Skip navigation

Tag Archives: current-events

Getting Real


No matter what your political preferences are, no matter what you believe and no matter which news you elect to believe one thing is sure we are all being played by the media and our elected officials. Between the media and the elected talking heads we have been drowning in lies and innuendo. The money spent in running election campaigns is too high to fathom for many of us but we still follow the progress without a squeak! Is it possible that we (the voters) could put an end to this madness? Answer is yes. First forget about political parties, religious beliefs and  ethnicities, these are all  items that the manipulators use to keep us from uniting for a better government.  There will never be perfection in government as we are as  a nation are too diverse to make laws that will be perfect for all of us but we can certainly strive to elect people who understand our diversity and can make the effort to create the laws that work the best for all of us. The last time we as a country unconditionally united was after 911 (even with the down side of the “WMD” nonsense)  and before that it was WWII. That unity quickly dissolved when there was no national focus. As stated in the preamble of the Constitution and Bill of Rights:  “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
There will always be challenges to what the Constitution is and that is a good thing as it allows for clarification as related to the modern America. The key to our continued progress is to remove the grip of our elected officials who have served too long and  long ago stopped representing us in spite of their constant and convenient use of “the American people” in their speeches. The only existing term limits lies in the hands of the voters, there will never be a law to that effect. If one looks at the many laws around the country that affect us all you will recognize the need for informed voters. In some areas the states have effectively made moves that disenfranchised  voters, eliminated workman’s compensation that effectively pushed families into poverty. We the people means we the voters and that requires us to be well informed and not under informed by “faux news”, single-minded pundits or shiny objects.

Please Donate

Please Donate

Australia Vocalizes


   This was forwarded on to me, the basic idea is clear. When you adopt another country as your home it is your duty to accept the laws and morals of that country even while maintaining your own however if your  morals and beliefs are contrary then you need to rethink where you are then change or leave.

Summary


https://i0.wp.com/imageshack.com/a/img191/8858/slihouettemanwonderswtf.jpg

From the Daily KOS, this Occupy poster says it all!

Simply put, our politics have put us in deep debt. Remember nothing is free, taxes is how we fund the government we seem to hate so much yet we elect the same neer do wells time after time. We define ourselves by the liars we elect and somehow we believe what they tell us while eschewing any truth.

Please Donate

Please Donate

Bigotry?


Reposting from Daily KOS. While every Republican may not be a bigot the trend for it is in their general beliefs. It almost amounts to hating America.  

 
Daily Kos member

Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 05:42 AM PDT

Top 10 reasons to vote Republican

by plf515Follow

Why would anyone vote Republican? Well, here are 10 reasons.

1. You are a bigot

It’s true that not all Republicans are bigots. But if you ARE a bigot, the Republican party will be much more your group than the Democratic party. Remember that there are lots of ways to be a bigot: You could be a racist, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, or lots of other things.

2. You like eating, drinking and breathing poison.

Many Republicans are calling for or voting for shrinking or eliminating agencies that protect us against poison. They seem to think that the corporations will do the right thing, without any pressure from the government. Uh huh. Read The Jungle.  Look at the way Monsanto is hiding facts about Round Up. Look at food safety and outbreaks of E. Coli.

Corporations exist to make money. They will do so any way they can. The government needs to stop them from doing so in ways that hurt people.

3. You think the rich don’t have enough money

The idea that giving more money to rich people (via tax breaks) will help poor people is nonsensical and has been shown wrong time and again in history. Huge tax breaks for the rich (a la George Bush) don’t work.

4. You don’t support our veterans

The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran’s Association (IAVA) rates every member of congress on how well they support our veterans.  In the Senate, 9 people got A or A+: All were Democrats. 30 got D or F: 29 Republicans and one Democrat.  More on this

5. You like big deficits

Since the end of WW II the ratio of debt to GDP for the nation has gone down in 9 administrations (3 Republican and 6 Democratic) and up in 7 administrations (6 Republican and 1 Democratic).  The largest increases by this measure were GW Bush’s 2nd term; GHW Bush, and Reagan’s first term. The largest decreases were the three terms right after the end of WWII (Truman and Eisenhower). The last decrease under a Republican was in Eisenhower’s 2nd term

source

6. You don’t believe in free speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union is the premier defender of our civil liberties, including the right to free speech.  That’s free speech for EVERYONE; from Nazis to Marxists to Fred Phelps to anyone else. They rate politicians, including governors, senators and representatives.  12 people got a 100 rating: All were Democrats. 65 people got a score of less than 10: All were Republicans. Only 6 Democrats got a score under 50 (Joe Donnelly,  Michael Ross, Collin Peterson, Joseph Shuler, Mark Critz and David Boren). Only 2 Republicans got scores over 50 (Olympia Snowe and Mark Kirk)  Full list

7. You like big government

The Republicans like to claim they are against big government. It’s a lie. They only object when government helps people. But they are supporters of the Patriot Act; they want the government to say who you can marry; they want the government to forbid abortion; they want the government to be able to spy on you without restraint. Unfortunately, many Democrats agree with them on some of these, but to find opposition to these big government ideas, you have to look to the Democrats.

8. You want government to hurt people, but not help them

This is really just a summation of some other points.

9. You are greedy, short sighted and rich

You really have to be all three for this to work.

If you’re rich but not short-sighted, you know that, in the long run, when there is huge income inequality, it leads to things like stock market crashes and revolution, and everyone loses.  In a revolution, it is often the rich who lose most.

If you’re rich but not greedy, you recognize that helping others is a good thing, and that the government assuring that people have a safety net is a good thing as well.

10. You like torture

The Democrats don’t exactly shine here, but the Republicans are much worse.  It was, after all, Dick Cheney who bragged in his memoir about being a war criminal. It was Don Rumsfeld who opined that a problem in Abu Ghraib was that they weren’t torturing prisoners enough.  And it is mostly Democrats who have objected to torture.

Torture is wrong.  It’s also stupid. It doesn’t work. People who are tortured will say ANYTHING (true or not) that they thing their torturers want to hear.

Originally posted to plf515 on Sun Sep 25, 2011 at 05:42 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos Classics

Please Donate

Please Donate

It Is Real


 
What is wrong here? The residents of the small town of Roseburg are demonstrating against the Presidents visit in consolation regarding the loss of 
 life at a  local school. His remarks about gun control were not about gun control even if “Faux news” said so. The Dupublican field of candidates have leapt onto the Fox wagon with their opinions even though they heard what he said for themselves: 
On the day of the Umpqua shooting, Obama, visibly frustrated, appeared in the White House press room.
“There’s been another mass shooting in America – this time, in a community college in Oregon,” he said. “That means there are more American families – moms, dads, children – whose lives have been changed forever.”
Obama urged Americans to tighten gun laws, but didn’t sound hopeful.
“What’s become routine … is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation,” he said. “Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun-safety laws. Does anybody really believe that?”
 
There is no mention of taking guns away from anyone! Tighten gun laws, what does this mean? It means to me that we need to use ways to prevent these types of murders from occurring by using background checks which single out the mentally vulnerable or anyone who could later become shooters as we have seen in the past. Taking away guns is not the same as preventing these mentally delicate or criminally  inclined  folks from obtaining or owning firearms. We spent billions of dollars and unvalued human capital in a search for WMD’s but we can’t spend another dollar or minute in deterring or preventing people who by their mental state should not own firearms. It is unfortunate that the United States has made little progress is some areas but great strides in others yet cannot agree that there needs to be a better way to keep a potential killer from obtaining  WMD’s. The worst part of the Anti Obama issue is the covert and overt Racism involved. This is the modern day American that is unfortunately firmly rooted in the past based on one issue and Racism.
Please Donate

Please Donate

The U.S. Constitution


The U.S. Constitution consists of 5   pages including the Bill of Rights yet it seems that not many of us have read it completely. We have Constitutional scholars who study the documents extensively but cannot seem to agree about the real meaning. The framers (our founders ) never intended the document to be cut and dried.  This is considered a living document so as such it evolves without changing or being physically changed. The document can be debated  but in the end the reason for the debate will triumph when the rule of law is in evidence. Our Congressional (mis) representatives have quoted this document and some have studied it extensively but have forgotten what it really means when it no longer fits their needs. I would suggest that each of us acquire a copy of the constitution and read it. On its face is pretty plain and states more eloquently what this country is about. If you look into the many challenges and trials regarding the Constitution, you will find that the list is long and almost unending but the Document still stands on its own. You do not have to be a Constitutional scholar to understand the basic premise of the document. We should no longer allow our (mis) representatives dictate the Constitution to us according to their interpretation , this is as ludicrous as the various religious factions interpreting the Bible according to their needs.

Please Donate

Please Donate

Asked And Answered


‏

 

The Planned parenthood sting video has been disproven yet the Federal legislators are still whipping the same dead horse.  What does it take for our “elected officials” to start paying attention to facts rather than political talking points that elicit “knee jerk” reactions from the public.  Looking at the facts shows that none (zero) of the Federal  fund go towards abortions, a majority of the funding is committed to Women’s health. We as voters have been subjected to half truths, innuendo and often outright lies so we would elect or re-elect representatives. Isn’t it time to remove the ” TV entertainment” style  of campaigning from our elections? We already have enough political theater with our 535 seat fillers in Washington and many states so let’s get down to real business and make our  elected officials accountable. These office holders have  made subterfuge and advertising type messages an art form while we  (the voters) wait for the other shoe to drop. It highly probable that this form of governing will continue until we (voters) look behind the curtain of election speeches, talking points and barnstorming tactics to see that we have our representatives colluding to do us no good on any level according to the wishes of their big money backers.

Please Donate

Please Donate

Vatican upends Davis affair with news of audience with gays


Can this be any worse? The beleaguered clerk from Kentucky has pulled the Pope into her Bias with a lie.         

Oct. 2, 2015 10:47 PM EDT

2 photos

FILE – In this Sept. 14, 2015 file photo, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis makes a statement to the… Read more

i

By: NICOLE WINFIELD (AP)

VATICAN CITY Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

41.902412.4533

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican turned the tables Friday on the pope’s meeting with Kim Davis: Not only did it distance the pontiff from her claims that he endorsed her stand on same-sex marriage, it said the only “real audience” Francis had in Washington was with a small group that included a gay couple.

The revelations, doled out during the course of the day, put a new twist on Pope Francis’ encounter with Davis after she and her lawyers insisted that her invitation to meet the pope on Sept. 24 amounted to an affirmation of her cause.

The Davis case has sharply divided the United States, and news of Francis’ meeting with the Kentucky clerk, who went to jail after refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, had upended his six-day U.S. tour. During the visit, Francis had tried to steer clear of such hot-button issues, only to see the Davis affair dominate the post-trip news cycle.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, sought to give the Vatican’s take of events in a statement early Friday, saying Francis had met with “several dozen” people at the Vatican’s embassy before leaving Washington for New York.

Davis was among them and had a “brief meeting,” he said. Lombardi said such meetings are common during papal trips and are due to the pope’s “kindness and availability.”

“The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” Lombardi said.

“The only real audience granted by the pope at the nunciature was with one of his former students and his family,” Lombardi added.

The man, Yayo Grassi, was later identified by The New York Times and CNN as an openly gay Argentine caterer who lives in Washington. In a video posted online, Grassi is shown entering the Vatican’s embassy, embracing his former teacher and introducing Francis to his longtime partner, whom Francis recognized from a previous meeting, as well as an elderly Argentine woman and a few friends from Asia.

Lombardi later confirmed that Grassi had “asked to present his mother and several friends to the pope during the pope’s stay in Washington.”

“As noted in the past, the pope as pastor has maintained many personal relationships with people in a spirit of kindness, welcome and dialogue,” Lombardi said.

It wasn’t immediately clear if Grassi’s mother was in the audience: Grassi introduced the elderly woman named Salome as “an Argentine friend.” The Vatican couldn’t immediately explain the discrepancy.

Grassi declined to be interviewed Friday, citing a dinner he was catering.

The disclosures completely changed the narrative of Davis’ encounter, making clear that Francis wanted another, more significant “audience” to come to light: that of his former student, who happens to be gay, and his longtime partner.

An audience is different from a meeting, in that it is a planned, somewhat formal affair. Popes have audiences with heads of state; they have meetings and greeting sessions with benefactors or other VIPs. So the fact that Lombardi stressed Grassi’s encounter as the only “real audience” in Washington made clear that Francis wanted to emphasize it over Davis’ “brief meeting” along with several dozen other people.

Earlier this week, Davis said the pope met with her and her husband and thanked her for her courage and encouraged her to “stay strong.”

“Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing and agreeing, you know, it kind of validates everything,” she told ABC.

The Vatican statement made clear the pope intended no such validation.

However, Davis’ lawyer, Mat Staver, told The Associated Press that the Vatican arranged the meeting as an affirmation of her right to be conscientious objector.

“We wouldn’t expect the pope to weigh in on the particulars of any case,” Staver said Friday. “Rather, the meeting was a pastoral meeting to encourage Kim Davis in which Pope Francis thanked her for her courage and told her to ‘Stay strong,'” Staver said in a statement. “His words and actions support the universal human right to conscientious objection.”

He said an unnamed Vatican official initiated the meeting on Sept. 14, the day Davis returned to work after being jailed, saying the pope wanted to meet her. He said Vatican security picked up Davis and her husband from their hotel and told her to change her hairdo so she wouldn’t be recognized.

Staver disputed a Vatican spokesman’s assertion that the pope only met Davis in a receiving line. He said the couple was in a separate room with Francis and Vatican security and personnel and that no member of the general public was present. He said the Vatican official who arranged the meeting insisted that it not be made public until after Francis had left the U.S.

News of the meeting sent shock waves through the U.S. church, with Davis’ supporters saying it showed the pope backed her cause and opponents questioning whether the pope had been duped into meeting with her.

Lombardi declined to say who invited Davis or what the pope knew of her case. Such encounters are arranged by the Vatican ambassador and his staff, not the pope’s delegation or the U.S. bishops’ conference.

Davis’ lawyers confirmed late Friday that the Vatican nuncio in Washington, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, had a hand in arranging the invitation.

Vigano is best known for his role in the so-called Vatileaks scandal, which helped bring about Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. It broke in 2012 when an Italian journalist broadcast letters from Vigano, then the No. 2 Vatican administrator, to Benedict in which he begged not to be transferred for having exposed alleged corruption that cost the Holy See millions of euros. Vigano was eventually assigned to Washington to become ambassador.

He has strongly supported the religious liberty charge championed by U.S. bishops, suggesting that he might well have backed Davis in her battle over gay marriage. In a 2012 speech at the University of Notre Dame, Vigano denounced threats to religious liberty in the U.S. and abroad, citing a public school curriculum presenting same-sex relations as “natural and wholesome.”

“What God has given, the servant state does not have the competence to remove,” Vigano said, according to a report of his Nov. 12, 2012 speech by Catholic News Agency.

While the pope sought during his U.S. visit to avoid hot-button culture war issues, an openly gay TV personality, Mo Rocca, was a lector at the pope’s Mass at Madison Square Garden, a decision that would have been made by the New York Archdiocese.

As for the Davis meeting, an assistant to Lombardi, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, said the pope would have been given a list of people who were invited to bid him farewell as he departed Washington, but was unaware of the details of the Kentucky clerk’s case or any possible implications of the meeting.

“I don’t think it’s a matter of being tricked as of being fully aware of the situation and its complexities,” he said. He said Davis’ supporters had “overblown” the encounter.

___

AP writer Bernard McGhee contributed from Atlanta.

___

Follow Nicole Winfield at www.twitter.com/nwinfield

Please Donate

Please Donate

Tall Tales


Another reason to grab headlines by the almost neer do well clerk in Kentucky . Kim Davis was among a group of people who collectively met with the pontiff as a simple meeting but her backers deemed it a private meeting with the Pope. There was no one on one meeting with the Pope and none of the events surrounding her were brought up.  This coopting of  an otherwise  benign event by her Attorney and Davis is an indication that her religious beliefs do not rule out  falsehoods to further her agenda and that of her backers. It appears that  Davis , her lawyers and backers do not understand “separation of church and State”. Her sole job is to issue licenses according to the law and her personal opinions or beliefs are not (or should not be) involved. What if she were attacked for being divorced and married several times , would that be a reason for her to be dismissed from her job?, or perhaps kicked out of her chosen religious sect? To further add non facts to the fire Senator Huckabee ( a candidate contender and staunch defender / supporter of Mrs. Davis) appeared on the :Morning Joe” to defend his stand according his understood or perceived biblical facts. Apparently as in several outlier religions the true Biblical wording is interpreted to fit the mindset of the Sect’s leaders.  In America the assortment of Religions are not singled out due to their belief’s no matter how radical, at the same time their influence has no place in politics or the pursuit of an elected office. It is unfortunate that some pundits and other vocal presenters chose to align with misinformed and  sometimes over zealous people for the recognition that association brings. Do we want an elected official in any  office to dictate how we worship? Enter Kim Davis, her official duties have no other purpose than to issue licenses and not foist her religious beliefs on the people she was elected to serve.
 

Senator Says It All.


Reposted from The Daily Kos

Warren gives remarkable and unprecedented speech on racial injustice and Black Lives Matter

by Josie Duffy

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren expressed her emphatic support for the Black Lives Matter movement and called for racial justice reform in a Monday, Sept. 28 speech at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United State Senate.

This was arguably the strongest and most supportive of any speech given by a politician since the inception of the Black Lives Matter movement, and emphasized the need for racial justice and equality, police reform, and voting rights.

Warren listed the ways that America has historically disenfranchised and discriminated against black people—through violence, economic injustice, and denying them the right to vote. She lauded the civil rights movement as a turning point, noting that it “pushed this country in a new direction.”

But, she said, “fifty years later, we have made real progress toward creating the conditions of freedom—but we have not made ENOUGH progress.”

I speak today with the full knowledge that I have not personally experienced and can never truly understand the fear, the oppression, and the pain that confronts African Americans every day. But none of us can ignore what is happening in this country. Not when our black friends, family, neighbors literally fear dying in the streets.

Most politicians and presidential candidates have long been hesitant to throw their full support behind the Black Lives Matter movement, expressing agreement in cautious and distant statements. Many on the right have used the movement as a way to stoke fear in the public, branding the movement for black lives as a hate group.But Warren has taken the most courageous stance of her peers, highlighting the inequality that persists in black America. Her goal is to force people—mainly white people, although she doesn’t say that directly—to critically examine the way that race functions across the nation.

“Listen to the brave, powerful voices of today’s new generation of civil rights leaders. Incredible voices. Listen to them say: “If I die in police custody, know that I did not commit suicide.” Watch them march through the streets, “Hands up don’t shoot” – not to incite a riot, but to fight for their lives. To fight for their lives.”

See more below.

Warren explicitly called for police reform, stating that “police are not occupying armies. This is America, not a war zone—and policing practices in all cities, not just some—need to reflect that.” Her support for de-escalation and increased community involvement in policing echoed what police reform and racial justice activists have been calling for.

Warren also identified voting rights as an area where justice had not yet been served, and addressed the laws passed by republicans that restrict or prevent people from voting. “It’s time to call out the recent flurry of new state law restrictions for what they are: an all-out campaign by Republicans to take away the right to vote from poor and black and Latino American citizens who probably won’t vote for them.”

She then identified the economic injustices that plague communities of color, from big banks and their predatory mortgages to wage stagnation and high unemployment among blacks. “Our task will not be complete until we ensure that every family—regardless of race—has a fighting chance to build an economic future for themselves and their families,” Warren said.

While Warren’s speech doesn’t use the phrase white supremacy, she also seems to hint at its role in the continued police discrimination, voter discrimination, and economic discrimination that stand in the way of many black people in America.

This is, undoubtedly, the most remarkable speech any politician has given on black lives, especially in the past year. Already it has been widely supported by police reform and racial justice activists, including Deray McKesson, who told the Huffington Post that “Warren, better than any political leader I’ve yet heard, understands the protests as a matter of life or death—that the American dream has been sustained by an intentional violence and that the uprisings have been the result of years of lived trauma.”

That being said, the fact that it is so unusual brings about yet another sobering reality. Warren tells the truth and asks for nothing more than equality, justice, and for America to live up to the virtues it claims to hold dear. In order to have a reflective and honest democracy, more politicians must do the same. Warren’s speech is both beautiful to read and yet troublesome in its isolation.

Yet Warren’s firm stance for justice and her demand for change indicate that the movement is working. This speech signals that even the powerful can recognize rampant racial injustice.

“This is the reality all of us must confront, as uncomfortable and ugly as that reality may be,” she stated. “It comes to us to once again affirm that black lives matter, that black citizens matter, that black families matter.”

Senator Warren ended the speech by invoking the late Sen. Kennedy and his fight for social justice.

“As Senator Kennedy said in his first floor speech, ‘This is not a political issue. It is a moral issue, to be resolved through political means.’ So it comes to us to continue the fight, to make, as John Lewis said, the ‘necessary trouble’ until we can truly say that in America, every citizen enjoys the conditions of freedom.”

Please Donate

Please Donate