Skip navigation

Tag Archives: current-events


ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press 11 hours ago

A handful of descendants of Confederate Civil War leaders Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Jefferson Davis are siding with those who believe monuments to their famous ancestors should be pulled down and moved to other settings, such as museums.
And a relative of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee says he would be fine with removing statues to his storied ancestor if it helps the country heal.
The director of a Mississippi estate that was Davis’ retirement home, meanwhile, has suggested that the monuments could be relocated there.
Criticism of Confederate monuments has been intensifying since Saturday, when a rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned violent after white nationalists opposed to the city’s plan to remove a statue of Lee clashed with counter protesters.
President Donald Trump agrees with some in the South who say the monuments speak to America’s history and heritage; but opponents of such symbols believe they glorify a shameful era of slavery.
On Thursday, a great-great-grandson of Stonewall Jackson told The Associated Press that he believes the monument to his legendary Confederate ancestor, as well as others in Virginia’s capital of Richmond, were constructed as symbols of white supremacy and should be taken down.
“They were constructed to be markers of white supremacy. They were constructed to make black people fearful,” Jack Christian said. “I can only imagine what persons of color who have to walk and drive by those every morning think and feel.”
Christian told the AP that he used to be open to the idea that the statues on Richmond’s famed Monument Avenue — which memorialize southern Civil War leaders, including Jackson — might be acceptable if context were added to explain why they were built.
However, the racially charged violence in Charlottesville has shown that to be impossible, Christian said.
A descendant of Jefferson Davis, the only president of the Confederate States of America, said he supports moving the statues to appropriate settings, such as museums.
Bertram Hayes-Davis told the AP on Thursday that he believes that “complete removal is wrong” and believes the best solution would be to put the statues “in a historic place where the entire story can be explained.”
Tom Payne says he knows the perfect place: Beauvoir, a privately run museum on 52 acres (20 hectares) in Biloxi, Mississippi, that once served as Davis’ retirement home. Payne, executive director of the museum, issued a statement Thursday offering to accept monuments that “any city or jurisdiction has decided to take down.”
Payne said he would hope for donations, but would consider raising funds to cover any costs of relocating the monuments. He said the monuments could serve an educational purpose for Beauvoir visitors while being displayed in gardens out of general public view.
Robert E. Lee V, an athletic director at The Potomac School in McLean, Virginia, the great-great-grandson of the Confederate general, said the family hates to see the statues be a source of division.
“If taking down the statues helps us not have days like Charlottesville, then we’re all for it,” Lee said. “Take ’em down tonight.”
Christian and his brother, Warren Christian, said in a letter to Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney published by Slate on Wednesday that it is “long overdue” for the city to remove overt symbols of white racism and white supremacy. The men said they want to make clear that the statue — and their great-great-grandfather’s actions — do not represent them.
“While we are not ashamed of our great-great-grandfather, we are ashamed to benefit from white supremacy while our black family and friends suffer,” the brothers and Richmond natives wrote. “We are ashamed of the monument.”
Michael Shoop, who wrote a book on the genealogy of the Jackson family, confirmed that the men are descendants of the Confederate general.
Christian said he would like to see the statues preserved after they are removed from public display. He said he has heard from one relative who said she agreed with the sentiments expressed in the letter.
Christian said he’s pleased the Richmond mayor has decided that the former capital of the Confederacy will consider removing or relocating its statues.
The mayor had previously said he thought the monuments should stay but have context added about what they represent and why they were built, but changed course after the events in Charlottesville, where white supremacists rallied after the city voted to remove a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee.
Chaos erupted at the Charlottesville rally, which included neo-Nazis, skinheads, and Ku Klux Klan members, and is believed to be the largest gathering of white supremacists in a decade. They clashed violently with counterdemonstrators, and after authorities ordered the crowd to disperse, a car plowed into a group of marchers, killing a woman and injuring 19 people. Two state police troopers who had been monitoring the chaos were also killed when their helicopter crashed outside the city.
The events in Charlottesville have quickened the pace of the removal of Confederate monuments across the country. Four Confederacy-related monuments were hauled away on trucks under cover of darkness late Tuesday night and early Wednesday in Baltimore. In Birmingham, Alabama, a 52-foot-tall (15-meter) obelisk honoring Confederate soldiers and sailors was covered by wooden panels at the mayor’s order.
___
Associated Press writers Ben Finley in Norfolk, Virginia; Kevin McGill in New Orleans; and Matt Barakat in McLean, Virginia, contributed to this report.

Please Donate

____


Now that the ACA is safe for now we need to see what the Majority ruled Congress will do to us next. Under the guise of doing good work for the oft cited “American people” these “noble men” have allowed the Tweeter in Chief to say and attempt to do unspeakable thing to the people of the United States. Our less than stellar representatives are so set in doing what they perceive as our desires that they cannot or will not understand the impact of their actions. One thing TOTUS has said is the upcoming election year will cause some issues for some of them. We are in a situation where we have few representatives who really understand what working together for a common good  instead of along party lines. To be clear we elect representatives from local to federal to advance laws and processes that benefit ALL of us. Currently (if you are paying attention) our administration and majority Congress is traveling a path that will lead us to a point of  difficult return. The promises made by TOTUS look good on the surface but due to his history of shotgun actions many cannot be done since he has taken no time to gather information that makes these promises viable. His cabinet works without direction beyond their personal agendas with the tacit approval from the Oval office. His major demand of all of his appointees is loyalty to him and no one else no matter what the result does to the voters. In spite of this he still has supporters who believe  he is for them and that is backed up by the Alt right and radical right pundits who call themselves patriots. If as a United States do not pay close attention beyond slanted news and tweets, we could very well be on a war footing that we cannot afford and isolated commercially.

Please Donate


4 / 15

The Hill
Robin Eberhardt
4 hrs ago

© Provided by The Hill
Jimmy Carter predicts US will eventually have single-payer healthcare system
Former President Jimmy Carter (D) predicted that the U.S. will eventually switch over to a universal single-payer healthcare system, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday.

Carter, 92, made the remarks ahead of teaching his Sunday school class in Plains, Ga.
“When I was in the White House, I tried to get Medicare to cover everyone,” he said.
Carter’s speech comes as Republicans are struggling in their attempt to repeal and replace ObamaCare in the Senate. A procedural vote on their bill is expected on Tuesday.
Single-payer healthcare programs have been gaining traction among members of the Democratic party, with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), two potential 2020 presidential candidates, both backing the Medicare-for-all program.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also centered his 2016 presidential bid around universal healthcare, calling for a system that “makes healthcare a right, not a privilege.”
Carter was recently treated for dehydration after he was sent to the hospital while building houses for Habitat For Humanity. He was released the next day and continued his construction work that morning.

Please Donate


The past 7 years the neer do well Congress has essentially subverted the Government by blocking almost everything President Obama wanted to do and attempted to do. The first issue was rephrasing his healthcare bill as Obamacare rather than  Affordable Care Act. They insisted that there would be death camps, huge costs and with that logic (lies) many Americans did not enroll. In the background of all of this was the Alt Right led by Steve Bannon, Bill O’Reilly et al. It is unfortunate that the under informed chose to believe the lies due to Racism and cause the election of Donald Trump. The election of DJT has given us popinjay whose main objective is to roll back any thing President Obama has done no matter who is hurt in the process. The under informed have decided that Obama is responsible for the Racial divide, the inaction of Congress and job loss. Currently TOTUS is pushing for the repeal of Obamacare aka Affordable Health Care no matter what the cost to Americans health. Now the big push is on to influence the Presidents’ approval ratings by repealing Health care with nothing to put in it’s place, effectively placing the  health of many Americans in jeopardy. America under this Congress and TOTUS has regressed to pre civil war status where anything can be said or done with no fear of reprisal especially against people of color and  ethnic or religious sects. 2018 could be the year to make significant changes in Government but only if we become informed and vote. Get woke and vote!

Please Donate


The continual stream of news and revelations surrounding the Trump Presidency and the candidate’s run up to the election is quite disturbing. His actions before and after becoming President show a person who has no sense of what the job entails and seemingly does not care. This looks like a person who did not want the job and has appointed people who support him rather than people who will do work for the people of the United States. The continual cropping up of activities that refute the denials regarding Russian contacts before the election and after , should make all of us shudder. We are in a position where our long time allies are tacitly distancing them selves from our Titular head (not us as a Country). This leaves us vulnerable to more incursions from foreign sources. These sources recognize the lack of understanding of the world as a whole by this President. It is unfortunate that we have a neer do well Congress who are ignoring this so they can forward their own anti “American People “agenda. If you believe we are doing well as a country but can do better then I would advise you to pay close attention to the representative you elected to serve you and what they have or have not done for you. Your knowledge is the best asset you have to gain better government representation. Forget  the TV news hype and use your common sense to parse out the truth. Please read and listen to several sources of information to form your opinions. It is well to remember the old adage: “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is most surely a duck”.

Please Donate


Since 1944 several Presidents (Democrats) have attempted to get a National Health care plan established, the closest we have gotten is the ACA nicknamed “Obamacare” as a scare tactic. The articles below are a long read but explain the GOP opposition to a National Health Care act since 1944. If we as voters do not pay close attention to our legislators and hold their feet to the fire we will end up with poor health care again. Mr. McConnell is still trying to take away what we have while threatening that the GOP may have to join with the Democrats to craft a workable Health Care bill, what a concept, isn’t that what they are supposed to do? It does not matter what party affiliation you adhere to, the people you voted in work for you and for the past 10 to 20 years that has not been the case. voters need to step up and say no to poor legislation. MA

FDR’s State of the Union Message to Congress
January 11, 1944
To the Congress:
This Nation in the past two years has become an active partner in the world’s greatest war against human slavery.
We have joined with like-minded people in order to defend ourselves in a world that has been gravely threatened with gangster rule.
But I do not think that any of us Americans can be content with mere survival. Sacrifices that we and our allies are making impose upon us all a sacred obligation to see to it that out of this war we and our children will gain something better than mere survival.
We are united in determination that this war shall not be followed by another interim which leads to new disaster that we shall not repeat the tragic errors of ostrich isolationism—that we shall not repeat the excesses of the wild twenties when this Nation went for a joy ride on a roller coaster which ended in a tragic crash.
When Mr. Hull went to Moscow in October, and when I went to Cairo and Teheran in November, we knew that we were in agreement with our allies in our common determination to fight and win this war. But there were many vital questions concerning the future peace, and they were discussed in an atmosphere of complete candor and harmony.
In the last war such discussions, such meetings, did not even begin until the shooting had stopped and the delegates began to assemble at the peace table. There had been no previous opportunities for man-to-man discussions which lead to meetings of minds. The result was a peace which was not a peace.
That was a mistake which we are not repeating in this war.
And right here I want to address a word or two to some suspicious souls who are fearful that Mr. Hull or I have made “commitments” for the future which might pledge this Nation to secret treaties, or to enacting the role of Santa Claus.
To such suspicious souls—using a polite terminology—I wish to say that Mr. Churchill, and Marshal Stalin, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek are all thoroughly conversant with the provisions of our Constitution. And so is Mr. Hull. And so am I.
Of course we made some commitments. We most certainly committed ourselves to very large and very specific military plans which require the use of all Allied forces to bring about the defeat of our enemies at the earliest possible time.
But there were no secret treaties or political or financial commitments.
The one supreme objective for the future, which we discussed for each Nation individually, and for all the United Nations, can be summed up in one word: Security.
And that means not only physical security which provides safety from attacks by aggressors. It means also economic security, social security, moral security—in a family of Nations.
In the plain down-to-earth talks that I had with the Generalissimo and Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill, it was abundantly clear that they are all most deeply interested in the resumption of peaceful progress by their own peoples—progress toward a better life. All our allies want freedom to develop their lands and resources, to build up industry, to increase education and individual opportunity, and to raise standards of living.
All our allies have learned by bitter experience that real development will not be possible if they are to be diverted from their purpose by repeated wars—or even threats of war.
China and Russia are truly united with Britain and America in recognition of this essential fact:
The best interests of each Nation, large and small, demand that all freedom-loving Nations shall join together in a just and durable system of peace. In the present world situation, evidenced by the actions of Germany, Italy, and Japan, unquestioned military control over disturbers of the peace is as necessary among Nations as it is among citizens in a community. And an equally basic essential to peace is a decent standard of living for all individual men and women and children in all Nations. Freedom from fear is eternally linked with freedom from want.
There are people who burrow through our Nation like unseeing moles, and attempt to spread the suspicion that if other Nations are encouraged to raise their standards of living, our own American standard of living must of necessity be depressed.
The fact is the very contrary. It has been shown time and again that if the standard of living of any country goes up, so does its purchasing power- and that such a rise encourages a better standard of living in neighboring countries with whom it trades. That is just plain common sense—and it is the kind of plain common sense that provided the basis for our discussions at Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran.
Returning from my journeyings, I must confess to a sense of “let-down” when I found many evidences of faulty perspective here in Washington. The faulty perspective consists in overemphasizing lesser problems and thereby underemphasizing the first and greatest problem.
The overwhelming majority of our people have met the demands of this war with magnificent courage and understanding. They have accepted inconveniences; they have accepted hardships; they have accepted tragic sacrifices. And they are ready and eager to make whatever further contributions are needed to win the war as quickly as possible- if only they are given the chance to know what is required of them.
However, while the majority goes on about its great work without complaint, a noisy minority maintains an uproar of demands for special favors for special groups. There are pests who swarm through the lobbies of the Congress and the cocktail bars of Washington, representing these special groups as opposed to the basic interests of the Nation as a whole. They have come to look upon the war primarily as a chance to make profits for themselves at the expense of their neighbors- profits in money or in terms of political or social preferment.
Such selfish agitation can be highly dangerous in wartime. It creates confusion. It damages morale. It hampers our national effort. It muddies the waters and therefore prolongs the war.
If we analyze American history impartially, we cannot escape the fact that in our past we have not always forgotten individual and selfish and partisan interests in time of war—we have not always been united in purpose and direction. We cannot overlook the serious dissensions and the lack of unity in our war of the Revolution, in our War of 1812, or in our War Between the States, when the survival of the Union itself was at stake.
In the first World War we came closer to national unity than in any previous war. But that war lasted only a year and a half, and increasing signs of disunity began to appear during the final months of the conflict.
In this war, we have been compelled to learn how interdependent upon each other are all groups and sections of the population of America.
Increased food costs, for example, will bring new demands for wage increases from all war workers, which will in turn raise all prices of all things including those things which the farmers themselves have to buy. Increased wages or prices will each in turn produce the same results. They all have a particularly disastrous result on all fixed income groups.
And I hope you will remember that all of us in this Government represent the fixed income group just as much as we represent business owners, workers, and farmers. This group of fixed income people includes: teachers, clergy, policemen, firemen, widows and minors on fixed incomes, wives and dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old-age pensioners. They and their families add up to one-quarter of our one hundred and thirty million people. They have few or no high pressure representatives at the Capitol. In a period of gross inflation they would be the worst sufferers.
If ever there was a time to subordinate individual or group selfishness to the national good, that time is now. Disunity at home—bickerings, self-seeking partisanship, stoppages of work, inflation, business as usual, politics as usual, luxury as usual these are the influences which can undermine the morale of the brave men ready to die at the front for us here.
Those who are doing most of the complaining are not deliberately striving to sabotage the national war effort. They are laboring under the delusion that the time is past when we must make prodigious sacrifices- that the war is already won and we can begin to slacken off. But the dangerous folly of that point of view can be measured by the distance that separates our troops from their ultimate objectives in Berlin and Tokyo—and by the sum of all the perils that lie along the way.
Overconfidence and complacency are among our deadliest enemies. Last spring—after notable victories at Stalingrad and in Tunisia and against the U-boats on the high seas—overconfidence became so pronounced that war production fell off. In two months, June and July, 1943, more than a thousand airplanes that could have been made and should have been made were not made. Those who failed to make them were not on strike. They were merely saying, “The war’s in the bag- so let’s relax.”
That attitude on the part of anyone—Government or management or labor—can lengthen this war. It can kill American boys.
Let us remember the lessons of 1918. In the summer of that year the tide turned in favor of the allies. But this Government did not relax. In fact, our national effort was stepped up. In August, 1918, the draft age limits were broadened from 21-31 to 18-45. The President called for “force to the utmost,” and his call was heeded. And in November, only three months later, Germany surrendered.
That is the way to fight and win a war—all out—and not with half-an-eye on the battlefronts abroad and the other eye-and-a-half on personal, selfish, or political interests here at home.
Therefore, in order to concentrate all our energies and resources on winning the war, and to maintain a fair and stable economy at home, I recommend that the Congress adopt:
(1) A realistic tax law—which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters. The tax bill now under consideration by the Congress does not begin to meet this test.
(2) A continuation of the law for the renegotiation of war contracts—which will prevent exorbitant profits and assure fair prices to the Government. For two long years I have pleaded with the Congress to take undue profits out of war.
(3) A cost of food law—which will enable the Government (a) to place a reasonable floor under the prices the farmer may expect for his production; and (b) to place a ceiling on the prices a consumer will have to pay for the food he buys. This should apply to necessities only; and will require public funds to carry out. It will cost in appropriations about one percent of the present annual cost of the war.
(4) Early reenactment of. the stabilization statute of October, 1942. This expires June 30, 1944, and if it is not extended well in advance, the country might just as well expect price chaos by summer.
We cannot have stabilization by wishful thinking. We must take positive action to maintain the integrity of the American dollar.
(5) A national service law- which, for the duration of the war, will prevent strikes, and, with certain appropriate exceptions, will make available for war production or for any other essential services every able-bodied adult in this Nation.
These five measures together form a just and equitable whole. I would not recommend a national service law unless the other laws were passed to keep down the cost of living, to share equitably the burdens of taxation, to hold the stabilization line, and to prevent undue profits.
The Federal Government already has the basic power to draft capital and property of all kinds for war purposes on a basis of just compensation.
As you know, I have for three years hesitated to recommend a national service act. Today, however, I am convinced of its necessity. Although I believe that we and our allies can win the war without such a measure, I am certain that nothing less than total mobilization of all our resources of manpower and capital will guarantee an earlier victory, and reduce the toll of suffering and sorrow and blood.
I have received a joint recommendation for this law from the heads of the War Department, the Navy Department, and the Maritime Commission. These are the men who bear responsibility for the procurement of the necessary arms and equipment, and for the successful prosecution of the war in the field. They say:
“When the very life of the Nation is in peril the responsibility for service is common to all men and women. In such a time there can be no discrimination between the men and women who are assigned by the Government to its defense at the battlefront and the men and women assigned to producing the vital materials essential to successful military operations. A prompt enactment of a National Service Law would be merely an expression of the universality of this responsibility.”
I believe the country will agree that those statements are the solemn truth.
National service is the most democratic way to wage a war. Like selective service for the armed forces, it rests on the obligation of each citizen to serve his Nation to his utmost where he is best qualified.
It does not mean reduction in wages. It does not mean loss of retirement and seniority rights and benefits. It does not mean that any substantial numbers of war workers will be disturbed in their present jobs. Let these facts be wholly clear.
Experience in other democratic Nations at war—Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand- has shown that the very existence of national service makes unnecessary the widespread use of compulsory power. National service has proven to be a unifying moral force based on an equal and comprehensive legal obligation of all people in a Nation at war.
There are millions of American men and women who are not in this war at all. It is not because they do not want to be in it. But they want to know where they can best do their share. National service provides that direction. It will be a means by which every man and woman can find that inner satisfaction which comes from making the fullest possible contribution to victory.
I know that all civilian war workers will be glad to be able to say many years hence to their grandchildren: “Yes, I, too, was in service in the great war. I was on duty in an airplane factory, and I helped make hundreds of fighting planes. The Government told me that in doing that I was performing my most useful work in the service of my country.”
It is argued that we have passed the stage in the war where national service is necessary. But our soldiers and sailors know that this is not true. We are going forward on a long, rough road- and, in all journeys, the last miles are the hardest. And it is for that final effort—for the total defeat of our enemies-that we must mobilize our total resources. The national war program calls for the employment of more people in 1944 than in 1943.
It is my conviction that the American people will welcome this win-the-war measure which is based on the eternally just principle of “fair for one, fair for all.”
It will give our people at home the assurance that they are standing four-square behind our soldiers and sailors. And it will give our enemies demoralizing assurance that we mean business -that we, 130,000,000 Americans, are on the march to Rome, Berlin, and Tokyo.
I hope that the Congress will recognize that, although this is a political year, national service is an issue which transcends politics. Great power must be used for great purposes.
As to the machinery for this measure, the Congress itself should determine its nature—but it should be wholly nonpartisan in its make-up.
Our armed forces are valiantly fulfilling their responsibilities to our country and our people. Now the Congress faces the responsibility for taking those measures which are essential to national security in this the most decisive phase of the Nation’s greatest war.
Several alleged reasons have prevented the enactment of legislation which would preserve for our soldiers and sailors and marines the fundamental prerogative of citizenship—the right to vote. No amount of legalistic argument can becloud this issue in the eyes of these ten million American citizens. Surely the signers of the Constitution did not intend a document which, even in wartime, would be construed to take away the franchise of any of those who are fighting to preserve the Constitution itself.
Our soldiers and sailors and marines know that the overwhelming majority of them will be deprived of the opportunity to vote, if the voting machinery is left exclusively to the States under existing State laws—and that there is no likelihood of these laws being changed in time to enable them to vote at the next election. The Army and Navy have reported that it will be impossible effectively to administer forty-eight different soldier voting laws. It is the duty of the Congress to remove this unjustifiable discrimination against the men and women in our armed forces- and to do it as quickly as possible.
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth- is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
One of the great American industrialists of our day—a man who has rendered yeoman service to his country in this crisis-recently emphasized the grave dangers of “rightist reaction” in this Nation. All clear-thinking businessmen share his concern. Indeed, if such reaction should develop—if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called “normalcy” of the 1920’s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.
I ask the Congress to explore the means for implementing this economic bill of rights- for it is definitely the responsibility of the Congress so to do. Many of these problems are already before committees of the Congress in the form of proposed legislation. I shall from time to time communicate with the Congress with respect to these and further proposals. In the event that no adequate program of progress is evolved, I am certain that the Nation will be conscious of the fact.
Our fighting men abroad- and their families at home- expect such a program and have the right to insist upon it. It is to their demands that this Government should pay heed rather than to the whining demands of selfish pressure groups who seek to feather their nests while young Americans are dying.
The foreign policy that we have been following—the policy that guided us at Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran—is based on the common sense principle which was best expressed by Benjamin Franklin on July 4, 1776: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
I have often said that there are no two fronts for America in this war. There is only one front. There is one line of unity which extends from the hearts of the people at home to the men of our attacking forces in our farthest outposts. When we speak of our total effort, we speak of the factory and the field, and the mine as well as of the battleground — we speak of the soldier and the civilian, the citizen and his Government.
Each and every one of us has a solemn obligation under God to serve this Nation in its most critical hour—to keep this Nation great — to make this Nation greater in a better world.

I failed at national compulsory health insurance “I usually find that those who are loudest in protesting against medical help by the federal government are those who do not need help.”

Truman’s Attempt at National Health Care

“I have had some bitter disappointments as president, but the one that has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat opposition to a national compulsory health insurance program . A national system of payments for healthcare”We are rightly proud of the high standards of medical care we know how to provide in the US. The fact is, however, that most of our people cannot afford to pay for the care they need. I have often & strongly urged that this condition demands a national health program. The heart of the program must be a national system of payment for medical care based on well-tried insurance principles. This great nation cannot afford to allow its citizens to suffer needlessly from the lack of proper medical care.”

Source: The Wit & Wisdom of Harry Truman, by Ralph Keyes, p.159 , Jan 15, 1953

National health program: adequate care to all who need it. Of all our national resources, none is of more basic value than the health of our people. Over a year ago I presented to the Congress my views on a national health program. The Congress acted on several of the recommendations in this program–mental health, the health of mothers and children, and hospital construction. I urge this Congress to complete the work begun last year and to enact the most important recommendation of the program–to provide adequate medical care to all who need it, not as charity but on the basis of payments made by the beneficiaries of the program.

One administrative change would help greatly to further our national program in the fields of health, education, and welfare. I again recommend the establishment of a well-integrated Department of Welfare.

Source: 47 State of the Union message to Congress , Jan 6, 1947 Pres. Truman’s 19

Kennedy’s Attempt at National Healthcare

JFK Attempted unsuccessfully to create retirement-based Medicare
Of all his narrow losses, the most discouraging to him was the defeat of his “Medicare” bill–the long-sought plan enabling American working men and women to contribute to their own old-age health insurance program under Social Security instead of forcing them, once their jobs and savings were gone, to fall back on public or private charity. The cost of his own father’s hospitalization made him all the more aware of how impossible it was for those less wealthy to bear such a burden. The Medicare bill was lost, and he went immediately on television to declare that this “most serious defeat for every American family” would be a key issue in the fall campaign. The 87th and 88th Congresses would in time pass more health care legislation than any two Congresses in history–including landmarks in mental health and mental retardation, medical schools, drug safety, hospital construction and air & water pollution–but the President never got over the disappointment of this defeat
Source: “Kennedy” by Ted Sorensen, p. 342-344 , Jan 1, 1965

Social Security can pay for good medical care for elderly
The proposal advanced by you and by Sen. Javits would have cost $600 million — Gov. Rockefeller rejected it in New York, said he didn’t agree with the financing at all, said it ought to be on Social Security. Let’s look at bills that Vice President Nixon suggests were too extreme. One is medical care for the aged which is tied to Social Security, which is financed out of Social Security funds. It does not put a deficit on the Treasury.

President Johnson signing the Medicare bill.
When on July 30, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare into law at the Harry S. Truman Library, he told the nation that it had “all started with the man from Independence.” Harry S. Truman, Johnson said, had “planted the seeds of compassion and duty” that led to the enactment of Medicare, a national health insurance for the aged through an expanded Social Security system.
Truman was the first president to publicly endorse a national health insurance program. As a Senator Truman had become alarmed at the number of draftees who had failed their induction physicals during World War II. For Truman these rejections meant that the average citizen could not afford visiting a doctor to maintain health. He stated “that is all wrong in my book. I am trying to fix it so the people in the middle-income bracket can live as long as the very rich and the very poor.”
Truman’s first proposal in 1945 provided for physician and hospital insurance for working-aged Americans and their families. A federal health board was to administer the program with the government retaining the right to fix fees for service, and doctors could choose whether or not to participate. This proposal was defeated after, among many factors, the American Medical Association labeled the president’s plan “socialized medicine” taking advantage of the public’s concern over communism in Russia.
Even though he was never able to create a national health care program, Truman was able to draw attention to the country’s health needs, have funds legislated to construct hospitals, expand medical aid to the needy, and provide for expanded medical research. In honor of his continued advocacy for national health insurance, Johnson presented Truman and his wife Bess with Medicare cards number one and two in 1966.

2017 Now we have The GOP still trying to prevent us from having National Healthcare.

Please Donate


During past 6 months of this Presidents tenure we have seen a big uptick of Racism, anti-immigration protests and “executive” orders banning immigrants and religious bans. The TOTUS is governing via social media rather than from informed sources. We have Congressional members willing to sacrifice the health of millions by repealing and replacing the current ACA rather than repairing it as they should have done years ago. For some reason these folks think the oft cited “American people” are either dumb or ignorant. The representation of their respective areas is Negligible at best. The promises made when campaigning for the job are all broken and continue to be through lies and innuendo but unfortunately too many of us “Americans” do not realize that what happens to one affects us all. The current Congress has become ( or has been for years) self serving and of no use to the “American people” whom they cite regularly. As a reminder: the second world war and its ensuing atrocities were pushed by an orchestrated agenda of lies and blame (similar to todays news (tweets) placed on a particular population of people. This is the same methodology used to legitimize slavery here and abroad during the early years of the last 2 centuries. The 2 world wars were more about  blaming someone (or a group of people) than even the simple idea of taking territory. It is within our power (as voters) to reverse this by voting the current administration and Congress out or “repeal and replace” them. The “radicals” on all sides are possibly too far “gone” to understand that the enemy is not other people but the people that were elected to represent us all. Until the voters start thinking as a nation (even with our opinion differences) we will continue to have poor representation. If you (we) do pay attention to the people who represent us then we are destined to have poor governance from top to bottom.

Please Donate


Wednesday, June 28, 2017, in Washington. President Donald Trump is attending a fundraiser at the hotel.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump was whisked a few blocks from the White House to the Trump hotel on Wednesday night for his first re-election fundraiser, where he raised an estimated $10 million behind closed doors.
Some 40 months ahead of the 2020 election, the president held court for about two hours at a $35,000-per-plate donor event at the Trump International Hotel. About 300 people were expected to attend the event, which was expected to raise about $10 million, said Lindsay Jancek, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
Security was tight at the hotel, where guests in long gowns and crisp suits began arriving around 5 p.m. But the event also drew critics. The president’s motorcade was greeted by dozens of protesters, who hoisted signs with slogans like “Health care not tax cuts” and chanted “Shame! Shame!”
Among the fundraiser’s attendees: Longtime GOP fundraiser-turned television commentator Mica Mosbacher and Florida lobbyist and party financier Brian Ballard were among the fundraiser’s attendees.
Breaking the tradition of his predecessor, Trump didn’t allow reporters into the event — despite an announcement earlier in the day that a pool of reporters would be allowed in to hear the president’s remarks.
“It’s a political event and they’ve chosen to keep that separate,” White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said when asked why the event is closed to the media.
After reporters complained, Sanders announced that the president’s remarks would be opened to the press — only to reverse herself hours later.
Sanders said there was nothing unusual about raising political cash so early.
“He’s raising money for the party,” she said. “I don’t think that’s abnormal for any president.”
Sanders’ statement that Trump is raising cash for the GOP told only part of the story, though.
The first cut of the money raised goes to Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign. The rest gets spread among the RNC and other various Republican entities. Having multiple beneficiaries is what allowed Trump to ask for well above the usual $5,400 per-donor maximum for each election cycle.
Those contribution limits are likely to change because this fundraiser is so early that new donation limits for 2020 have not been set by the Federal Election Commission.
Trump’s hotel has become a place to see and be seen by current and former Trump staffers, as well as lobbyists, journalist and tourists. Several Washington influencers popped into the hotel’s lobby even though they didn’t plan to attend the event.
Several bar patrons also expressed enthusiasm about the unusually lucrative fundraiser so soon after the last election.
Trump’s decision to hold a fundraiser at his own hotel again raised issues about his continued financial interest in the companies he owns. Unlike previous presidents who have entirely divested from their business holdings before taking office, Trump moved his global business empire assets into a trust that he can take control of at any time. That means that when his properties — including his Washington hotel — do well, he stands to make money.
Trump technically leases the hotel from the General Services Administration, and profits are supposed to go to an account of the corporate entity that holds the lease, Trump Old Post Office LLC. It remains unclear what might happen to any profits from the hotel after Trump leaves office, or whether they will be transferred to Trump at that time.
Under campaign finance rules, neither the hotel nor the Trump Organization that operates it can donate the space. It must be rented at fair-market value and paid for by either the Trump campaign, the RNC or both.
First-time candidate Trump got a late start on fundraising in 2016, holding his first big-ticket donor event only five months before Election Day. This time, he’s started unusually early.
Trump’s historically early campaigning comes with benefits and challenges.
In the first three months of this year, the Trump campaign raised more than $7 million, through small donations and the sale of Trump-themed merchandise such as the ubiquitous, red “Make America Great Again” ball caps.
The RNC also is benefiting from the new president’s active campaigning, having raised about $62 million through the end of last month. The party has raised more online this year than it did in all of 2016 — a testament to Trump’s success in reaching small donors.
Trump’s re-election money helps pay for his political rallies. He’s held five so far, and campaign director Michael Glassner says those events help keep him connected to his base of voters.
The constant politicking, however, means it is challenging for government employees to avoid inappropriately crossing ethical lines. Some watchdog groups have flagged White House employee tweets that veer into campaign territory. White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters says the employees work closely with lawyers to avoid pitfalls.
Walters also says the White House takes care to make sure that Trump’s political events and travel — including the Wednesday fundraiser — are paid for by the campaign and other political entities.

Is it possible that our Neer do well Congress is using the wistful Chief Executive as hat to cover their own Bald Spots  and leaving an opening for blame to fall on TOTUS? MA

Please Donate

 

___


 

Illinois is in dire straits and unlikely to get better until new leadership is in power. We have in place now a Governor whose idea is to run the State like a business (Trumpian idea). To that end proposals have been made and some implemented but most have resulted in a statewide stalemate in which funding for vital services have been stopped due to the inability to set a budget. The Governor has held the state hostage because of his demands that do nothing to help the State but will ultimately benefit him. This appears to be the same track  that our TOTUS is on. Essentially it appears that for him it’s the “my way or the highway” thinking. This will ultimately end (or has) his term as Governor and possibly some of the older leadership of the Legislature as well. MA

The last major Illinois election was about change. The promised change was from a businessman whose income is derived from investments. The Excerpt below is from Rauner’s bio:
“The goal was never glitz or glamour, just profits. GTCR would buy mom-and-pop funeral homes, for example, then scoop up ancillary businesses: flower shops, coffin makers, cemeteries. Rauner once told a reporter that the funeral industry was “immune to downturns” and could “generate considerable profits.” He found the laundry industry equally attractive. “We have a locked-in customer base,” he explained to the Sun-Times. “If prices go up, the tenants still use it.” Elsewhere, he put it another way: “People have to wash their underwear, even if there’s a recession.
Other businesses on Rauner’s shopping list: security, ATM networks, school buses, outdoor advertising, pay phones, fleet refueling, crushed stone, debt collection, check authorization, and steel tube manufacturing. “Over 19 years, we have generated gross returns of about 40 percent,” Rauner told the Sun-Times in 1999. “After fees, investors have averaged a 30 percent profit.”
One success, according to Crain’s, was “a $1 million stake in a chain of psychiatric hospitals yield[ing] a $10 million return when it was sold just one year after the original investment.” Then there was a $200 million investment in American Medical Laboratories, which was sold to Quest Diagnostics for $500 million in 2002. VeriFone, a provider of electronic payment systems, in which GTCR acquired an 88 percent stake in 2002, remains one of Rauner’s favorites. “We turned $60 million into $860 million,” he boasted to this magazine in 2011.
VeriFone is also a favorite of the Quinn campaign because it outsources much of its manufacturing to China, Singapore, and Brazil, providing Quinn with a sound-bite-ready example of how Rauner has hurt local workers. Quinn has also repeatedly criticized Rauner for the job cuts that typically follow the consolidations at the core of GTCR’s profits. And expect him to make more hay with allegations raised during the primary that GTCR plundered nursing homes, causing care to deteriorate and residents to die. “Bruce Rauner makes Mitt Romney look like Gandhi,” insists Doug Ibendahl, the former general counsel of the Illinois Republican Party. (In a televised debate in March, Rauner called ads citing the nursing home allegations “an outrageous political attack, taking advantage of a death or suffering of a family to score political points.”)

Rauner kept his early commitment to make lots of money and devote lots of it to the environment. His campaign spokesman says he has donated more than $1 million to various environmental causes. He even casts his considerable purchases of land in Montana and Wyoming as a way to preserve it from development. “I know this will sound corny,” Rauner told the Sun-Times in 2003, “but I remember my grandfather saying, ‘Bruce, when you die, just make sure the world is a better place because you were here.’ ”
But it is his commitment to education reform that has helped him segue from business to politics. Both individually and through his family foundation, Rauner has devoted more than $20 million to improving public education in Chicago, he has said—in part by funding charter schools. Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s first schools chief, Jean Claude-Brizard, tells me that he used to meet often with Rauner. “It’s hard not to know Bruce Rauner if you’re in education in Chicago,” he says. “Even folks in New York were telling me about Bruce. He was very hands on.” (Rauner has also given millions to his alma mater, Dartmouth, which three of his daughters attended; the special collections library there bears his name.)
Diana embraced philanthropy too, earning a doctorate in developmental psychology at the University of Chicago and becoming president of the Ounce of Prevention Fund, an educational nonprofit for at-risk young children. Board seats followed: at the Latin School, at After School Matters, at the Kohl Children’s Museum. Her husband joined the board of the Chicago Public Education Fund, where other members have included such civic heavy hitters as Susan Crown, Ken Griffin, Penny Pritzker, and Helen Zell.
For years, Rauner saw his role in politics as writing big checks to candidates—more than $3.5 million since 1998, according to the Better Government Association—rather than governing. But then, about a decade ago, he began flirting with the idea of running for office. He didn’t pull the trigger at first, friends say, because he and Diana were worried about the inevitable media scrutiny.
Then governor Quinn was unable to make any substantial improvements in Illinois’ fiscal situation which was part of his undoing along with his connection to disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevitch.
Why did Quinn lose? Here are five reasons.

“November and December”:
When Gov. Pat Quinn met with the Daily Herald editorial board in September, he was asked why voters should believe he could accomplish his budget plans in 2015, given that he hadn’t succeeded this spring. That budget included making the 2011 temporary state income tax hike permanent.
Quinn immediately offered: “It’s going to happen in 2014, in November and December.”
“They’re going to have to take a look at what I proposed and realize that that’s the best way to go,” he said of lawmakers.
While legislative procedures mean he almost certainly couldn’t have succeeded before 2015, Quinn planted the seed in voters’ minds that he was rushing to keep income taxes where they are instead of letting the rate drop at the end of the year.
In 2011, lawmakers approved an income tax increase in the hours before a new class of officials took their seats and with the help of a number of lame ducks who were later offered state jobs.
Rauner used Quinn’s quote in ads and debates, trying to raise the idea that Democrats would make the same move again.
Effectiveness:
Quinn had a number of big legislative wins on his record. He signed same-sex marriage legislation into law, and a years long effort to try to save the state money by cutting teachers’ and state workers’ pension benefits was approved.
Still, Rauner worked to paint Quinn as a “failure.”
One of Quinn’s key pitches to voters was that he’d work to raise the minimum wage. Rauner countered that Quinn’s party had been in power in Springfield for years, so he should have been able to get it done already.
Bad news:
Quinn took office in the hours after senators decided to kick disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich out of office and inherited Illinois finances that were immensely troubled.
Via the income tax increase and other moves, Quinn and lawmakers were able to put a dent in the state’s debts over his term in office. But the state was in such a deep hole that big challenges remained.
As governor, Quinn couldn’t avoid tough decisions in his term. Tough decisions are hard to campaign on, and Rauner tried to offer voters an alternative by largely not describing how he’d specifically address a lot of the same problems.
Winds:
Republicans nationally had the political winds at their backs Tuesday night as the party swept to big wins in Congress and the U.S. Senate.
The GOP picked up both of the biggest races for Congress in Illinois, too.
Those national gains are largely seen as voter backlash against President Barack Obama.
Quinn is a big fan of Obama’s who stood with him for multiple events late in the campaign, so Quinn could have been hurt by the national mood.
Friends:
Republican candidates for office in Illinois loved talking about Rauner and change.
In the end, Rauner failed to drag more than a few Republicans to Springfield along with him.
Democratic candidates for the Illinois House were able to fend off strong challenges across the suburbs.
Those Democratic candidates were going door to door for months, most telling voters they are against keeping income taxes where they are. Sensing the political mood on taxes, candidates in Quinn’s own party were contradicting him in the suburbs for months.

Please Donate


If this does not anger you then you probably should pick up a newspaper, these moops are busily trying to downgrade your health care and your ability to get it. They have spent millions on frivolous activities that have nothing to do with Governing, they are silent on the mindless tweets of the C.I.C.. The TOTUS is possibly setting us up for another war. Your voice is all you have right now and you need to use it.MA

Congressmen make $174,000 a year. This Republican wants an extra $30,000 ‘housing allowance.’
9:25 a.m. ET
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) has just days left before he gets to return to his own bed in Utah, leaving his Capitol Hill office cot behind for good. But before he goes, Chaffetz has called for a $2,500 monthly housing stipend to help lawmakers afford living in D.C.
“Washington, D.C., is one of the most expensive places in the world, and I flat-out cannot afford a mortgage in Utah, kids in college, and a second place here in Washington, D.C.,” Chaffetz told The Hill. “I think a $2,500 housing allowance would be appropriate and a real help to have at least a decent quality of life in Washington if you’re going to expect people to spend hundreds of nights a year here.”
Chaffetz agreed that $174,000 is a “handsome” salary for a congressman but added that the extra $30,000 a year would “allow the non-millionaires to participate and you would be able to have your spouse join you here. If I wasn’t buying as many airline tickets, it would ultimately be less expensive.”
A stipend of $2,500 a month would run taxpayers around $16 million a year if all 535 members of Congress received it. As of May 2017, the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in D.C. was $2,091 a month.
“I really do believe Congress would be much better served if there was a housing allowance for members of Congress,” Chaffetz said, adding: “There are dozens upon dozens of members living in their offices, and I don’t know how healthy that is long term.” Jeva Lange

Please Donate

%d bloggers like this: