Tuesday, 5/15/12, Public Square

This is typical right-wing fear mongering used to whip up support among the ill-informed, the easily led.  There is no ban.  This is a total fabrication.  In fact, maybe we should use the term that best describes it — it’s a flat-out lie!  This letter of lies was really sent, really printed on this letterhead with the gun pointing straight at President Obama.

50 Comments

Filed under The Public Square

50 responses to “Tuesday, 5/15/12, Public Square

  1. Grandpa Racist won’t continue spending money in primary states, although he will keep fighting for delegates. I suppose that makes sense to Paul-bots, because it completely contradicts itself.

  2. Thursday, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received a complaint from an environmental group with accusations that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline’s owners (TransCanada) are in violation of SEC Rule 10b(5) – Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices to bolster stock prices.

    The complaint sent to the SEC said TransCanada is using “false or misleading statements about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline” and that they “consistently used public statements and information it knows are false in a concerted effort to secure permitting approval of Keystone XL from the U.S. government.” The complaint continues that the fallacious information misleads investors, U.S. and Canadian officials, the media, and the public “in order to bolster its balance sheets and share price,” and who is the point-man pushing the Keystone XL pipeline with lies and misinformation? Speaker of the House John Boehner.

    • indypendent

      As I’ve shared before – I listen to NPR alot. I remember some panel discussing the Keystone Pipeline and that they are just now submitting the new plans – as needed to satisfy Nebraska’s environmental concerns.

      Okay – then this is what Obama meant when he said he could not approve the Keystone Pipeline plan in the time allotted (IIRC – Congress gave a time limit of 2 months)

      So – the GOP is playing games – gain – with Obama by trying to box him in by time restratings – knowng full well that he could not approve the Keystone pipeline plan until their new plan was submitted.

      So, I wonder how does this play into the more money for Keystone Pipeline scheme?

      There are many things the average American does not know – and that is what upsets me the most.

      I listen to MSNBC and I force myself to watch Foxxies in the Hen House for a few minutes – just to see which GOP talking point they are going with today.

      But to tell you the truth – the media is so corporate-owned – each side is partisan – IMHO.

      One has to dig deep to find out the motivation behind the message. And with Fox – that movtivation is pretty simple – they hate Obama.

      But in the case of NPR – I have learned alot of things that I’ve not heard on the corporate media.

      Let’s face it – Keystone Pipeline is a huge deal and the vultures are swarming everywhere to pick off the weaker ones. Welcome to politics…

      • Even if republicans were ‘exposed’ to facts, they are experts at paying no attention to them. Yes, Fox “News” helps them by being an extension of the Republican Party. They have an agenda — make sure President Obama is a one-term president — and anything that interferes with their agenda is ignored, lied about, exaggerated.

        I think too many republicans allow themselves to be useful tools since that’s a lot easier than thinking.

    • As I recall Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated under the Exchange Act (enacted in 1934, BTW), I don’t think the complaint properly sounds thereunder. It has been 34 years since Securities Regulation (by far the most intellectually challenging course in which I ever took, whether undergraduate or Law School), and I’m sure things may well have changed. The most famous case thereunder, IIRC, is the monster known as Texas Gulf Sulfur (which the reader should feel free to find and read).It appears that the complaintant is trying to bootstrap a political issue into an alleged violation of the securities law. I’m no fan of the pipeline, but I don’t think this is an appropriate mechanism to use to block it.

  3. Just 27% of Virginians have a favorable opinion of Cantor. Across demographic groups, Eric Cantor has alienated Virginia voters.

    Eric Cantor’s unpopularity in Virginia is gender blind: Only 28% of men and 27% of women have a favorable opinion of Cantor Across age groups, Cantor’s unpopularity holds constant.

    Just 25% of young voters have a favorable opinion of Cantor, and only 30% of voters older than 65 like Cantor.

    Only 16% of moderate voters have a favorable impression of Eric Cantor, and 51% of moderates have an unfavorable impression.

    Independent voters disapprove of Cantor by 49% unfavorable to 28% favorable.

    Virginians remember that, after last summer’s earthquake, Cantor held disaster relief for Louisa County hostage. He delayed help for his own constituents to score political points with his Tea Party cronies in his own party. These are amazing numbers and they show that Cantor’s reckless grandstanding has badly damaged his reputation. Cantor used to be a nameless, faceless lackey of Tom DeLay, but now he’s stepped into the spotlight and Virginians don’t like what they’ve seen.

    http://www.pdacommunity.org/virginia/1584-virginia-voters-overwhelmingly-reject-eric-cantor-

    • If that 27% votes in a bloc, and others don’t vote….

      • Always a possibility. Among the many things I see as dangerous in our political world today is the partisan divide. I think it is absolutely true that a lawful system of peaceful diplomacy requires (at least) two strong parties to keep one another in check. I say the republicans have gone so far to the right they’re unrecognizable; the right says something similar about the left. I do know for sure there is no group of people like the teapublicans who primary an elected official who commits the crime of working with the democrats on anything. The Republican Party is an ideologically and demographically shrinking minority. They’ll figure it out. One of their wedge issues — gay marriage — will soon go away completely and they’ll be touting how they were always for equal rights. Immigration is already not the problem it was when America’s economy wasn’t limping and Mexico’s less strong then it is today. There will be new challenges and perhaps the balance of power will work out. I still have hope!

  4. I went to bed early (even for me the early to bed person) and this morning I was pleased to read the conversations of the friends who stopped by later last night.

  5. 50 Years of Government Spending, In 1 Graph

    Of each dollar the federal government spends, how much goes to defense? How much goes to Social Security? How much goes to interest on the debt? And how has this sort of thing changed over time?

    The graphic below answers these questions. It shows the major components of federal spending 50 years ago, 25 years ago, and last year.

    A few notes:

    Defense spending has shrunk significantly as a percentage of total government spending. But it remains the largest single category of federal spending. The figures in the graph include veterans’ benefits as well as funding for current operations.

    Medicaid, Medicare and other health services are the huge gainers here. Together, they make up a quarter of government spending. Fifty years ago Medicare and Medicaid didn’t even exist, and federal spending on other health-related services made up a tiny sliver of the whole.

    Safety net programs include unemployment compensation, food stamps and housing assistance. Spending on these programs surged during and after the most recent recession, as unemployment rose sharply.

    Interest refers to interest the government pays on the national debt. In 1987, the interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds was around 9 percent, driving up the share of government spending that went to interest. Today, the rate on 10-year Treasuries is roughly 2 percent.

    Other includes spending on science, NASA, energy, natural resources, and agriculture, among other things.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/14/152671813/50-years-of-government-spending-in-1-graph?sc=fb&cc=fp

  6. NPR has done a series they call Graphing America. See it here —
    http://www.npr.org/templates/archives/archive.php?thingId=151202820

  7. indypendent

    Well, well, well……Republican Congress Critters are taking a tour to see if they can get support to raise defense spending from the AGREED to tax cuts.

    Rememeber the debacle called the debt ceiling crisis? To end that crisis, the Republicans forced everyone to the edge of that very steep cliff and then thsese same folks agreed to automatic cuts and then if there was no agreement on a budget – there would be even deeper cuts.

    SO now these same folks want to change the game plan? Why?? I say make these Republicans live with the agreement they forced in their playing-chicken-game at the debt ceiling fiasco.

    These Republicans thought they were ever so clever when they were strutting around like cocky roosters making all their demands.

    WELL – as my grandpa used to say – you’ve made your bed, now lay in it.

    BTW – isn’t it very telling that this particular Congress Critter is from Virginia. Without the military/government in that state – I wonder if their state would even survive.

    Oh – another thing – isn’t Virginia the same state where their Republican Governor is so busy worrying about those transvaginal probe procedures that he apparently does not have time to create any jobs.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/14/us/defense-budget-cuts-tour/index.html

    • I’m glad they’re going out to advertise their partisanship! I’m glad they’ll show people they’re willing to obstruct, lie, and willing to not do their jobs in the name of partisanship. A couple of things come to mind —

      President Obama is strong on national defense. The republicans don’t have a ‘leg up’ on this issue.

      Second, did you read the article about Eric Cantor’s disapproval among Virginians?

      Everyone can easily understand the republicans are playing politics instead of doing what they agreed to do. It’s not good for anyone — not any American, not our country and doesn’t even play well to the republicans who expect something more than gridlock. We’re tired of the shenanigans, we’re tired of the obstructionists.

      There are many other options! One would be the idea President Obama suggested — putting returning soldiers to work on making much-needed infrastructure repairs and improvements. Win — Win!

      Yes, I’m mindful that the insurgent tea party candidate, Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, crushed six-term Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) by a margin of 60% to 40%. I’m even more mindful of the vast differences it what it takes to win a republican primary and a general election where everyone votes. Luger’s willingness to actually govern became a weakness in the campaign as Mourdock relentlessly accused him of the sin of working with the Democrats. That works with tea partiers, but it doesn’t work with anyone else. The rest of us aren’t willing to destroy America in order to elect someone with a little ‘R’ beside their name.

      • indypendent

        Remember the days when Republicans owned the reputation of being strong on national defense? Well, those days are over – and I’m glad.

        President Obama has proven, more than once, that he is very capable of strong national defense..

        And – like you mentioned yesterday – I think it is Obama’s nature to not be the kick their butts type – he is more into using his brains, waiting for the right time and then – get them.

        I still remember that Somali pirate hostage where Obama gave the order to take the pirates out – and we did.

        I also remember how Rush Limbaugh demonized Obama for days about killing those poor teenage pirates.

        Oh, please, just give us all a frickin break…..

        The Whine My Ass Club is down to your FAr, Far Right…..

      • What would Mitten$ say if he tried to challenge President Obama’s national defense creds?

        What success does he want to criticize?

        What experience does he have to counter with? Would we hear about his days in Paris in order to dodge the draft? Maybe he could tell us again how all his sons are serving their country by working on his campaign?

        Yes, I remember the days when republicans had the reputation of being strong on national defense. Those days are gone. Mitten$ is their guy now. The guy before Mittens waged unilateral war after lying to Congress and Americans to ‘justify’ going after a country that had done nothing to America. All the while ignoring the war that had some small justification. Nope, republicans don’t have a reputation worth defending!

        I forgot to mention — the same neocons that pulled Bush2’s strings are all advisors to Romney. And Romney has banged the drums of war often — it’s all on tape. So if he comes out and talks about national defense all Americans will hear his banging of war drums loudly and clearly. All Americans will hear about his ‘experience.’

    • That is very interesting. I would love to hear input from 617 on this!

      • Ask and you shall receive.:-)
        I understand the argument, but find it falls short. My thoughts are strongly influenced by the outcome of the case involving Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., a member of the House from New York, in the 1960s. Mr. Powell was what we now call an African-American, and (IIRC) his district included Harlem.

        As memory serves, Mr. Powell was found to have committed bad acts during his term, and under the rules of the House, was excluded from the proceedings of the House of Representatives. Mr. Powell was subsequently reelected to the vacant seat, and was then barred from taking his seat. Suit was brought, and SCOTUS ruled that as the Constitution dictated that each branch of the Congress was to make its own rules, the bar was upheld.

        Although the mists of time have partially obscured my recollection of the case, my memory is that an argument was made that this action was unconstitutional, given the Constitution provided for the election of the House, and did not permit the House to make rules which frustrated the will of the people in selecting their representative. SCOTUS made short work of this argument in holding the rule(s) in question were authorized under the Constitution, and under Separation of Powers, the courts should not intervene in this case,.

        I’ve not taken the time to read Powell again, and my recollection of some of the details might be incorrect, although I’m confident of my recollection of the holding.

      • Makes sense. I do understand that we voters think we have greater rights when it comes to our elected officials representing us than the Constitution provides. Not something I would have seen without your help! Thanks.

  8. indypendent

    Is this the first crack in the teapot? Hey, if a birther renounces his birtherism-beliefs in North Carolina – is something going on?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/scott-keadle-nc-birther-_n_1517464.html

  9. indypendent

    When is the day coming when people can block old, white Christian males from becoming a judge?

    When that day comes – I know Hell will now be called Winter Wonderland.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/bob-marshall-gay-judicial-nominee_n_1516620.html

  10. More on the political games Boehner is playing in order to take down America and (he hopes) ensure President Obama isn’t reelected —

    Last August, the nation narrowly avoided hitting its debt limit thanks to a last minute deal cut by Congress. House Republicans had threatened to push the country into a default unless Democrats agreed to spending cuts that were larger than the amount of the debt limit increase.

    The episode is widely regarded as an embarrassment for good governance and a blow for the economy. Standard & Poor’s, even with the deal, downgraded America’s credit rating, citing the GOP’s complete intransigence regarding revenue increases. But it seems Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) is ready to write the sequel, as he will reportedly demand today that the next increase in the debt limit follow the same GOP criteria:

    In a speech Tuesday, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) plans to address the issue of national debt, which will once again be nearing its legal limit in January, just as the tax hikes and spending cuts are due to hit.
    According to advance remarks provided to The Post, Boehner will insist that any increase in the debt limit be accompanied by spending “cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase” — the same demand that pushed the Treasury to the brink of default during last summer’s debt-limit standoff.

    According to the Economic Policy Institute, the cuts demanded by the GOP in exchange for raising the debt limit will cost the economy 1.8 million jobs this year.

    • The next debt ceiling increase vote will be very interesting! It’s currently expected to come after the election this fall.

      Are we brewing up a ‘perfect storm’? Look at this convergence of events —

      — The automatic across-the-board cuts agreed to last summer are scheduled to start next January 2. The republicans are already going back on their word and want to exchange the defense cuts for deeper cuts to social programs.

      — The Bush tax cuts expire on December 31 of this year. Boehner is on record saying the House will vote to extend these cuts prior to the election. Does anyone wonder how he and the teapublicans will pay for those cuts?

      — Debt ceiling must be raised or America defaults on debts.

      This do-nothing Congress is going to need to do a lot right after the elections.

  11. The Missouri Legislature honored the Republican broadcaster Rush Limbaugh with a statue at the state capitol, giving him a place in the Hall of Famous Missourians. Mark Twain, Harry Truman, Walt Disney, and a misogynist who thinks Democrats are “deranged” and advocates for access to contraception are “sluts.” Congratulations, Missouri.

  12. prairie pond

    Some of you may remember from my previous posts on a previous blog about the water wars that I can’t stand the editor of the Hutch News. However, I may have to change my mind, or at least stop wanting to hurt him.

    This is one spectacular editorial regarding homophobia and the tyranny of the majority. The writer is apparently a regular columnist in the Hutch News. It’s well worth the read.

    http://www.hutchnews.com/Columns/layne-column5-15–1

    Now for the bad news…

    Have you all see this? Some coach down that way has been posting some incredibly hateful and homophobic stuff on Facebook, and it seems under current policy, the school district can’t (or won’t) do anything about it.

    http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/conkling-and-fb–1

    I bet that makes all the gay or accused to be gay athletes down there feel really good about going out for sports. Somehow, I don’t think the “It Gets Better” campaign will be quite enough to heal the wounds inflicted by this asswipe. Hope there’s no suicides from bullying down there.

  13. http://verdict.justia.com/2012/05/14/does-the-first-amendment-provide-protection-for-facebook-likes

    Interesting case. I don’t think the commentator is correct, BTW, although the question presented is close.

    • prairie pond

      Interesting. I’d forgotten about the Morse case. That was just too funny. For those of you who don’t know, it involved a banner that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.”

      heheheh. I know you can read. I just wanted to post that!

  14. prairie pond

    And in other gay news…

    Salina City Commission voted last night to approve a city ordinance adding sexual orientation to their non-discrimination laws.

    Here’s a typical wingnut comment about this being the start of criminalizing Christianity.

    “Dennis Arkell · Custodian at SBM Site Services
    Looks like the liberals have spoken. Now the government will tell people what they can be. Is Salina on the right side? Would the people vote for this? Conservative towns need to keep their moral values. This adds an extra protection that really extends civil rights to behaviors. The fact that a person was born a guy and wants to be a girl. That’s a changeable status which is more behavior than unchangable status. What if that person becomes a Christian and wants to a guy again. Would they have civil rights for leaving the transgendered lifestyle? What this law would do is make Christianity a crime. Could we be seeing the criminalization of Christianity and the beginning of persecution for the American Christian? Remember a church in Hutchinson was charged with discrimination for not wanting to perform a same-sex marraige which they disagreed with.”

    You know I have to say it.
    Jesus Wept!

    • That’s quite a stretch — offering civil rights to more people makes Christianity a crime. Plus, this person seems to think they have the right to put limitations on who can be a Christian. Real good example of hate.

    • indypendent

      I heard a woman on television talking about how Christians should not lose their rights becauds gays and lesbians want their rights.

      When was the last time a Christian was terminated from their job or a Chrisian was denied housing based on the fact they are a Christian?

      Just beign curious – which church was charged with discriminatin? Any proof of this happening or it is just another televangelists/preacher spewing unknown or unconfimed facts?

      • They are very poor ambassadors for their cause. Even if they looked at the shrinking populations of church goers they’d find someone other than themselves to blame. Oh well, you really can’t convince anyone who is possessed of their own ideas to look at other evidence.

      • indypendent

        I suspect the real reason these televangelists and preachers keep spewing this anti-gay B.S. is because it brings in all that beautiful tax-free M-O-N-E-Y.

        As an added bonus – it keeps the sheeple stupid…….

      • prairie pond

        Agreed, Indy. Just exactly the same reason repukes never really get rid of legal abortions even when they control all branches of government. The issue is a reliable fund raiser. And they’d have to find a new boogy man, which is entirely too much trouble when there’s so much money to be made on the current boogy man.

    • indypendent

      This adds an extra protection that really extends civil rights to behaviors
      —–
      This was said by that Dennis Arkell – as posted above. If these Christians want to talk about behaviors – then let’s talk about the numerous preachers, deacons, good church-going folks who are caught acting out their behaviors – shall we?

      What about child molesting priests? What about the preacher that gets a teenage girl from his congregation pregnant? What about the chruch deacon that trolls the Internet Chat Rooms to get his jollies?

      What about the guys like BTK – serial killers who sit in their church pews for years without being found out.

      So – let’s take away civil rights for all these Christians because of the numerous examples of bad behaviors.

      That is what frustrates me the most – these so-called Christians actually seem to have no problem with their heterosexual sexual deviants – because, after all, they are heterosexual. I guess that means it is okay.

      Well, NOT in my book.

  15. prairie pond

    These wingnuts always say “give us an example of someone who was discriminated against because of orientation or being transgendered.”

    Then, when confronted with such examples, they either say, “that’s not the reason they were fired. They were bad workers.” As Church Lady would say, “how conveeeenient.”

    Or, wingnuts say “show us the court cases where a gay or trans person won.”

    Well, since it’s not illegal now in Kansas to fire someone for being gay…. where TF do they think such cases will be found? OF COURSE there are no court cases to support it. It’s not against the law!”

    Circular reasoning at its best. Or maybe worst.
    Facts. Such pesky things to the bigots.

    • indypendent

      Hell – in Kansas, a person can be fired for whatever reason – can’t they?

      • prairie pond

        Yes, except for just dismissing people who have protected status. You can’t fire someone for their race or religion, but if an employer really wants to fire them, they can always find an “at will” reason. These discrimination cases are extremely hard to win, which is why most end up being settled for pennies on a dollar. Ask me. I know.

      • Just like a law enforcement officer who wants a reason to pull over a car, they’ll find a reason — a ‘lawful’ reason to use. It might take a little longer since a paper trail might need to be built but they’ll get it done.

      • indypendent

        Hell – I was pulled over because my 4-year old granddaughter popped her head up while passing the hidden-fr0m-view police car.

        This guy followed me for 2 miles and then decides to pull me over. He cited me for not having my granddaughter restrained properly.

        She was in her car seat with the seat belt buckled in. But you know how those shoulder belts can be pulled away from your chest? That’s what she did – she pulled it away and did a little pop-up to look out the back window.

        She was belted in the entire time – and the police officer even acknowledged that it was a problem with the shoulder belt being able to be pulled away from their body – BUT it did not matter – I still got the $120 ticket.’

        Welcome to Bel-Aire…

  16. indypendent

    I’ve got a question……can police legally hide in a church parking lot to catch speeders?

    • I think they can do whatever they damn well please, up to and including breaking the law. They might have to go back and get someone to cover their tracks but I haven’t seen any indications they’re honest or that they keep us safe. They’re mean, they’re arrogant and cocky. They use firearms as potent objects of power. They allow a gun to instantly alter their status and relationship to those around them. It’s like their gun provides them a quick fix of supremacy. Can you tell I have nothing but disdain for this bunch of little people with small minds?

      • indypendent

        I have police officers in my family (going back generations) and I know that the majority of police are very good people and they are there for the right reason – which is to help their community.

        But in the decade or so – I’ve noticed a change in the police. I don’t know if it seems alot of them are military trained before joining LE ? Is the LE some field now that is all hyped up on beign a badass to keep up with their persona charactetrs on television cop shows?

        I don’t know – but there are bad apples in efvery field. Law Endorcement is no different.

        But I know one thing – I NEVER give them any chance to look at me twice. If the posted limit is 40mph – I go 30mph and there are two here that I know why I am doing that…..

      • I do know you’re right! I’ll try harder to find the good. I wish they weren’t dressed in riot gear and hurting citizens when we see them on the news.

    • I don’t interact with any LE very often so the impressions I have come from a small tiny minority, and what I read in newspapers and see on television news. We always see and read the sensational. I don’t know that this minority represents all LE and it probably doesn’t. It’s probably a lot like those outrageous people who speak for Christians so poorly.

      • indypendent

        As far as that hiding in the church parking lot – I’ve often wondered if the church is getting some sort of kickbacks….

        Hey, gotta keep that money rolling in……..

        But – bottom line – who are you going to complain to? And I am not going to give them reason to look at me twice…..

        .

  17. indypendent

    Did you hear about Dubya’s endorsement of Romney…….while the elevator doors were closing – I was wondering when the head clown was going to join this circus..

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/george-w-bush-mitt-romney_n_1520620.html?ref=politics

  18. prairie pond

    Fnord and Indy, I think you are both correct about LE. R.D. can probably speak to all of this better than I, but the reason you always see them dressed in camo or black DEA type outfits has to do with the militarization of local law enforcement. And it’s all funded by the feds. Remember, the Patriot Act and all those big brother is listening laws for telephones and internet were, IMHO, not to protect us from outside attack, but to protect the masters of the status quo from us unwashed masses. You know, protect the once percent from the 99 percent.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html