The “traditional” birthers aren’t happy with a new film about Barack Obama that reveals he really was born in Hawaii. These birthers want proof that Obama was born in Kenya so that he can be disqualified as president.
A film titled “Dreams From My Real Father” declares that Obama’s grandfather was a CIA agent who made his daughter marry Barack Obama, Sr., because she was already pregnant with Barack from after-school trysts with communist Frank Marshall Davis. The film is presented with an Obama imposter describing who his real father is.
Besides showing creativity with the truth that would make any birther proud, the makers of this film reveal their complete lack of understanding of political ideologies. Labeling Obama as a Marxist who is going to turn the United States red, this film isn’t going to convince anyone of its hypothesis — except those who have already drank this Kool-Aid and are completely brainwashed into the fantasy world of birtherism.
Federal law classifies trained military dogs as equipment, so when their time is up serving the country, they are treated like old Army trucks and not brought back home. The dogs are being euthanized. Some dogs are saved by people who pay the thousands of dollars to transport them back to the states and pay the necessary veterinary bills.
This is an embarrassment, not only for the thousands of dollars spent on training these dogs, which is then lost. It is an embarrassment because these dogs have served the United States well and have saved many, many soldiers by sniffing out IEDs.
There is a law in Congress that would reclassify the dogs as personnel, ship them back to the U.S. and have non-profits take over their care. Of course, it’s stuck in the partisan gridlock. If Congress can’t pass a law to save the lives of dogs that have saved the lives of American servicemen, then they are never going to get consensus to settle the budget and deficit mess.
Here is a video that’s a few months old, but emphasizing the same problem.
George W. Bush still must be president in Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Pitts’ mind or, at least, in the archives of his form letters.
Responding to an inquiry from a constituent, Pitts’ office responded:
With the global war against terrorism, it is now incumbent on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Yasir Arafat to clamp down on Palestinian extremists that have perpetuated violence and to restart a peace process that has collapsed.
That is even a more difficult task than achieving the elusive peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Arafat died in 2004. Sharon has been in a coma since 2006.
Pitts’ Communications Director Andrew Wimer explained that the culprit was just old files that should have been deleted.
“Congressman Pitts responds to tens of thousands of constituent inquiries a year. Because it is impossible to draft a unique reply to each inquiry, language is often reused for similar responses. In this case, a double mistake was made. Language that should have been archived was included in a draft response. The response was then pulled from the queue because of the error, and then mistakenly sent almost a year later. Responding to tens of thousands of letters a year is a complicated process. Mistakes are both few and rare, but do sometimes occur. This one was particularly embarrassing. We have apologized to the constituent and are reviewing our internal process to make sure this sort of thing can’t happen again.”
All right, that is a reasonable explanation. Form letters are as close to a universal part of being a Congressman as collecting campaign donations.
The problem with this explanation is that it admits that Arafat’s and Sharon’s names have been drifting through Pitts’ form letter archives for the last 6-8 years. There must have been other letters sent out with these two former leaders’ names on them. It is improbable that this is the first. The only other explanation is that someone in Pitts’ office recently updated the wrong names to the files. That is unlikely.
This means that many of these letters must have gone out in the last half-dozen or so years. That Pitts’ office has been sending out incorrect information for years gives the impression that responding to constituent concerns is more of a chore than a service. Of course, the fact that Pitts’ constituents haven’t caught this error until now doesn’t speak well for their awareness of world events either.
Barack Obama called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Americans Elect, which has acquired ballot status in 27 states, can’t find a candidate to run for president.
Colorado Rep. Jared Polis wants to make sure pizza doesn’t count as a vegetable in school lunches and announced new legislation that would allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to implement nutrition standards for pizza.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a bill demanding the U.S. government turn over millions of acres of its property to the state.
Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake’s plan to politicize the National Science Foundation.
Boxing champion and member of the Philippines legislature Manny Pacquiao said that Barack Obama’s support of same-sex marriage was an attack on the morals of society.
Now the stories are coming out about Joe Biden beating up kids as a teenager.
Former presidential advisor Henry Kissinger gets “the full Monty” by the TSA.
Actual headline: “Turkey suspects bird was Israeli agent.”
Former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel: “Reagan would be stunned by the party (Republican Party) today…Reagan wouldn’t identify with this party. There’s a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending.”
Bipartisan New Jersey humor. Cory Booker is Newark’s mayor and rescued a woman from a burning building recently. Take a look at the fire extinguisher Christie grabs. It looks like it expired last year.
Approval ratings from the Republican presidential candidates make sex toys.
New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien demanded that Rep. Steve Vaillancourt be removed from the House chambers after a heated argument between the two ended with Vaillancourt shouting into the mike “Sieg Heil.”
The House had been debating a voter identification bill when the Speaker called off debate.
After Vaillancourt’s removal, the House voted to allow him to come back after an apology. When Vaillancourt did come back, he didn’t apologize. O’Brien appointed a committee to induce Vaillancourt to apologize. After two more attempts, Vaillancourt finally gave an apology that was accepted by the House.
Some House members stated that Vaillancourt is originally from Vermont, suggesting that might be the cause for his behavior.
Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall has a history of opposing gay rights. Last year, he even said that homosexuality “undermines the American economy.” Marshall never explained how that happens.
Marshall is back with more homophobia this year as he challenged the nomination of Richmond prosecutor Tracy Thorne-Begland to be a state judge. Marshall believes that Thorne-Begland is unqualified because he is gay.
“I don’t even think it’s proper to put his name forward because of his behavior,” said Marshall.
Virginia did put Thorne-Begland’s name forward with 40 other judicial nominees. Sadly, he was voted down 33-31 with 10 abstentions. That there were so many abstentions points to highly volatile nature of gay politics in America. However, the denial of confirming Thorne-Begland as a judge solely because he is gay is a travesty. Thorne-Begland served honorably in the Navy. He did acquire a reputation as a gay activist. That seems to have generated the strong opposition to his nomination. If he had been quiet and gay, then he might have been confirmed.
Governor Bob McDonnell, not necessarily a friend of gay rights, expressed dissatisfaction with determining a judge’s qualification based on his sexual orientation:
“All I can tell you is what I’ve always said about judges and that is that these ought to be merit based selections solely based on a persons, skill ability, fairness, judicial temperament. Issues of race, sex, sexual-orientation, wealth, “none” of those things should be factors in whether or not you put somebody on the bench.”
Marshall’s argument to deny Thorne-Begland the judgeship was completely the opposite.
“We have a constitution which says marriage is between one man and one woman and if he’s taking an oath, he has to uphold and defend that as a judge. If his lifestyle is exactly contrary to that…I don’t see how he could do that.”
That sounds like a workable argument until taking the commonsense approach that judges are confirmed all around the country while espousing views that may run counter to a constitution. Abortion has been confirmed as legal under the Constitution, but Republican presidents routinely determine a judge’s views on abortion before appointing them to the U.S. Supreme Court. There probably isn’t a single person in this country who agrees with everything in the Constitution or wants nothing to be changed about it. Following Marshall’s logic, it would be nearly impossible to find a judge qualified to serve.
If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.
In order to keep the proceedings secret, Barack Obama’s campaign has begun asking donors attending small fundraisers with the president to turn over their cell phones before entering.
Indiana Republican Party Chairman said that all the Republican candidates this year are “moderates.”
A California bounty hunter running for Sacramento mayor is touting his endorsement from a convicted serial killer.
Some Tea Party Senate candidates want to oust Mitch McConnell from being Senate Minority Leader because he is too accommodating to the Democrats.
Eight times when vice-presidents did something that really mattered.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn: Barack Obama is trying to “divide the country” on same-sex marriage.
Texting while walking is now illegal in Fort Lee, New Jersey.
The share of Louisiana’s population that is locked up in jails or prisons is triple that of Iran and seven times that of China.
Rhode Island considers a first-of-its kind homeless bill of rights.
As Congress prepares to begin investigating the Colombian prostitutes and Secret Service scandal, New York Rep. Peter King rejected a request to meet with the hooker who first complained about the agents.
Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a “fatwa” against using anti-filtering tools on the web…where it was promptly filtered by his government’s own filters
Islamists in Mali smashed TV sets that were being used to play video games or watch programs considered un-Islamic, in a further attempt to impose Shariah law there.
Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty: “There is no bad job; the only bad job is not having a job.”
John Edwards’ fate at his trial rests on the word “the.”
Here is Barack Obama’s new ad attacking Mitt Romney for his time at Bain Capital, especially the closing of GST Steel. Bain made $12 million off a $8 million investment but GST was closed in 2002, after Romney left Bain in 1999. The federal government did have to inject $44 million into the underfunded pension accounts of GST Steel.
Mitt Romney counters with his own video, showing that he led an investment team to develop Steel Dynamics into a successful company. Romney neglects to mention the $37 million in government subsidies that helped the company survive.
After a week of testimony, Malaysia’s five-member Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission returned a unanimous guilty verdict for George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and five other Bush administration officials. The eight were convicted in absentia as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
Testimony was taken from former detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prison. The witnesses included prisoners who were tortured and abused by American military personnel and contractors. Bush and his administration were held responsible as the leaders and planners of the Iraq War and war on terror.
The war crimes tribunal will send transcripts and other evidence to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations. The tribunal will also request that the names of Bush and the others be added to a register of war criminals.
What is the practical effect of this? Probably not much. There have been earlier attempts to arrest Bush in Canada, Germany and Spain, but the governments were uncooperative.
The Bush administration did cross the line with its interrogation techniques. It was not accidental but a coordinated policy decision. Someone should have been accountable for that. Congress or the courts should not have tolerated it, but at this point that’s almost a moot point. Charging Bush and the rest as war criminals goes way too far. It lowers the bar for a war criminal to where any leader involved in a war risks being convicted of that.
If there are war crimes to be investigated, it needs to be done by an international body, not a national one like Malaysia’s. Malaysia was not even a significant target of Bush’s war on terror. The testimonies didn’t involve acts on Malaysian soil. The trial was more of a propaganda stunt than a real trial. That is heightened by the presence on the prosecution of an American lawyer and war crimes expert who regularly opposes American foreign policy by both Democratic and Republican presidents.
Malaysia is hardly a country that should be finger pointing. Allegations of human rights abuses have repeatedly arose. The country operates under a preventive detention law that allows someone to be held without charge or trial. Malaysia ranks 122 out of 179 countries in press freedom as presented by Reporters without Borders.
This may not be the last the world hears of Malaysia’s war crimes commission. As one of he advocates for the trial stated:
“If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barack Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun.”
Oklahoma Rep. James Lankford has it all wrong here. First, he simply calls homosexuality a “choice.” He does briefly suggest that other factors may have an influence, but strongly states that it remains a person’s choice. Choosing dinner or deciding which television program to watch is a choice. No one wakes up one morning and decides “I think I’ll be gay today” and then the next morning think, “I’ll be straight today.”
There appears to be no specific cause for determining sexual orientation. Studies point to genetics, hormones, environment and a combination of biological reasons as the determination for whether someone is gay or straight. No objective study has determined that some people choose to be gay just because they want to. Lankford is just throwing unscientific blather into the debate because he personally doesn’t accept gay rights. If he has one reliable source to show that homosexuality is simply choice, then he needs to present it.
Even if being gay and lesbian is a choice, so what? Federal law protects people from being discriminated against in the workplace for their race, sex, national origin, disability and age. None of those are choose issues. While that would seem to support Lankford’s presumption that matters of choice don’t deserve protection from discrimination, there are other protected classes based on choice.
Employers can’t discriminate against women based on pregnancy. That is often a choice. Even if it is an accidental pregnancy, almost all pregnancies result from consensual acts — choice, that is. Members of the military can’t be discriminated against either. Without the draft, that is completely a matter of choice.
The big one that blows apart Lankford’s argument that being gay is just a choice so it shouldn’t have the same protections as race, for example, are laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion. Just like a gay person can walk down the street anonymously so can a Jew, atheist, Methodist, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Baptist or Muslim. While most of these people may have been born into families of those religious beliefs, many will have changed their views over their lives. Unlike being gay, no one has presented a study that states biology determines whether one is a Catholic or Protestant. Unlike being gay, someone can wake up some morning and decide “I’m an atheist” or “I’m a baptist” and really be making a personal choice not dictated by biology.
In Lankford’s case, it would simply be great if he could wake up some morning and accept that he is wrong on this issue.
There’s no surprise here. While the African-American community is solidly liberal, the heavy influence of religion within the black community has made them a swing vote between other liberals backing same-sex marriage and social conservatives opposing it.
California’s Proposition 8 passed in 2008 because of the overwhelming support it received from African-Americans who voted for Obama and then voted against same-sex marriage. Of course, back then Barack Obama had not started to “evolve.” Now that the President has expressed his support for same-sex marriage, it isn’t going down well in the African-American community.
How will this play out in November? Some African-Americans may be less enthusiastic about backing Obama. There will even be a few like Pastor Emmett Burns of Maryland who stated that he will not vote for Obama now.
That is Burn’s view now, but come November he might have a different view. He isn’t likely to back Romney. It wasn’t that long ago that African-Americans were discriminated against in the Mormon Church. While Burns and others are going to be upset with Obama, it is hard to imagine that the African-American community is not going to continue to support the first black president over a single issue. In November, same-sex marriage will not be a defining issue for African-Americans.
So much for the idea that the Republican presidential nomination is over. Yes, Mitt Romney has it wrapped up, but Ron Paul supporters are not going down easy. At a state convention in Norman, Oklahoma, about 40% of the audience was Ron Paul supporters who clashed with the majority Romney supporters. They clashed ideologically and physically.
One Paul supporter was hit in the back of the head by a 70-year-old Romney supporter. Police had to break it up. In another instance two women became involved in a physical alteration. If something like this happens at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, the impact will not be good for the Romney campaign.
With Paul surging in state caucuses everywhere, it is highly likely that he will have enough support to put his name into nomination. While that won’t be enough to deny the nomination to Romney, it will create a contested Republican nomination that will make for an unpleasant time for Romney supporters.
When the Constitution was written over two hundred years ago and George Washington was elected president, there were no political parties. The Founding Fathers had a distrust of political parties.
As George Washington said in his farewell address a political party system “agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another.”
Yet by Washington’s farewell address parties were already forming. Thomas Jefferson left Washington’s cabinet in 1793 to form his own party. Ironically, it was Jefferson who wrote a few years earlier “if I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
The problem that the framers of the Constitution had with political parties was that allegiance to the party would trump allegiance to the country. Eventually, the party would do what is right for it and not the country. As John Adams expressed:
“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”
At a few times in American history that has become a serious problem. That is where we are at now.
The parties are gridlocked on the major problems of the day. Sometimes the best solution is thwarted because one side believes the other will benefit in the eyes of the public. The end result is that not even compromise is possible.
The polarization has become so great that some don’t even want to consider compromise. That is the position of Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock who defeated Senator Richard Lugar. After his primary victory Mourdock proudly went onto several news shows to proclaim “Bipartisanship oughta consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.”
Mourdock stresses on his campaign website the need to “respect the Constitution.” He rails against abortion, liberal judges and the powers of government as adverse to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
For someone who claims to know the intent of the Founding Fathers, he doesn’t seem aware of their propensity to compromise. The Constitution itself is a patchwork of compromises lead by the Great Compromise that formed a House of Representatives and Senate to keep both the small and large states content.
It is because of people like Mourdock that moderates are being driven from elected office. As politics becomes more polarized, the polarization is heightened. It becomes even more difficult to find common ground when both sides have a gulf that neither dares step across. Democracies flourish when opposing sides give a little to accommodate the greater good. Wars and revolutions erupt when a faction has no hope of implementing its policies or even being listened too.
The differences between Lugar and Mourdock are the differences between the system that the Founding Fathers created and what rabid party politics has created. If Congress becomes divided by two parties of Mourdock-like thinkers, it won’t matter about the Constitution’s original intent. If Mourdock’s way prevails, the United States will become the political equivalent of a third world country. We will have a country that jumps from extreme to extreme with each side painting the other as an enemy of the nation. This is exactly what happened prior the Civil War. With no compromise and plenty of animosity, the end result is never good.
Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock takes the position that compromise is unnecessary in politics. After his Indian primary victory over Senator Richard Lugar, Mourdock felt that there was no need to work across the aisle as Lugar had a reputation doing. Mourdock stated that "Bipartisanship oughta consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.”