Citizen Ted

Why is the media totally ignore the Ted Cruz citizenship issue.  Is it that they are scared of being portrayed as partisan because they didn't go after Obama as hard.  Once again lets review Obama was born in America, I know it is hard to believe but Hawaii is in the United States.  Cruz was born in Canada.  Certainly not native born but what about natural.  Don't know but maybe the Roberts court can carve out a ruling for Senator Cruz so that they don't allow Democrats or anchor babies the same opportunity.  But again the real issues are did Ted Cruz vote in an election and is someone with dual citizenship allowed to serve in the Senate.  The first one is a felony, which eliminates ones ability to serve as President. 

For you impeachment as long as they are Democrats fans there is an opening here.  Obama could have had dual citizenship until he was 23 and he probably voted in elections which is of course illegal.

Can Ted Cruz Serve as President

We all know that Senator Cruz is running for President.  We have now learned that he was born in Canada (not the United States) to an American mother and a Cuban father.  Not all that different from the current President except for one tiny difference, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii (the United States).  Clearly the Tea Party Senator is not a natural born citizen.  However this is not the most serious issue facing the Senator.  You see Canada like the US only requires that you be born in the country for citizenship, so he was sort of an anchor baby in Canada.  Now it starts to get complicated.  By virtue of an American mother he gained US citizenship, again the US is a little rare in this regard.  President Obama did not have dual citizenship after he turned 23 because he failed to renounce US citizenship in favor of Kenyan.  Canada on the other hand doesn't drop you unless you file a form with the government so Senator Cruz is still a Canadian citizen.  Now this brings up several interesting points.  First can someone of dual citizenship serve in the US Senate?  No one is really saying if this is ok, I believe that it create such a big conflict of interest (looking out for another country) that it shouldn't be allowed.  My guess is that the founders would have felt the same way because they didn't allow foreign nationals to vote.   Second, has he ever voted in a US election?  It is a felony to be a citizen of another country and vote in a US election, which then would disqualify the Senator from serving as President.  As a Republican who sees voter fraud around every corner I find it ironic that he would have voted in a US election which would have been fraudulent.  If he had any morals at all he would resign from the Senate immediately and submit to prosecution for voter fraud but being a Republican we know that won't happen. 

Worst Administration Ever

Just heard that George W Bush's poll numbers have increased, wow what an indictment of Obama.  I can't believe it.  This was the worst administration ever, I can't think of another president who was worse.  They were wrong about Iraq, they were wrong on the economy for eight years culminating with the worst economic collapse ever (it didn't appear as bad because of the social safety net), they bungled the occupation of Afghanistan, they bungled the occupation of Iraq (41 people were killed there today after we made the country safe and left, and they were wrong on domestic policy.  And now his poll numbers are going up?  I don't get it.

Tagg Romney

On Wednesday after the Tuesday debate Tagg Romney was asked how it felt to have the President call his dad a liar.  first of all the President didn't call him a liar, he said that what he was saying was not true.  Tagg responded by saying that he wanted to punch the President in the nose but couldn't because of secret service.  What Tagg should be doing is reading the multitude of posts from fact checkers who stated that his dad was not exactly truthful 31 times in 41 minutes, an impressive total by any stretch.  The problem with Mitt Romney is that he has an inability to maintain consistent positions on the issues and he gets facts wrong (likely deliberately to make himself look better).  Tagg don't be like your dad, get the facts right before you go punch anyone in the nose especially the President.

The Food Stamp President

That's what Mitt Romney and the Republicans call President Obama.  Some look at this as a slam against the President who as a child received food stamps.  Some point to the fact that the number of people on food stamps has increased during his presidency and that somehow he made it easier to qualify for food stamps.  The facts on food stamps are a little more complicated.  The majority of the recipients have jobs.  So, why would they qualify for food stamps?  Because both wages and hours are down since 2008, but in reality they have been in decline for 30 years.  The bottom line is that you have more people who simply cannot afford to live in this country.  If we would reduce the food stamp program (both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are on record although recently they have change their mind) Paul Ryan would be able to get in a nice photo op at the soup kitchen probably similar to the depression.  You remove the floor and people are going to fall hard.  The Republicans believe that this is what should happen.  My question is what is the point?  Does anyone really believe that if you cut off aid to the poor suddenly the poor will get higher paying jobs or start a business?  Of course not.  What will happen is that we will see the true effects of this economy, which is that it is disastrous for the majority of Americans.  Maybe, we as a country need to go through a period like this so that people will finally wake up and understand that the wealthy, the corporations, and the politicians did this to us and finally demand change.   

Can't they Answer the Question

Last night's debate had a question about the role of government and neither candidate had an answer.  Mitt Romney who is on the restore the constitution as I know it tour quoted from the Declaration of Independence a document that does not stat the role of government.  For President Obama's answer he started out good by talking about how the government assisted the railroads in building the trans-continental railroad (taxpayers built it just don't own it) and funding science.  Then he went off into other programs and failed to tie it back to the Constitution.  A better question would have been "how do you interpret Article 1, section 8, clause 1 of the US Constitution and how do you see the role of government in the US?".  This would force each of them to address the promote the general welfare of the nation sub-clause.  The liberals see that as meaning that government has a role in ensuring that people aren't left behind.  The right sees that as being an extension of providing for the defense of the nation, that you have to keep people safe thereby promoting their welfare.  A follow-up could have been "section 8, clause 8 describes a government that promotes the arts, funds research, and promotes science what are your thoughts?".  It should be noted that Romney did indicate that the arts would be cut although that and defense would appear to be 2 programs that the founding fathers wanted.

We've Been Played

By we I mean the United States and by being played I mean the Middle East.  This occurred to me listening to the radio the other and I think that it was Alan Combs who was talking about how the United States is for Democracy and self determination.  He was saying that we overthrew a secular dictator and then there was an election and the Muslim parties won in Iraq.  We have been seeing this repeated all over the Middle East.  I believe that both Presidents Bush and Obama believed that the religious parties would not win.  That was naive on their part.  Not unlike the United States where the fact that if someone is seen as a good Christian is going to get you votes, it should have been expected that seeing someone as a good Muslim would get votes.  The problem comes with political parties that have a radical element in them that want to establish a theocracy.  Again, not unlike today's Republican party (look at the buzz that was generated when the Democrats failed to mention God in their platform).  What these former secular leaders did and I'm not condoning their brutality was keep these elements in check within their countries.  Unfortunately once they fell the United States and others demanded that elections be held and the Islamist parties were the best organized and the won.  Then you get idiots in this country producing propaganda films which drive the people towards these Islamist groups because they are seen as the defenders of a way of life that appeals to them.  A romanticized view of a simpler time where everyone knew their place, where church and state were together, where society was just,...  Now we are stuck with an increasingly radical Middle East that will be increasingly difficult for the West to deal with because we are seen as the infidels in this holy war and as the Western countries try to counter Islam in their own countries have done nothing to dispel this view.  In short we were played by people who want the power and now that they have it (thanks to us) want to export their revolution throughout the world.

Sad and Disgusting

Is the Republican party incapable of not making stuff up!  In response to the tragic terrorist attack in Libya, Reince Priebus and Mitt Romney issued statements condemning President Obama for apologizing to the Muslims.  Unfortunately like so many statements in this campaign this statement wasn't true.  It is not even close to what the President said.  "

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America’s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.
I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya’s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.
The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward."

If the sentence about rejecting efforts to denigrate religions is somehow apologizing I suggest that the Republicans read the constitution and think about the values that this country stands for.  Now the Republicans and their bloggers have escalated the rhetoric that the President will do nothing.  What do you want him to do attack Iran?  It would seem that these individuals are Libyan but that certainly won't stop the neo-con right from attacking the wrong country.  Maybe Mitt would have us turn a country that we just spent billions (and they talk about the deficit) "liberating" into a parking lot.  He has pledged to get those responsible and given his track record of ordering people killed I believe that it will happen.  I don't believe that we will see a trial, it will end like Bin Laden, the pirates, and Gaddafi.

I also think that it right to condemn this film.  The purported film maker apparently doesn't exist.  He was so brave that he used a fake name.  This movie was created with a sole purpose of provoking a war between the Muslim world and the United States and Israel.  Look at the facts as we know them.  The film was made by a right wing Israeli, funded by right wing American Christians, and carried what appeared to be an official endorsement of the US government.  Our embassy in Egypt issued the "apologetic" statement that Romney was speaking of where they condemned the film and said that we weren't associated with it.  The Israelis said the same thing about the film maker, that he wasn't working for them.  This film maker is hiding, we ought to be looking for him and if he is an Israeli citizen deport him to Israel.

Race Baiting

Jonah Goldberg was writing about how the Democrats see race when that is not really the issue.  He took the example of the Republicans saying that Obama uses the Chicago way of politics.  Two Democrats have said that this remark is racist.  I agree with Jonah it isn't racist.  Where I disagree with Jonah is that it is a statement that implies corruption.  The "Chicago Politics" comment harkens back to the machine politics of a past generation which doesn't exist anymore than saying that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are disciplines of the Chicago School of economics.  Which may be true if you look at their policies.  But, I fail to see an equivalent for the corrupt politics charge against Obama.  Is the President and his minions working to suppress the vote to get elected? Appears to be Republicans.  Is the President working to create pro Democrat voting districts to deliver a majority in Congress?  Again it would appear to be the Republicans.  Is the President using stimulus to create loyal workers?  Yes, but in States led by Republicans they are turning the money down.  No the President is a shadow of the political bosses of old, but the Republicans are looking very much the part and they are looking like Chicago School of Economics disciples as well.

Super Tommy to the Rescue

Tommy Thompson's new ad made me think of superman.  first he has the booming voice unlike his normal slurred speech.  Then between each point there is a swish sound.  He'll vanquish Obamacare, the deficit, entitlements,...

The Bush Taxcuts

Remember when President Bush proposed his tax cut scheme?  The country was mired in the Bush recession and the Bush war.  The theory was that if we give everyone a tax cut with the majority going to the wealthy, the wealthy would hire and the rest of us would spend.  The biggest problem was that the rest of us didn't notice our tax cut, so it was too small for us to spend more and without increased sales the wealthy couldn't justify growing their business.  If the theory had been correct after 12 years this economy should be booming, it isn't and the Republican solution is to make the tax cuts permanent and give more o the top wage earners.  President Obama should just let the whole mess expire, at least then there will be increased revenue for the government.  I for one will not miss the couple of percent that I get, I'm more worried about pay and benefits that have effectively reduced my salary 11%.

The Shrinking Job Market

The Wisconsin State Journal today ran an editorial cartoon of Uncle Sam holding up a way too small t-shirt (US workforce) that just came out of the Obamanomics drier with the caption I don't understand why it keeps shrinking.  This is supposed to be Obama's fault when the US workforce of jobs that pay a living wage has been in decline for more than 30 years.  The President is actually trying to put policies in place that would possibly encourage companies to quit creating jobs overseas but has been stifled by a do nothing congress.  Now along comes the job creator Mitt Romney.  This is a man who made a career out of buying companies, running them into the ground, filing for chapter 11, and then shipping the jobs to lower wage countries as part of restructuring.  I would think that a Mitt Romney Presidentcy will make that t-shirt a lot smaller. 

The only thing that will bring jobs back to this country is if we make it too expensive to manufacture products out of this country.  That would mean renegotiating trade treaties that have helped to destroy the economy.  That would mean raising taxes on products produced abroad.  That would mean ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs out.  Most corporations would say that if they had to manufacture here the products would cost too much.  This is a red herring.  A lot of products already cost too much.  All one has to do is look at the record profits and the salaries of the top executives to know that there is enough money available.  For example Apple has said to manufacture the i-phone in the US would add $30-60 dollars to the cost of each phone which they would have to pass on to the consumer.  Keep in mind that this is a company that had $100 billion dollars in cash on hand.  They could keep the price the same but then they would have a lower profit.  This is the side of the equation that no one wants to talk about.  How much profit should a company make, how much should the executives (who have been lowering wages and benefits of workers) make?  No the workforce and their buying power are shrinking but it is not entirely Obama's fault, it is the fault of policies enacted over the last 30 years and decisions made by corporations.  I'm afraid that if we keep going in this direction we (the workers) will not be able to purchase the products that are for sale, then the boards of directors and politicians might notice. 

Just Heard

Just heard that someone at a Mitt Romney rally asked what Mitt would do if elected President to try President Obama for treason.  Mitt's reaction was a non-reaction and when pressed he did not denounce this comment.  First to try someone for treason you need to have a charge.  The teaparty likes to say that it is increasing the debt.  No it is not.  You need to prove that you actively aided our enemies.  Ok so where are we on this one.  We killed Bin laden, we overthrew the government of Libya, we have launched countless predator drone strikes in foreign countries, and we have gone to war with pirates.  Now some of these could be considered treason because I don't believe that congress authorized such actions.  Except if we are going to go there what about Iraq, Grenada, Lebanon, Iran,...  None of those President have been brought up on charges.  If you look at as damage to the US economy (which isn't right but we'll go with it) then Presidents Bush and Hoover should have been tried because they presided over the greatest destruction of wealth in this country.  After that probably Ford and Carter.  Obama is way down the list.  He currently has positive job numbers, inflation is low.  Sure the debt is high.  We could solve that problem by ending welfare and put millions on the street so that things look like the 1930's.  Same thing with the unemployed.  Then try Bush for bailing out the banks off budget to the tune of 7.7 trillion.  Then try Bush for running a war off budget ($3 trillion, he wasn't the first to do this (Johnson, Nixon) but the resulting collapse of the economy is the same).  Obama, and I think that a majority would rather millions were not on the streets.  That creates an unstable society.  So, what Mitt should we try the President for?

Disaster Aid

Now you have all of the anti government types out there with their hands out for Federal Disaster Aid. Some of them have said that we should cut spending to balance the aid. Really, does anyone think that Eric Cantor can convince me that that projects and or aid to Wisconsin should be cut and that money should go to Virginia? I don't think so. Here's the way disasters should be covered. The states should be budgeting for disasters. The Federal Government should provide money for Federal roads that are destroyed, money for destroyed Federal facilities, logistical support (even Gov. Christie had to concede that this was beneficial), law enforcement support, and medical aid. The states should be budgeting for the number of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, and forest fires like how we budget for snowstorms except that if the money isn't spent it carries to the next year so that the fund builds up. Unfortunately this will never happen because you have low tax states like Florida that would have to raise taxes because the chances of them getting a hurricane is close to 100% and they cost a lot of money. Yes they do, so does snow plowing, which might explain why taxes in this state are higher than Florida. Not only that Florida expects us to bail them out when they have a national disaster that no one in Florida it seems could see coming but the rest of the country knew was going to happen. The states in the hurricane zones expect the rest of the country to pay for every hurricane, I say enough.

What the Federal Government should not do is allow anyone to rebuild on the outer banks. President Clinton refused to authorize Federal money be spent rebuilding and caught a lot of heat for it. Now many of those homes that were rebuilt have been destroyed again and again the owners are lining up to get Federal money. I hope that President Obama says no and then goes a step further and says that you can't rebuild. How many times should the rest of the country rebuild a house that is worth more than what the average taxpayer lives in?

The Next Recession

It is sure starting to look like we are on the way to the next great recession. Similar to the 1937 Roosevelt recession the Republicans are forcing the President to pull back government spending in the economy which will cause unemployment. They also made an issue out of the debt ceiling and then got the US bond rating downgraded which is leading to a roiling of the stock market. This has to be by design there is no way that by just dumb luck all of these things could have intersected at this point in time to bring down the economy. The question should be what is the end game. Unlike FDR, Obama is not likely to see the writing on the wall and recommit to helping the people are going to be getting hammered by the downward trend in the economy. I understand that the Conservatives want to undo the New Deal, but then what? Lots of jobs for $2 an hour and no one to buy products? Or more likely, no jobs, no government support, and ultimately no product sales. Welcome to the decline of the US and it wasn't the liberals fault.

The Sign Said Stop Obama (?)

I was riding my bike today and as I was coming to the crest of a hill in the yard I saw a sign that said stop Obama. Now this was some pretty expensive property not as much as the deposit $20 in my mailbox person but nice. Clearly a rural Republican. My question is stop him from what? There is so little difference between Obama and Bush that it is almost like Bush never left office. We are still in 2 wars and pursuing 3 and 4 much to the dismay of the President's supporters. The President agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts which has helped fuel the current debt and deficit crisis. They both spend like crazy. Bush probably would not have bailed out GM but he would have given more money to the banks. Bush may not have extended unemployment but he would have business a break from taxation. Yes he needs to be stopped from turning to the right, unfortunately I don't think that is what was meant by the sign.

Dems Against the Debt Ceiling, Oh My!

A lot is being written about how the Democrats, particularly President Obama and Sen. Reid, were against raising the debt ceiling in 2006. But yet that reporting is incomplete. So the Democrats were against an increase but were accused of blowing up the budget in the 2008 and 2010 election cycle. What's up with that. Well the Democrats objected to increasing the debt ceiling because it was being used to fund programs off budget namely 2 wars and bank bailouts. The Democrats wanted these items put into the budget, which they did causing the budget to explode. In the end this is a more honest accounting of the nations expenses and has probably slowed the growth of debt. Now Republicans are opposed to any increase without massive spending reductions. The problem is that the debt is paying for past expenses. We are currently running a deficit because the job creators are not creating jobs or even spending. Until the economy gets moving the spender of last resort is the government, the wealthy as so often in the past cannot spend enough to turn the economy around and when coupled with trade and labor policies that favor creating jobs outside of the country you have the stagnation with record profits for a few that we see now.

The President Blows it on the Debt Limit

The President gave a press conference yesterday where he was getting close to being on track but in the end he failed again. As I see there are 2 choices in dealing with these Republicans (keep in mind that these guys voted to raise the debt limit many times but now they are not going raise it), first is he could just agree and let the country go into default and take the country back to 1929 when we had much less of a social safety net than we have today. Just maybe when there are people on the streets because they don't have anything we can finally have an adult discussion about how the economy should work. His other choice is to walk into congress with $300 billion in budget cuts. Where is going to get that? Shut down the wars and bring the troops home. Cut the military force by 50%. Redeploy the navy to US coastal ports. Cut the defense budget by about 50%. Cut funding for all new weapons systems. Force the Republicans to vote on that. The country will not be left defenseless. We can cut our military 50% and still have more military than most countries, especially the ones that we are likely to go to war with.

The President's Economic Team

Great letter to the editor today explaining why it is a good thing that Obama's economic team is going back to academia because they were out of touch with how real economics works. Really! Most of Obama's team was pretty conservative. Larry Summers former head of the world bank and from the Chicago School as a liberal laughable. If Obama were to follow a liberal economic policy you would want Reich and Krugman. Those guys weren't called and they disagree frequently with the President's policies. Instead the President has chosen to be Bush lite on economics. He has followed the Bush policies of giving the store away to the wealthy and big business with hope that they might throw a little bit back to us. His replacement picks will be telling, I'm not holding my breath. All we need to do is look at South America to see the future of following the policies advocated by the republicans and their Chicago trained economists.

The Bumper Sticker Said OOPs

The bumper sticker on the car in front of me said OOPS with the O's being the Obama campaign symbol. I for one don't understand the kind of strong opposition to President Obama. These same people would counter by remembering the opposition to President Bush. There was a big difference. Starting with Bush's election amid what appeared to be multiple cases of election fraud. Then he wrote and passed the patriot act. Then he became the first president in history to launch a pre-emptive war. Then he presided over 2 disastrous occupations (not the occupier in chief). Then he oversaw the distruction of the US economy. He spent as much as Obama on the economy except the lion share of the Bush expenditures went to the people who caused the mess to happen rather than to the people who were screwed out of house and home by these people. And where would we be in John McCain had won? McCain said that he had a plan to fix the economy, I can understand keeping it a secret during the campaign, but where is it? McCain said that he knew how to get Bin Laden, but he doesn't appear to have helped the President get Bin Laden. He said that he could end the wars, where is that plan, other than advocating for more wars and giving the President additional power with which to start future wars? No, I'm afraid that the President has not gotten as much done as I had hoped for but the alternative from the Republicans is to do pursue policies that do even more of what caused the economy to collapse and unravel the social safety net. They are truly disappointed that we don't have tent cities and people on the street. Their desire is to take the country back to 1929. Look up what it was like to be out of work, retired, poor, been a victim of bank failure, been a victim of fraud, ... in 1929 and tell me that is the kind of country we need to have today.