' back from the 
spectre of ghost town. While we in our own little neighborhood hold different 
views on various issues, I have been and continue to be thankful that we have 
put our sense of community above such differences. For everyone to respect the 
fact that 'I think I am as right as I know they think they are' is societal 
glue, so far as I'm concerned. 
> 
> 
> I hope you'll accept this cathartic rant for what it iS. I too am 
grieving for the victims of yesterday's shooting, as well as for those of the 
many previous ones and for those, no doubt, to come. Thank you for your 
shoulder.

>   
MY NEIGHBOR:
Amen.  You said it all too well.  Those are some of the very things 
I've been thinking since yesterday and you phrased it all perfectly.  I know, 
too, that people who do this have to have a missing piece to their psyche -- no 
one of a sane mind could do this type of thing.  But, yes, adding 
righteousness/intolerance to someone's insanity is a dangerous mix along with 
putting a gun in their hands. I'm not for banning guns but I do believe we need 
to find a better way of reviewing a person's character and background before 
allowing them access.  Sure, guns will still be available on the black market 
regardless of laws but maybe things like this might be less.  I think the thing 
that struck me the most with both Aurora and this is that they attack people in 
the most common of places - places where we typically feel secure.  That 
certainly qualifies for terrorism.  And what's hard for me to deal with is what 
this does to our sense of security.  It shakes us to the core because we realize 
we aren't safe anywhere.  I'm saddened also for our children - that this has 
become so common in recent years and it has messed with their sense of security 
as well.  It sickens me.  

I also appreciate your evaluation of our neighborhood.  I know we have different 
feelings about various issues, but we care about and love each other regardless.  
That's what our world should be all about.  
 
Thanks for your email.  It was perfect.


ME:

Thank you.. I am hopeful that if enough people who feel the way you and I do about responsible review of a would-be gun buyer's background, etc., made our views know to lawmakers, there might be a chance for change.
Take care and have a great week.

(ONE THING I DIDN'T INCLUDE IN MY LIST OF WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS WORLD IS THE ASTRONOMICAL RISE IN THE NUMBER OF WHITE HATE GROUPS (I CAN'T CALL THEM SUPREMACISTS. THERE IS NOTHING SUPREME ABOUT THEM) SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS ELECTED.

Want Smaller Gov't? Elect Democrats

The GOP mantra, particularly among candidates for elected office, is that the Democratic Party is the party of big government and that the electorate should trust the GOP to reduce the size of government.

Historical facts, however, belie that.

I've often heard/read that the federal government has actually grown in Republican presidential administrations. An article that provides statistics says:
 
"Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased the size of the bureaucracy, whether or not you count military personnel.  Reagan increased the non-military workforce  by 238,000 employees, and the federal workforce including military personnel by 324,000.  George W. Bush increased the non-military workforce by 53,000 employees, and the federal workforce overall by 77,000.  Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, reduced non-military employees by 8,000 and the federal workforce overall by 6 37,000. Carter came in third behind George H.W. Bush as a small-government practitioner."

This article, as http://www.brendagrantland.com/Blog/BlogRepublican.html, includes a little quiz the results of which are quite interesting and that Democrats should pounce on like a frog on a fly.

President Obama isn't included in this quiz because he wasn't in office long enough when the article was published. But he has been now and while he Obama is constantly accused of bloating the federal government, according to the article "Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan" at
http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan, it seems that Obama has not increased the size of government.

Plus, he has either cut or proposed cuts in wasteful spending. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321244/obama-to-cut-federal-swag-wasteful-spending/ And his federal deficit reduction plan -- which the Republicans rejected after previously backing many of the same policies -- cut more spending the the Republicans alternatives.

Historical facts show that Republicans' claims of being the small government party are false. While they're absolute hawks about cutting spending on public programs that benefit middle and poor Americans, they passionately protect government spending on the much more costly tax breaks, subsidies and other welfare for the rich.

Republicans who promise to cut the size of government remind me of men who beat their wives and girlfriends. They're so sorry and promise to never hit them again. We all know how that goes.

The difference is, Republicans never say they're sorry.

GOP's Protected "Untouchables" Class

President Obama's opponents are trying to shoot down his debt-reduction plan, which includes fair treatment of rich people and for-profit corporations (=>), by charging him with waging class warfare.

Plus, they say, equalizing the tax structure to bring rates for the rich up as high as the rate middle Americans pay would reduce the debt by only 10 percent.

Ten percent? In my truly conservative opinion, I'd say that's quite a dent.

Or as my husband said, "That's a good start."

He then came up with what I think would make a great debt-reduction mantra:

"Start with fair,
Work from there."

As for declaring class warfare, that's exactly what Republican have done, proving once again that going on the offensive by accusing their enemies (yes, they do indeed consider Obama the enemy and, as they have repeatedly said that limiting him to one term is their number one priority. Not reducting the unemployment rate. Not getting Americans back to work. Not returning the middle class, which has been shipped overseas, back to the U.S. Not ending wars this country is waging in other countries. But vanquishing Obama.), of doing what they are, in fact, doing themselves.

Republicans are the ones who declared class warfare. They did that by turning millionares into a special class. By making them a class of 'untouchables'.  By putting them off limits in the "shared sacrifice" that other Americans are being told they must participate in.

BTW, notice how those who oppose leveling the rate-rate paying field are rich?

Poor Louisana GOP Rep. John Fleming is crying crocodile tears because Obama's proposal might take a bite out of the $200,000 he spends, according to his math, on feeding his family.

Fox darling Bill O'Reilly says being subjected to the same tax rate as middle Americans, which is what Obama is proposing, will prompt him to quit his $10 million-a-year TV-talk job.

Sob stories abound. 

Middle-Americans' Sisyphus Dilemma

On what model is this tea-bagged, Grover Norquist small-government, world based? What country now or historically has had a "small government" and had a robust economy and properous population -- not just for the richest few, but for the population in general?

These are questions that came to mind this morning as I read about the debt-ceiling deal announced between President Obama and the Republican minority in Congress.

The more I read, the more my conservative sensibilities were shaken. Political pundits in attempting to understand and explain the president's dealings with the so-called "opposition" speculate that he's truly a conservative. If so, why then has he so liberally OK'd Republican demands that will put the vast majority of The People in this country at risk?

Why is he so liberal in agreeing to unproven and untested policies that not only shrink the government but guarantee that the gaping divide between the moneyed and the rest of the country will continue to grow unabated?

Why doesn't he and whoever is advising him to follow this path to middle-America disaster look at the prospering nations around the world -- Germany, for instance, which has anything but small government policies, has a strong union-based workforce and has weathered the global financial crisis that has felled other countries' economies?

Why isn't the president being equally liberal in demanding a greater investment in the U.S. from the richest and corporate elite?

Why does he think the people who are shouldering the tax burden of those who are skating -- the multi-millionaires who can claim their income as capital gains and, thus, benefit from a 15-20% lower tax rate than the rest of us -- will continue to agree that those policies are a good idea?