THE “ONE NOTE REPUBLICANS” HAVE NO CLUE FOR FIXING AN ECONOMY

…Previous underwear model, & new US Senator, Scott Brown says: “Stimulus didn’t create one new job.” However, the city of Oakland, CA, says that the stimulus money “created 5000 new infrastructure jobs”.




How can the past Republicans, that left Americans with the largest deficits in history, decry Democrats for spending to save the economy?

Even though the conservatives keep having “hissy fits” about all the government spending, there are very few economists that agree that cutting government spending and applying massive tax cuts are the way to go at this time.

One recent article in the New York Times said “To stop government spending now would be suicide while the economic recovery is still so fragile. In today’s atmosphere, the US government is the only source available for getting money out into the market as the private investors are holding on to what they have while they are keeping an eye on the overall US business economy.” Even the Noble Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman says that there needs to be more government spending on real US infrastructure and “Green” jobs programs until the economy actually starts to outwardly show real recovery.

It just drive me bonkers when these so called “conservatives” keep saying that “it’s time to stop spending and we need massive tax cuts for small businesses for increasing more US jobs”. Pleeeeeease read your history people. “Tax cuts don’t create jobs, and neither does stopping government spending. Especially when the government is the country’s last resort for making large sums of money available.”

As a case in point, in a recent polling of small business owners, the owners were asked; “What would you do with the additional revenue if your business was able to receive an immediate major tax cut?” In fact, they were specifically asked, “Would you hire a new employee if you received a small-business tax cut?”

Every small business owner that was asked gave a resounding; “No, they would not hire another employee.”

They did say however, that they would probably spend some money on some investments in their business. And some even said that they might re-do their kitchen or bathroom at home. But they would not add any new employees.

They were very clear that from their experience, tax cuts don’t create jobs. Only increases in sales or their actual business activity creates openings for new employee hiring’s. Once they could no longer handle their business or sales increases with their current staff, then, and only then would they consider hiring a new employee.

This has always been the traditional approach by small businesses in America, and probably most everywhere else. Small businesses do not normally plan ahead like those in an R&D environment where one invests ahead to get a jump on their competitors. Small businesses use a “reactive” business approach”, not a “pro-active” approach, in regards to their new hires.

The business owners added that the government could possibly offer some financial incentives for opening up some new positions, but only if the government would take the responsibility for the salary and benefits of these new employees for some initial period of time.

So why do the Republicans and the conservatives continue to push the old “wives’ tale” that spending must stop and taxes must be cut to fix the economy?

It didn’t work with the Great Depression and it is pretty much agreed that if there had not been the TARP bail-out and Obama’s Stimulus Package, the market would still be in the dumper. In addition, the unemployment rate would probably also be above 25%. And even with all that help, we still have a long way to go. (After Ronald Reagan, two Bush’s and a Clinton that was sometimes more centrist about trade than expected, it will still take some time for things to work out.)

This weekend on the Sunday morning talk show, Meet the Press, both former Bush Treasury Secretary, Henry “Hank” Paulson and Former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan appeared together to discuss the current US economy. Both of these conservatives agreed that the economy was in a recovery mode and that the actual recession was “officially” over.

As expected, neither of these individuals agreed with Obama’s plan for letting the Bush “tax-cuts-for-the-rich” expire, but their opinions on that issue were not very adamant in their comments. (Basically, as with most conservatives, their DNA is totally unable to accept any concept that would once again increase taxes on wealthy Americans.)

They did however agree with the poll that was taken with the small business owners. As if on cue, they both thought that tax cuts for small business was a good idea, but they also said it takes business increases to increase job opportunities. Secretary Paulson said that with an increase in business, it would “increase the[small business owners] confidence which would support increasing job opportunities” Paulson went on to emphasized that “confidence is the key”, while Chairman Greenspan sat there nodding in agreement.

Both of these financial “experts” seemed to say that baring a catastrophic event, the economy would continue to improve. However, the increase in available financing and overall business must occur in order for the unemployment numbers to continue to decline.

Both men expected the unemployment rate to remain at 9-10% for most of this year and to start declining by the end of the year.

So what’s the anticipated recipe for future US financial success?

>>> Pass another Jobs stimulus bill that actually supports jobs to fix the country’s infrastructure.

>>> Still allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

>>> In order to get some business accomplished in the US Senate, make the Republican Senators actually have to stand and “Filibuster” a bill, just as the filibuster was originally designed.

>>> Just as China, India and Japan have done, institute a “Buy American” program for as many American items as possible.

>>> Rework our trade agreements to make our trade, “fair trade” not “free trade”.

>>> Follow through on reforming America’s entitlement programs for removing as much of the waste and graft as possible.

>>> Cut defense spending of unnecessary “pork” programs.

>>> The Democrats must stop being “wusses” and use reconciliation for getting a modified health care bill that covers 95% of Americans, controls the insurance industry while lowering our costs over time. (I know, easier said than done.)

Will this do the job? Well, it would get us a lot closer than we have been over the past 30 years.

But I’m not holding my breath as to how many of these things will occur.

One can only hope and pray.

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER CALLS MASSACHUSETTS’ CITIZENS AN “ANKLE-DWELLING POPULACE”

…Conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer




Mr. Krauthammer continues to show that his conceit is well above the average American.

I’m finding it bizarre when a conservative ideologue, such as the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, refers to the election in Massachusetts as “The great peasant revolt of 2010”.

As with many conservatives, Mr. Krauthammer, as he refers to the “ankle-dwelling populace” of Massachusetts, is trying to say that the average working American in the very “Blue” state of Massachusetts was demonstrating against a health care bill for all Americans. This was apparently his assumption from the results of the recent special election to replace Senator Ted Kennedy’s senate seat.

Both Mr. Krauthammer and the GOP continue to try and use this election (of a candidate that never really ran as a Republican), as a big push-back against the president’s push for a health care program that covers all Americans.

The reality was not that the average Massachusetts voter was against a federal healthcare program. They were demonstrating against a program that did not include a “public option”, that made the insurance companies even wealthier, that did not lower their premium costs and that was too big for a single bill. That kind of “health care” was not what Obama ran on, and it’s not what their late Senator Ted Kennedy would have supported.

Krauthammer portrays the average citizen of Massachusetts being almost as ignorant as the recent blogger he quoted when he said; “The Time Magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are "a nation of dodos" that is "too dumb to thrive."

Mr. Krauthammer tries to imply that he doesn’t actually feel that way about the citizens of Massachusetts. But when you read the whole article, it is more of the same, saying that for Americans to follow the Obama / Democratic agenda will just “march them over a cliff”.

As if to say that following the previous administration’s direction for the last two Bush terms had such a positive effect on the average American’s well being. Yes sir, and what were the number of jobs added and jobs lost and wages increased under Bush’s eight-year debacle? Talk about marching off a cliff……

Actually, Krauthammer’s initial comments were right on when he said: “The consistency [of Obama] is remarkable. In 2009, after passing a $787 billion (now $862 billion) stimulus package, the largest spending bill in galactic history, he unveiled a manifesto for fundamentally restructuring the commanding heights of American society -- health care, education and energy.“

When one looks at why the president was forced to spend that much, because private industry blew it up to where the government was the country’s only last resort. One only has to look at the state of those items today, such as US “health care, education and energy” for over the last 30 years. In a country where America, as President Ronald Reagan had once said was the “shining city on the hill”, the US now stands in the 30th or lower place in everything from job-satisfaction, health care, education, wages and living standard.

I found it interesting that Mr. Krauthammer’s article references all the ways that the liberals have historically considered the conservatives. And his comments were all very refreshing, as there is no one that can better describe that attitude than a true conservative such as himself.

As an example he says; “It is an old liberal theme that conservative ideas, being red in tooth and claw, cannot possibly emerge from any notion of the public good.” And he is absolutely correct.

He also states: “The [far] right, you see, is grateful when a bright intellectual can graft some philosophical rationalization onto its thoroughly base and self-regarding politics.“ So true, so true.

And of course, when he said; “This belief in the moral hollowness of conservatism animates the current liberal mantra that Republican opposition to Obama's social democratic agenda is nothing but blind and cynical obstructionism.“ I couldn’t have said it better.

Continually, throughout his column, Mr. Krauthammer references different liberal writers that have made comments to the effect that perhaps the average American reader needs to see things written simpler, or less complex. He even quotes another writer who wrote, that the health care proposals should be written "in the plain words of plain folks". But at no time does Mr. Krauthammer say that average Americans do not deserve to be “talked down to” in such a way. At no time does he say, “But the average American is smarter than that.”

By the end of his article, one would probably come to think that Mr. Krauthammer agrees with those that think of all American’s as being not very bright and a “few bricks short of a load”. In fact, his ending comment of “in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail” kind of comes off sounding very insincere and overall quite trite.

Yes, keep it up Mr. Krauthammer. We sincerely need your conservative, overly pompous attitude.

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

WHY WOULD ANYONE TODAY WANT TO BE A REPUBLICAN?

…The logo of a fading political party






Many past Republicans are so embarrassed that they now call themselves, “Independents”.

It is really disappointing that everyone that is eligible to vote in America, doesn’t.

As of 2008, only 54% of eligible US voters actually voted in the last presidential election. And those are the elections where the largest numbers of US voters actually show up. Unfortunately, most Americans take for granted a right and privilege that millions of people around the globe would and have died for, in order to have the same opportunity.

I ask the above question in this article’s title, based on some the Republicans latest actions and specifically due to the latest Research2000 poll that was based on the answers from questioning 2000 voters that self-identified themselves as “Republicans”.

Now, the total number of Americans that call themselves Republicans has been steadily falling over the past few years, and we will discuss that issue further, later on in this article. According to the non-partisan group, PEW RESEARCH, in the 2008 election, only 27% of eligible voters called themselves “Republicans”. And according to their recent polls, today that percentage is closer to 18-20%.

Now just why is it that the number of individuals that refer to themselves as “Republicans” still continues to decline?

Well, the Research2000 poll may be part of the answer. This is because, the Republicans that answered that poll’s questions seem to demonstrate that many of those that “do” call themselves Republicans, may not all be “playing with a full-deck”. (Or as my late father would have said, “I don’t think some of their elevators go all the way to the top.”) In any case, they are way behind the today’s curve for what most aware and knowledgeable Americans know or feel about the political world around us.

Here are some examples of the answers from the poll of 2000 of those individuals that today call themselves “Republicans”:

>>> 39% of these Republicans want President Obama to be impeached. (For what, they don’t know.)

>>> 63% think Obama is a socialist. (But they don’t know what the definition of a “socialist” is?)

>>> Only 42% believe Obama was born in the United States. (Those must be FOX Cable fans)

>>> 21% think that the community organizers at ACORN stole the 2008 election – (But they have no idea how ACORN did it)

>>> 55% saying they are "not sure" If ACORN stole the election (But they don’t even know what ACORN is or does)

>>> 53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president. (Sorry, no comment on that one)

>>> 23% want to secede from the United States (Then those individuals should leave the country….now)

>>> 73% think gay people should not be allowed to teach in public schools, or allowed in the US military (that figures)

>>> 31% want contraception to be outlawed. (Great, more unwanted babies)


If this poll is consistent with most Republicans, I can see why there are more previous Republican voters that are now calling themselves “Independents”, and why the number of self-identified Republicans continues to fall.

In one recent article in the New York Times, one writer said that he had also been told by a worker at the Republican National Committee Headquarters, that due to the televised Republican Retreat meeting where President Obama attended a Republican House of Representatives gathering, many of the RNC members were embarrassed by the Republican house members lame questions and comments in their discussions with the president.

But these aren’t the only reasons that I ask; “Why would anyone today want to be a Republican?”

Let’s look at some other reasons:

>>> Seven key Republicans joined the Democrats to sponsor a bipartisan bill last Spring for helping deal with the country’s debt issue. But as soon as President Obama also said he would support the bill, the Republican senators that co-sponsored it, voted against it. With their seven votes, it would have passed the Senate with 60 votes.

>>> In 2006, Republican Senator John McCain said that if the heads of the military came to him and said that it was time to reverse the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” rule about gays serving in the military, he would support their decision. This last week when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Military said it was time for this rule to be reversed, Senator John McCain reversed his vote and said “no”.

>>> The Republicans in Congress said they had a health care plan that would “cover everyone in America and it wouldn’t cost anything”. The reality is that their actual plan would only cover 3 million of the almost 50 million Americans that are not covered today and it definitely was not “free”.

>>> For eight years, the Republicans voted to support two wars and an overly expensive prescription drug bill that our grandchildren will now have to pay for, while today they criticize the president for spending tax payer money to save the country and jump-start the very economy that they ruined through their government deregulation……?

>>> The Republicans (Along with right-wing talkers Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) have outwardly stated that they want to “break the president”. What kind of person wants to join an organization that wants to “break” a duly elected president of a democratic America? If the US president fails, so do the American people.

>>> The Republicans have become total obstructionist against everything that the American people want, regardless of whether or not it is in support of all Americans. What American wants to join that kind of political party?

>>> The Senate Republicans have seriously broken all past records for using the Senate filibuster. And the Republicans are only using it to prevent the Democrats from getting anything done in the Senate. They yell about everything being so partisan, while the Republicans are the ones that refuse to support any bills, regardless of who the bill benefits. Who wants to support a party with that much spite?

>>> The GOP wants us to legitimize the terrorist, Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group, al Qaeda, by prosecuting its members as “military combatants”. By doing this, the US would be classifying the “terrorists” as legitimate “warriors”, not the “common criminals and murders” that they actually are today.

>>> Even though we have successfully tried and prosecuted over 200 terrorists in US civilian courts, and only 3 terrorist in military tribunals, the Republicans now want the US to use military tribunals w/o giving the criminals their civil rights. Even President Bush did not do this and the American judicial system is the foundation for showing the world that no matter what, everyone in America deserves a fair trial regardless of the crime.

>>> Over the past years, the fact-check web site “MediaMatters” has de-bunked thousands of untruths stated by the Republicans and the FOX Cable Channel. Why would anyone want to be associated with an organization that is consistently found to be giving out lies and misinformation about America politics and their political activity?

>>> And please note, it is the conservative Supreme Court Justices whose latest decision is going to shred the foundation of the US Constitution. This decision was not approved by the more liberal Supreme Court Justices.

Yes, it’s a valid question: “Why would anyone today want to be a member of the Republican Party?”

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

MORE PROOF THAT THE GOP & THE DEMOCRATS ARE BACK TO THE 1930’s

…Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) hosted the recent Republican Retreat






Both parties could copy speeches from the 1920’s and 30’s, change the dates and give the same speeches today.

When President Obama’s visited the recent Republican Retreat in Baltimore, it was an historic event as it was the first ever televised. But I think it didn’t quite go the way the Republicans had planned. (FYI: These “Republican Retreats” are fully paid for by Washington Lobbyists.)

First, the Republicans have continued to claim that Obama only communicates well when he has a teleprompter with a canned speech. But the president proved them wrong, as he spent well over an hour responding in detail to pre-scripted Republican questions (that mostly sounded like GOP talking points). The president responded without any notes or a script. In many case he demonstrated that their question assumptions were totally untrue, and that they already knew that their assumptions were wrong.

I personally felt the president was somewhat soft on the group. That was because he did not even mention that with his recent announcement of the new Federal Budget, he failed to state at the Retreat that his single largest budget item was the interest payment on the federal debt from the Bush Administration’s past 8 years of spending.

What really came out of the Retreat event for me however was just how close, with the current economic situation, the Republican party has “de-volved” back to how the GOP had become approximately 80 years ago. The Republicans today have the same views of the Democratic party as they did back then. Back then, the GOP even called the opposition party similar abusive and incorrect names as they do today, such as Socialists, Communists, Fascists and Marxists. The earlier Republicans even had the same position for being America’s “economic royalists”. And even then, they were strongly against having a large and successful American middle class.

In order to make my point, below are some excerpts from a couple of speeches by a very famous American Democrat of that time. I would like you to notice how similar the speakers comments back then were when referencing the Republican party. And please note the actual words that were used to describe how the speaker refers to the opposition party and the then attitude of a true Democratic progressive.

In these excerpts, I have only changed or omitted some names or dates to keep from giving away the actual date and the speaker’s obvious identity. But I’m sure that some history or political junkies will catch on to the identity of the speaker rather quickly. However, the reality is that most of what is stated below could easily be a modern Democrat giving the same speeches today.


Excerpts from a speech made years ago in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

“Out of this modern civilization economic royalists have carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capita, all undreamed of by the forefathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.”

“Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became the privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.”

“Liberty requires opportunity to make a living….a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor, other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.”

“The market collapse showed up the despotism for what it was. This election is the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.”

"Today we stand committed to the proposition that freedom is no half-and-half affair. If the average citizen is guaranteed equal opportunity in the polling place, he must have equal opportunity in the market place.
These American economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.”

“But the resolute enemy within our gates is ever ready to beat down our words unless in greater courage we will fight for them.”

“The defeats and victories of these years have given to us as a people a new understanding of our Government and of ourselves. Never since the early days of the New England town meeting have the affairs of Government been so widely discussed and so clearly appreciated. It has been brought home to us that the only effective guide for the safety of this most worldly of worlds, the greatest guide of all, is moral principle.
We do not see faith, hope and charity as unattainable ideals, but we use them as stout supports of a Nation fighting the fight for freedom in a modern civilization.”

“We are poor indeed if this Nation cannot afford to lift from every recess of American life the dreaded fear of the unemployed that they are not needed in the world. We cannot afford to accumulate a deficit in the books of human fortitude.
In the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity.”

“Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales.”

“Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

“I believe in my heart that only our success can stir their ancient hope. They begin to know that here in America we are waging a great and successful war. It is not alone a war against want and destitution and economic demoralization. It is more than that; it is a war for the survival of democracy. We are fighting to save a great and precious form of government for ourselves and for the world.”

And here is another short excerpt from this same individual that had given another speech at New York’s, Madison Square Garden:

“We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.

For years now this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Many mocking years with the golden calf and long years of the scourge! Crazy years at the [stock] ticker and long years in the breadlines! Mad years of mirage and long years of despair! Powerful influences still strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent to its citizens.

We have had to struggle with the old enemies of peace, business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mobs.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred.”

I’m sure that many of you have correctly guessed that the aforementioned speeches were made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt just before he was to become the 32nd President of the United States.

As previously stated, the situation between our past two political parties is very similar to the current situation today. The statements from FDR have already been stated in many recent speeches of the last two years and they are still applicable today.

As was stated then, it is today:

“We have had to struggle with the old enemies of peace, business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.”

“They [the GOP] had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mobs.”
It’s interesting that what goes around, comes around…..time and again.

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

GOP MINORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL: “OPENS MOUTH, INSERTS FOOT”

…Minority Leader McConnell











Key Republican leadership continues to show that they have major issues with telling the truth.

Most political junkies, (such as myself) are aware of what the bipartisan Conrad-Gregg proposal was supposed to achieve.

The Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Ranking Minority Member Judd Gregg (R-NH) had jointly authored legislation that would “create a bipartisan commission to propose a package of steps that would be given fast-track authority in both houses. They and others in congress wanted this legislation attached to any debt limit increase.” The idea was to have a budget commission that would craft fiscal reforms that Congress would then have to vote on as a total package, with a “yes or no”, up or down vote, but it would not allow picking the bill to pieces.

Even though this was a bipartisan proposal, members of both parties have complained that the proposal is somewhat flawed for various reasons and due to those problems, President Obama was not initially a supporter of the proposal.

In addition, no politician would usually support a proposal that doesn’t allow them to put in their “two-cents” of input. And both parties do not like any proposal that would make their supporters at home upset with their decisions, or a lack thereof. For instance, Democrats will not support any entitlement reform without angering their base at home and Republicans won't raise taxes without angering their traditional base.

But the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell seems to be a bit confused about how he really feels about the Conrad-Gregg proposal. And if I were a supporter of the senator, I would be calling his office for a more complete explanation for his recent decisions.

For months now, Senator McConnell had been making comments such as; “If people were serious about getting the debt under control, they wouldn't have supported the President's budget which doubles the debt in five years and triples it in ten. Or $2.5 trillion in health spending, or a trillion in stimulus spending. Our problems are not a result of taxing too little, but of spending too much."

And the senator’s answer to these issues were clear to him when he said : "We must address the issue of entitlement spending now before it is too late. As I have said many times before, the best way to address the crisis is the Conrad-Gregg proposal, which would provide an expedited pathway for fixing these profound long-term challenges. This plan would force us to get debt and spending under control. It deserves support from both sides of the aisle. As I have said many times before, the best way to address the crisis is the Conrad-Gregg proposal. “

There has been no question about Mitch McConnell's unwavering support for Conrad-Gregg. In fact, last spring the senator chided President Obama for not backing the proposal. And the senator has continued to endorsed it numerous times.

But when Conrad-Gregg came to a vote last week, Senator McConnell voted against it.

Now, could this response from the “party of no” be because President Obama belatedly changed his mind and stated that even though it was flawed, and to possibly gain some later support from the opposition, he would support the bill?

As columnist Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post said; “It's impossible to avoid the conclusion that the only thing that changed since May is the political usefulness of the proposal to McConnell's partisan goals. He was happy to claim fiscal responsibility while beating up Obama for fiscal recklessness. But when Obama endorsed the idea, as he did on the Saturday before the vote, and when the commission actually, against all odds, had the wisp of a chance of winning the needed 60 Senate votes, Senator McConnell bailed.”

Yes sir, the Senator had a chance to demonstrate that the Republicans, when given a chance to actually prove their claim that they were not the “party of no”, with a proposal that the Senate Minority Leader had indorsed for months, Senator McConnell just couldn’t resist the opportunity to “thumb-his-nose” at the president’s belated support. Once again, the Republican leaders have proven that what they say out-loud, even to the press, may or “may not mean squat”.

And due to the senator’s minority leadership, Mike Allen of Politico has pointed out that a half-dozen Republicans who had co-sponsored the measure also voted against it, including former presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-AZ). Even so, the commission proposal still attracted 53 votes. Therefore, if Senator McConnell had rallied his backsliding colleagues, and also joined them, it would have undoubtedly passed.

As the Post’s Hiatt stated at the end of his column; “McConnell has the word “leader” before his name. There was a time when that word suggested a responsibility -- not always, maybe not even most of the time, but sometimes, on issues of true national importance -- to put public interest ahead of partisan consideration. For McConnell, evidently that's not what the word means anymore.”

As I said, leaders like Republican Senator McConnell continue to make my case that what they say in public “may not mean squat”, and the GOP’s first priority is for this president to fail and to take the American middle-class with him.

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

IT’S TIME TO CONSIDER IMPEACHING SOME US SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

...2010 Supreme Court



Apparently, some Supreme Court Justices had their fingers-crossed when they swore their oaths of office.

I’m sure that many of my readers are saying, “Why are you spending so much time and effort writing about the recent disaster of the latest US Supreme Court decision?”

Well, this decision for letting any corporation, including those from foreign countries, contribute unlimited funds for supporting any US political candidate or issue, strikes directly at the core of America’s democracy. Our forefathers did not conceive of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for the freedoms of “corporations”. The word “corporation” does not appear anywhere in the constitution, but the words “citizen” and “freedom” appear frequently. Where did these five conservative justices get the idea that it was OK to make the decision to overturn a number of previous Supreme Court decisions? These are decisions that were originally found to be constitutional, (as recent as six years ago), for keeping campaign finance as fair as possible for the average American citizen’s voice to be heard over giant corporations.

The reason for my current tenacity is that most of the average Americans, that go to work every day, will not actually see how this decision will eventually and gradually take over the control of our democracy. As President Obama said during his State-of–the-Union speech, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." The president went on to say; "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities," Obama continued. "They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."

But what really stresses the importance of this bad court decision was an event that occurred in the Senate last week. This was when Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) lashed into Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito from the Senate floor. The senator called out this final swing voter whose vote overturned a hundred years of precedent.

This one vote legalized deep corporate involvement in future US elections. This is the same justice that also went against long-time protocols by silently mouthing during the president’s State-of-the-Union comments “not true, not true”. (And of course this “mouthing” was witnessed on C-Span and videoed by every major broadcast and cable channel on the planet.) Justices are not supposed to applaud, groan, frown or show any attitude, pro or con, toward any issues or comments made when they attend a meeting of the three joint arms of the federal government.

Senator Leahy, as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee stated that, “In 36 years in the Senate I have never come to the floor to criticize a court decision. But I was moved to do so by the activist nature of last week's 5-4 ruling in the Citizens United case.” He then personally attacked Alito, noting that Alito’s previous Senate confirmation testimony was given under oath, yet was now proven false by his “brazen and radical dismissal of a century of precedent”.

Leahy stated; "In his [Senate] confirmation hearing, Justice Alito -- and I might say, under oath -- testified that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. It has to do what it is supposed to do vigilantly, but it has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress," Leahy went on to recall that Alito had apparently lied back then to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "That was then -- when he was seeking [our] confirmation. This is now."

Leahy said that he was speaking on the Senate floor as chair of the judiciary committee and that there are few historical precedents for his direct rebuke of America’s highest court. "The conservative activist bloc on the Supreme Court reached an unnecessary and improper decision that is going to distort future elections," said Leahy. "It creates new rights for Wall Street at the expense of Main Street."

Senator Leahy went on to say that the court’s Republican party-line decision was the "most partisan" decision since Bush v. Gore, but it was even more damaging because it was an interference by the court in every [future] election, rather than just one.” These 5 US Supreme Court Justices have made a critical decision against the rightful voices of 300 million American citizens.

The legal reality is that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both nominated by George W. Bush, also both testified on tape and under oath, saying that the role of the Supreme Court is a limited role. They both had agreed, (still under oath), that the court has to do what it does, while being equally careful about not stepping over its boundaries’ and by not invading the authority of the US Congress.

By not following their own rules of not over turning their own precedents and by invading the authority of elected officials in the US Congress, these justices have now lied while under oath. Based on their own rules, all of the majority that voted for this decision are “legally eligible to be impeached and removed from their lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land”.

By US law, the US Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political establishment. But being that all of the justices are nominated by the most powerful politician in the world, being political just comes with the job. But the court’s rules were established such that the justices are supposed to follow certain protocols that prevent such blatant disrespect for their own legal establishment. This is why they are under a sworn oath during their confirmation hearings. What they say during those hearings is supposed to be how they are going to operate as they spend their time on the bench. Based on these hearings, at least these two justices have broken the law by not fulfilling their own commitments that were made while being under oath.

Even if they are not eventually successful, I am hoping a group of elected officials pursue these justices. They should at least make a concerted effort, with a lot of publicity, to go after these two US Supreme Court justices for not performing their sworn duties.

All government individuals that make their oaths to “we American citizens” must be held to maintain what they have sworn to uphold. These individuals have sworn, just as has the president, the members of the US Congress and the members of the US military, to uphold their oaths to protect and defend the US Constitution. They need to be held to that solemn oath.

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01

BRITAIN’S BLAIR & BROWN ARE TESTIFYING TO PARLIAMENT ON IRAQ WAR

…Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair













Unfortunately, we Americans will never get the same opportunity for asking Bush & Cheney about Iraq.

Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, is currently testifying for an official Parliamentary inquiry into Great Britain’s involvement in the War in Iraq. His testimony is expected to last for up to two days.

One of the issues is that the opposition party is stating that "Blair illegally authorized the sending of 45,000 British troops into Iraq". This is considered illegal because the soldiers were sent in without final UN approval, which is against all of the UN member’s agreements with the United Nations as to when one nation can legally invade another sovereign nation.

My #1 question is, “Why isn’t George W. Bush and former VP Dick Cheney not also being asked to do the same by the US Congress?” It appears that the Democrats and our current president have decided that what the Bush-Cheney administration did in lying the US into an unnecessary war was just fine and dandy.

Blair’s decision about supporting President Bush in Iraq has become one of his government's most unpopular decisions that still continues to spark mass protests on the streets of London. Of course, with America’s short memory span, nothing like that outrage has occurred here in the US.

British critics of the war continue to question the war's legality and they still accuse Blair of misleading the public, as did President Bush, about claims that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s)”. Last week, Blair's former communications chief told the panel that “the prime minister had personally assured President Bush in 2002 that Britain would back military action, if diplomatic efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein failed”. Bush had apparently convinced Blair that war was inevitable due to his false info on Iraq’s WMD’s.

But even today, demand is so heavy to see Blair's testimony. The inquiry panel will soon vote on how to allocate tickets for public seats. A third of the 60 available spaces will be reserved for families of soldiers who died during the 2003 invasion. And again I ask, “Why is there no similar attitude in the US about the thousands of US troops that were wounded or died in Iraq?"

The current British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, will also testify at the Iraq war inquiry sometime in the next two months. That means Brown will testify before Britain holds general elections which are expected to occur on May 6.

Brown has also come under increasing pressure to testify before the elections in which his Labour Party faces a tight race with the opposition Conservative Party. (Recent public opinion polls have shown the Conservatives more than 10 points ahead of Labour.)

The British Inquiry Chairman: John Chilcot, has said that the committee members previously decided not to call any government ministers who are still serving in posts relevant to Iraq. But Brown, who ran the British Treasury before and early in the Iraq war, offered to give evidence at any time. "You have proposed a range of dates in the next two months," Brown wrote Chilcot, in a letter released by Brown's office. "I will be happy to agree to a date that is to the convenience of the inquiry."

(Oh, but if we American’s only had that attitude from the past US administration.)

Chilcot has suggested that Brown appear in late February or early March. Former British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon testified last week that the Treasury, under Brown had forced spending cuts at the Defense Ministry that affected the purchase of necessary military equipment. Such cuts would have affected the ministry's ability to buy helicopters, body armor, and weapons that were needed in the fighting. "We had to look hard at our budget and make some rather difficult cuts in the equipment program as a result," Hoon testified.

Brown served as chancellor, or head of the Treasury, from 1997 until 2007, when Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped down and Brown took over the top post. "As the U.K.'s finance minister, he was ... responsible for not providing key resources for troops at the front line, and our troops unfortunately were often without body armor, without the helicopters they needed, and with the incorrect camouflage for desert conditions," a spokesperson said. "All of this happened on [Blair’s, Bush's and] Gordon Brown's watch and that's why they need to answer questions about [the legality of] all of this."

Alistair Campbell, Blair's former spokesman, testified this month that Brown was part of Blair's inner circle, discussing questions about the Iraq war. "I would certainly say that Gordon Brown would have been one of the key ministers that he [Blair] would have spoken to regularly," Campbell said.

"Given the public interest in this as a policy issue -- I would argue a policy disaster -- one that is also relevant to the ongoing situation in Afghanistan, [it is important] that we hear all the facts both to the benefit of the inquiry but also to help voters make up their mind in the coming general election," the spokesperson told CNN.

“It is only right that they [Blair & Brown] should explain their roles in this disastrous foreign policy failure before asking the British people for their vote," party leader Nick Clegg said in a statement.

With America’s current attention on finding jobs and fixing Bush’s devastating economy, this kind of inquiry will never happen in America.

Copyright G.Ater 2010

Follow me on Twitter: gater01