"I" is for Idiocracy not for Impeachment (The Boehner Lawsuit triple dog dare)

Is it any wonder why the 113th Congress is pathetically the least approved in US history?

Today was to be Congress' first day of their scheduled August vacation.. Oops my bad, it's a called "Congressional Recess," but the House has decided to stay in session to work on the GOP $659 million border bill that failed to get enough GOP support. Truly it's because some GOP members feared backlash from the voting populace for leaving work undone.

Remember it's more about their cushy Congressional chair then your worn out sofa.

In my opinion, they're staying to make sure the "Great O" doesn't pull off any Executive Orders while they're supposedly back in their districts kissing babies and talking about "Impeachment."

Ah yes the "I" word, today in DC that's a bad for any political party to verbalize these days, well actually since 1998.

Just look at the past two days for example when the GOP led House passed their “Boehner" lawsuit against the “Great O” decrying his abuse (or use depending on your party affiliation) of Presidential power by consistently moving ACA law at his will.

That’s what this "Boehner" lawsuit is about after all. Yet many people believe the lawsuit is against the “Great O” for actions ranging from Benghazi to Bergdahl to "Obama-phones" to IRS issues, but nope they're wrong, it’s against his actions on moving the ACA’s deadline of employer mandate to provide health insurance for their employees and only that.

The legislation passed by vote 225-201, with Republicans Paul Broun (R-MD), Walter Jones (R-NC), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Steve Stockman (R-TX), and (Scott Garret (R-NJ) all voted “no.”

Sounds like this Fab 5 of Republicans didn’t believe in the measure or are just trying to save their cozy plush political seat.

But weren’t the GOP complaining that “O” should hold off on the mandate a few months ago, yet now complaining after he did?

It’s also fact that back in November 2013, the GOP released plans to fix the issues they had with ACA even while they rallied to defund/repeal it at the same time.

But don't call it "Impeachment", as according to Speaker Boehner no one in the GOP has mentioned such a thing and Rep Paul Ryan (vying a possible 2016 Pres run) has stated that Obama's actions "do not rise to that of high crimes and misdemeanor to warrant impeachment."

Over the past year or so, GOP members from Michelle Bachmann to Jason Chaffetz to Steve Stockman (yes the same Steve Stockman that voted "no" on the Boehner lawsuit), have stated they have proof and plan to possibly file Articles of Impeachment against the “ Great O,” only to have Speaker Boehner declare on Wednesday that no one has talked or spoken about doing so.

Apparently Speaker Boehner doesn’t read much or watch the news in the Speaker’s chamber while smokin' a Camel and swiggin' down some hooch.




Don’t get me wrong, the Democrats are just as guilty of “Impeachment” during the two terms of President “W” Bush as well. Rep Sheila Lee Jackson and 10 other Dems co-sponsored HR 1258. A bill introduced by Ohio's Dennis Kucinich back in June 2008. Although, unlike their current GOP counterparts who talk more then walk, they took the steps to begin a process only never going any further than that.

But neither party have/had the political balls to walk the line and request a formal investigation of "W" or "O." It's all for political game and their faithful base of slobbering pawns to jump in unison with their misspelled rally signs.

According to Speaker Boehner and other GOP members, today's usage of the "I" word is strictly for pandering to the base for campaign funds, not by the GOP but by their Democrat counterparts.

But is it a political scam?

The week prior to the "Boehner" lawsuit the Democrats raked in a couple of million dollars, thanks to the "Great O" talking about it leading to impeachment. The total donation count as of today has reached over $7 million in the bank.

Man, is the "Great O" a salesman or what?

Yet, just as GOP are calling the Dems fundraising off of "Impeachment" a scam, Rush Limbaugh has called the "Boehner" lawsuit nothing more then a PR election campaign stunt on his 7/31 broadcast or to paraphrase Limbaugh "there's no balls attached if there is no 'impeachment' to the lawsuit."

The lawsuit essentially does nothing (!) accept slap Obama and quite possibly future presidents on the hand over Executive Orders. Kinda like a victim yelling at a robber "stop or I'll say stop again!" It's all show for the Media to beat a dramatic drum.

And this is exactly what the "Boehner" lawsuit is, a PR stunt to help get a larger GOP majority in the House and possible GOP majority Senate.

The timing couldn't be perfect for this lawsuit to come, so close to mid-term elections. An election cycle many draw away from because, well, there's no pageantry for the Media to boast about.

But why?

Well it's simple plan to explain as a good friend of mine told me, "It's best to steer away from impeachment and win the Congress to neuter Obama's final 2 years."

Makes sense to me. Win the Congress and cut off Obama from any Presidential movement and force him to do something or nothing on legislation. Plus, historically more Republicans come out to vote in mid-terms then Democrats. Yes Democratic voters can be lazy during mid-terms.

The "Boehner" lawsuit is a spin job to say "our hands are clean, look what they are doing" while campaign coffers are being stuffed for both sides of the political aisle and there's no doubt that both parties have the weakest leadership ever in Congressional history and the poll numbers prove that after the November election, they both need leadership change.

That's it, slap the tap on some "Total Domination" pale ale and pass the peanuts while flipping the bill for another Congressional vacation. Maybe it's best they stay on vacation, it might be a better society if they do.

CHEERS!

THE DETRACTING MISCONCEPTION OF WHAT IS MAINSTREAM MEDIA

There has been a perception that American Media is largely dominated by “Left leaning” sources, however it’s safe to say that quantity does not equate to quality when reviewing weekly Radio/TV ratings and its influence over the populace.

Over the past few weeks, there have been numerous articles written about today’s Media influence that helped the Virginia primary loss of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to who is has larger fault for Iraq's downfall and other abbreviated narrative with other daily issues.

Yes, it’s true that the Media does influence the populace on issues, even though many will squeal that they are not “sheeple.” Sorry folks, whether it’s politics, sports or any other story, many are programmed to accept the force fed Media opinion as their own.

However, there’s this “myth” that we are led by the “Left leaning” media, but that’s only true when speaking of the over abundance of TV Media.

CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN are all considered as pawns to the Left.

CBS, NBC and ABC only report the news in a 30 minute sprint after the local news. Now if we add those boring morning shows to the equation and the time frame jumps to 2 hours 30 minutes, even though that time is filled with “fluff” pieces of dancing puppies and smoking Koala bears.

I will not argue that MSNBC is far Left of center in their reporting, which also explains why their ratings are so dismal. Outside of the 3 hours of Morning Joe, each hour features a new talking head repeating the same story in different voice with each going further Left.

And for the life of me, I still don’t know why Al Sharpton has a talk show and I don’t! Maybe I'm too wide for TV.

Per Zap2it.com for the week of June 16, after Morning Joe at 9am MSNBC averages roughly around 326,000 viewers till the 5pm. That’s when partisan talker Ed Shultz vents his frustrations and the number jumps up by about 160,000 viewers.

CNN has been re-inventing itself for the past decade and it seems they finally found a path to success, but their ratings fall roughly 80,000 short of MSNBCs

By comparison, even when combining CNN & MSNBC ratings, they fall extremely short of FOX News.

Fox & Friends, too which I find Steve Doocy the most annoying personality in Media next to Al Sharpton, averages 954,000 viewers daily, with the numbers jumping to an average 1.12 million till 5pm.

I still find humor when FOX News points out, with graphics, that they are reporting on a topic while other networks aren’t. It takes the slogan “Only on (blank)” one step further. I’m positive there will be a future 60 minute report on FOX News with guerilla reporters stalking network VP’s as to why they are not reporting on some topic like FOX

Oh wait they already do that with Jessie Watters.

But it’s the partisan Poli-Yakkers between 7p-11p that have the biggest influence and this is where the networks make their money. These partisan Poli-Yakkers and their passion grab the viewers to regurgitate their words on Social Media or the next day inside the cubicle. And FOX News, again, leads the pack by an average of 1 million viewer difference of the combined CNN/MSNBC ratings.

The sad part, from MSNBC to FOX, viewers take this passion as a “whole story” when in truth it’s a passionate abbreviated narrative.

So again, it’s the quality that equals domination, meaning that yes FOX News is Mainstream media no matter how much they and their viewers squawk against it.

I admit, I enjoy flipping between FOX, MSNBC and CNN every 15 minutes to see what and how the news is being reported. At one point I thought CNN’s management was punishing Martin Savidge by keeping him hostage in a flight simulator and mini-sub for the 2 months non-stop coverage of Malaysian Flight 370.

But the Conservative Mainstream domination is not only on the TV. Even on radio, where most point to NPR as the leader in Liberal reporting, Conservative talk radio is the force in media dominance.

Currently there are roughly 2,000 forms of Conservative talk radio shows compared to nearly 100 Liberal talk radio shows.

Per Talkers.com, the June 2014 numbers all too well tell the tale of what is Mainstream on the radio, Conservative Poli-Yakkers.

Now the list is filled with all types of talkers. Dave Ramsey and Clark Howard may put a political spit & polish comment into the mix, they are not Conservative talkers. So you have to go to #8 to find Thom Hartmann to find the leading Liberal talker.

There are 11 names ahead of Hartmann, who is roughly 11 million less in listeners than the leading voice of Limbaugh.

Oh sure there was the 6 year stunt of a complete Liberal radio network called Air America. 6 dreadful years it lasted, constantly revamping its lineup till the plug was pulled. From comedians to actors to actual journalists, Air America was dead on arrival. With names like Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, Ron Reagan, Montel Williams and so on, it was a Hollywood wet dream.

It wasn’t the “talent” that killed Air America, it was the constant turnover of higher management that sank the venture.

In my opinion, it was Tucker Carlson’s failed MSNBC stint that brought Rachel Maddow from radio to TV and her current Liberal reign at MSNBC, as she was a regular guest and fill-in host when Carlson was out Bowtie shopping.

I’m not knocking Limbaugh’s dominance of the golden mic, he has his disciples that listen to every word as if it’s Gospel.

I admit, I listen to Conservative talk radio; an hour of Beck, an hour of Limbaugh and an hour of Hannity, the Big 3 have set the Conservative political talk standard. But the ones I truly enjoy the most; Doyle and Savage can’t be found in my town. And I’ve slowly grown to enjoy Andy Dean’s show as well.

Yet the true reason I enjoy Savage, Doyle and Dean is that they do not fall into the daily talking points memo cycle and go against the grain of the Big 3 Conservative talkers. They are not afraid to call out a GOP member for mistakes and stupidity with equal venom of a Dem, unlike the Big 3 whipping boys. Hell they even call the Big 3 out for being party suck ups.

Wait, is Beck still considered a Conservative talker? I mean he changes his political posing each Presidential cycle. One year he considers himself a Conservative, than an Independent and I believe recently he’s called himself a Libertarian. At least Liberals stay true to their political calling.

Ratings don’t lie, Conservative talkers from all aspects of Media source; Radio, TV, and Interweb are leading the pack, because money talks. You want to make money in talk radio, be a Conservative voice and you’ll get picked up immediately. Just ask Dennis Miller, once a Liberal hack and out of a job, he turned tables to being a Conservative hack and the paycheck clears all the time.

In the end, people are going to take the force fed Media abbreviated narrative of their favorite Poli-Yakker as truth, no matter right or wrong. Hell even Beck admitted he was wrong and Liberals were right on Iraq and no one changed the channel.

That’s it, slap the tap on the Arrogant Bastard Ale, pass the peanut bowl and keep swallowing the Media drivel as unvarnished truth.

CHEERS!

The US “Nation Building” Process- Building dysfunctional democracies since 1898

The US “Nation Building” Process- Building dysfunctional democracies since 1898

In the past 116+ years of "Nation Building" it's of great concern that in today's world, the US Government sucks at this process and truly needs to rethink any future endeavors.

Now for many of you that do not know the meaning of “nation building,” it’s the process of securing peace, providing a constitutional government, restoring government services and providing economic aid through grants and/or private capital while the United States retains a massive amount of control.

To shorten that definition to just a single word, it's bribery, extortion, slush-money, payoff, protection, milking, exaction and so on.


One can argue with that sentiment, but basically we’re paying countries to be our “friend and ally” with Humanitarian Aid, Military Aid and sometimes good old cash money. A notch below the neighborhood bully in demands that your convert to a form of democracy that never flourishes.

Prior to the current attempts to “nation build” in Iraq and Afghanistan, the last time the United States attempted to simultaneously "nation build" was the turn of the 20th century with Cuba and the Philippines during the Spanish American War.

To recap, before the “yellow journalism” of William Randolf Hearst & Joseph Pulitzer that led the US into the Spanish American War, the US had general interest in a possible Cuban statehood since it was extremely close to Florida. Yet when war was declared, Congress decided not to lay claim to Cuba, instead settling on the notion of “influence.”

After two and half months of war, Spain called for a cease fire and left Cuba in the hands of the US to begin their “influence.” The influence directive was to create a mirror image of the US. Cuba was to; have a Constitution, free elections and prosperous economy, not to mention a portion of the island to be sovereign to US at Guantanamo Bay.

A new Cuban government agreed to a US likeness only because of fear of a permanent US occupation. Then three years later and large amounts of US dollars spent to help improve Cuba’s population in health, sanitation, education and so on, the US called its endeavor a success and left Cuba.

Shortly after the US walked away, many Cubans became impatient with their new found democracy and within a span of 10 years had three separate uprisings, opening the door for a temporary US return.

Now when the US declared war on Spain in Cuba, Teddy Roosevelt, then the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, without Navy Secretary John Long’s knowledge, sent a telegraph message to Commodore Dewey to move the Pacific Fleet to the Philippines to keep the Spanish fleet at bay.

Sec. Long let the order hold and a few months later Commodore Dewey sent word that he had destroyed the Spanish Fleet. Yet (here’s the clincher), President McKinley was excited by the news but did not know where the Philippines were and since there was no plan to “nation build” there, it was decided that the Philippines would be a US Colony but under self rule.

Well it wasn’t that easy, we actually bought the Philippines for $20 million in the Treaty of Paris.

But unlike the Cubans that were overjoyed by the US involvement, the Filipinos wanted nothing to do with Spain and the US and a small amount of guerilla warfare broke out for about 2 years, eventually contained and finally a form of “nation building” was set.

OK, that history recap was a little wordy, but now fast forward to today, does any of this sound familiar about today’s ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq?

We went into Iraq mostly on false information received by our own intelligence gathering almost equals that of the “yellow journalism” received about Cuba. And as quickly as we left Cuba, internal strife begun, just like in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite.

I can completely believe that the US actions in Afghanistan are close to that of the Philippines, as we’ve never planned on “occupying” Afghanistan, but the time has come for the US to leave. The mission is complete as revenge upon a Taliban government for harboring Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist group and their attacks on 9/11.

“Since September 11, I think everyone understands that we have a stake in the future of Afghanistan that is not simply nation-building for the sake of the Afghan people, it’s security-building for prevent terrorists from returning. That’s not a mission we ever thought about before in the United States,” – Unnamed senior US official (http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/carson.pdf)

So we’ve jumped the shark from “nation building” to “security building” when it comes to Afghanistan and there’s a great reason for this; Afghanistan has no real economic infrastructure and not to mention that it’s run by provincial tribal warlords, not a government, so it’s a haven for terrorists to set up camp.

In Afghanistan, there is no capital when your biggest export product is an illegal product in Opium, which overshadows the legal products of carpets and fruits. Think about it, each year since the US invaded Afghanistan; Opium harvesting has increased and expanded across the land. It’s a multi-billion dollar a year operation.

The very same Air Force the US developed with Russian built equipment and US tax dollars has become the logistical arm for drug lords. Opium distribution is so large that the Afghanistan Air Force has become the “mule” for drug running purposes.

A large majority of the airplanes in the Afghan Air Force cannot fly due to cost of fuel and/or part shortages and those that can fly are used by Generals and VIPs as limo services or transport Opium to various locations.

We’ve built power stations at $300 million a pop that cannot be turned on due to fear of Warlord/Taliban threats or they cannot afford the diesel to run the generators.

We’ve built roads to help commerce move through the country only to have those roads destroyed by Warlord/Taliban actions

But for some odd reasoning, there are those in DC and Media that believe we must stay even though it’s been stated by the Afghan government, one that we placed, to get the f*ck out.

These are the very same folks that cry “government needs to spend less” on a daily basis but refuse to come to reality that Afghanistan is not run by our well placed government, its run by tribal warlords that yield the higher power.

We’ve spent upwards near $460+ billion dollars just on the war in Afghanistan since 2001 and have no problems of the planned expenditure of close to $4 billion till 2024 to pay for Afghanistan’s National Security Force of 350,000 personnel and their salaries yet scream about not having money for our own military and their benefits!

I understand the politics of using people, whether it religious or economic demographics, as pawns. And it’s understandable that those being used are too ignorant to see they’re being bent over, but it’s truly disgusting when these political players use the men and women, those that have served and currently serving as pawns to win over the heart strings of the ignorant to win political points.

They want us to stay in Afghanistan that never truly wanted the US, not in the 80’s, not now and not in the future to rebuild their infrastructure while our own is crumbling around us. It’s pure political genius and their winning at it.

If we couldn’t help Afghanistan 34 years ago, we sure as hell will not help it tomorrow. It’s time to go, it’s time to return, it’s time to put the money back into the United States.

That’s it, Slap the tap on a cold Brew Moon Luna-Wit, pass the nuts and thank a veteran for their unselfish act of volunteering to protect our freedoms.

CHEERS!

Can Social Media Hashtagging Save The World?

There’s no doubt that when any issue becomes headline news a celebrity and/or politician will co-opt, hijack, corrupt and spin the issue into a personal political agenda with added monetary value and suffocate the issue with over exposure that will nudge people too tune out within a week’s time.

In my opinion, the normal lifespan of a media born narrative lasts 6 days in headline status and then dwindles to back page filler depending on the outlet before becoming obsolete.

Whether it’s Sandra Fluke or Texas Boll Weevil or Cliven Bundy, the carousel of Media darling come and go, leaving many to do whatever it needs to keep oneself relevant in the public eye. But for that moment in time, they are paraded around the Media dial gaining support/protest while the clock ticks down.

Determining which side of the issue that politicians, frankly those pseudo-politicians, and celebrities will jump also determines the Media narrative coverage that follows.
It’s easy to quickly point the crooked finger at the Liberal mindset when thinking about those that co-opt and corrupt an issue as it seems they jump faster and further to get their grubby hands on it and turn towards their liking.

For every Sandra Fluke abortion rights soapbox for Liberals there’s a Chic-Fil-A freedom of speech/religion platform for Conservatives to march behind as well. It’s all in ones perspective as which is right or wrong to follow.

Absolutely the Nigerian schoolgirl kidnapping is a tragedy and it only opens one’s eye to the horror of human trafficking that is present Worldwide, even if the focus is on just that of Nigeria. Face it from the dawn of the slave trade to today's latest kidnapping; the World’s history of human trafficking has been unkind to the continent of Africa and its inhabitants. Why is this situation any different than the missing child on the milk carton?

Is it the number of children taken at one time or the fact that a Radical Islamist some-what terrorist group called Boko Harem committed this atrocity?

My guess, it’s the latter and I’m trying to figure out how some poli-yankers are blaming the fall of Libya and the US’s passive involvement that led to the current Nigerian kidnapping.

Please don't take me as insensitive of the Nigerian kidnapping situation; being a parent myself I worry even when my son is 20 feet away on the playground. Yet it takes one issue for people to get behind, whether ordinary Joe to celebrity to politician.
I don't see anything wrong with those that feel they're doing some sort of right by tweeting a picture of them holding signs with “#bringbackourgirls,” if they believe that's helping. But contrary to poli-yanking media host, it's far from just a bunch of Hollywood liberals holding court.

Yes, FLOTUS Michelle Obama has joined Sean Penn and Alicia Keyes with many others, including Dwayne Johnson. Yes the very Republican card carrying member Dwayne Johnson of WWE /action movie fame is among them. OMG! Does that make him a closet Liberal or just someone believing in a cause?

Or how about Political America's favorite Brit, PM and Conservative leader Cameron, is he now coming out of his limey bastard Liberal leaning closet?

The answer is simple, neither are doing nothing of the sort except showing a new awareness of the human trafficking issues abound. And in PM Cameron’s case, he can actually do something about it in form of government policy.

Yet, this is the USA, no matter the issue, a political agenda must be found to exploit and absolutely "Never let a crisis go to waste." If our Media was smart, they would push the agenda but talk more about the disturbing numbers of human trafficking in fact filled narrative without placing blame on any administration.

But that doesn’t bring in ratings, so it’s a pipedream.

Here are some figures to catch your eye (thanks to UNICEF for the info):
-Roughly 2,300 children go missing daily by either abduction or runaway status in the US
-Worldwide an estimated 1.2 million children are trafficked yearly, with approximately 27 million people enslaved around the World
-In South Africa, an estimated 30,000 children are prostitutes due to human trafficking, some as young as 14 years old

Those are staggering numbers to digest!

But we’re the U.S of A and well there are people who just can’t hold back to mock their divisive voice on an issue, including the Nigerian kidnapping.

Probably one of my least favorite poli-yankers is Ann Coulter. So when I read about Ms. Coulter’s attempt to be funny and hijack the “#bringourgirlsback” campaign with “#bringourcountryback,” my eyes rolled while saying “poor timing” for her attempted sense of humor.



I give her points for making a political statement that is entirely true, but hijacking a current soapbox and rewriting it, well it’s cheesy and unoriginal. But the backlash that ensued was extremely comical that for someone as technically advanced as Coulter is should have expected the Photoshop-mania that went wild on Twitter afterwards.

Maybe Ms. Coulter should point to her fellow poli-yankers on both sides of the partisan divide and ask them why so many of them are for sending in the US military in attempts to find the Nigerian children yet say nothing about concerns about US children being abducted?

I bet if Nancy Grace jumped on board (as she did with Natalie Holloway) and the News executives watch her ratings, they would dispatch reporters worldwide holding milk cartons in attempts for a ratings snatch.

That’s it, Slap the Tap on some “Omission” and don’t choke on your favorite abbreviated narrative as a full report.
CHEERS!

US vs Cliven Bundy: How Yellow Journalism mutes Common Sense for ratings

We live in a knee-jerk reaction society that causes more division and strife among the masses that we lose sight of what was the original cause of action.

Over the past 15 or so days, I've been watching & listening to many poli-talkers along with ordinary people concerning Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his 20 year plus battle concerning grazing rights on federal land and what great theater it has been so far.

So enjoyable to watch a section of media gloss over facts and push an agenda driven mantra during an election cycle while others mock them. Yes, every media outlet wants a piece of Cliven Bundy, just a small morsel to help in their ratings.

However, we as viewers & readers have to admit to our addiction to the “Yellow Journalism” that has placed us in a hallucinated state over the past 120+ years. We are forced fed what we're told to be "truth" yet it's an abbreviated narrative truth.

In case you've forgotten, Yellow Journalism is defined as “journalism that distorts, exaggerates the news to create sensationalism to attract readers,” which pretty much sums about the vast majority of what we hear every day in our media. Notice I stated "vast majority" and did not point fingers to either Right or Left, but grouped together.

Along with our “Yellow Journalism” ways, we have to thank Social Media and the ever ending memes that help pass along falsehoods on issues. Yes I know I mock Social Media and stil use it fully for its intended purposes to pass along family news, connect with friends and pass news articles that I find enjoyable that leaves my intentions suspect to others.

OK enough dribble, let’s put fact to blog and rant when appropriate.

Mr. Bundy claims ancestral rights to the land his cattle graze upon, yet the lineage that he claims is skewed in that the maternal side of his family is of Mormon faith and polygamist marriages ran rampant. So even though his ancestors had moved to the Bunkerville, Nevada area in the 1880’s, it was not a homestead as the family moved back and forth between Nevada and Utah until land was eventually bought in 1948-1949.

And it wasn’t for another 5 years, in 1954, that the Bundy ranch took up cattle operations.

So the claim of 180 years of grazing cattle can be cut by less than half when taking into consideration the 1954 established operation year. Yet, it’s the timeframe between 1954 and 1993 that’s hazy, fuzzy, and blurred when it comes to grazing cattle.

For close to 39 years, the lands operated by the Bureau of Land Management and the Bundy ranch were all chummy with permits being paid on time and rule of law being followed. Now whether it’s to be blamed on the “Smokey Rainbow Hair Tortoise” or whatever environmental reasoning, but in 1993 the rules changed and the BLM had requested the Bundy’s to lower their cattle grazing to less then 150.

And this is when and how the 20 year fight began with laws being broken and court orders given that has Cliven Bundy in the news talking about who’s a better worker between Negros and Mexicans and how he doesn't believe the US Government exists.

Bundy refused to lower his cattle as requested/required, continued to illegally let them graze on federal land and by 1998 was taken to court (United States v. Bundy) where the ruling favored the US Gov/BLM. The court order gave Bundy up to 30 days to remove his cattle from federal land and as expected Bundy did not comply.

It must be addressed that during the 1993-2014 time period, the BLM did not impound any cattle owned by Bundy until just a few days ago, which they had the legal right to do.

As well everyone should know that other injunctions were judged against Bundy between 1999 and 2013 for his illegal actions from fines to destruction of public property and so on.

OK, did you get that, he was illegally using federal land and judgment passed against him that he blatantly ignored. Can anyone tell me what happens if you get caught using Federal or State land improperly? Yes, you get fined and possible jail time.

And here we are today, Poli-talkers bickering back and forth (Hannity and Stewart) to the amusement of many as well as politicians stepping up for Bundy and then away days later over the illegal actions of Bundy against the BLM.

But isn't funny how this BLM/Bundy issue is happening in 2014, an election cycle and better that it's also an election involving Nevada's Harry Reid, a man hated more by the Right then President Obama.

I am no Harry Reid supporter and believe he's one of the most arrogant members in Congress!

But it's coincidental that Harry Reid is up for re-election and the Right so desperately wants to gain seats in the Senate that creating some controversy helps (the House will easily stay in their hands).

Absolutely Senator Harry Reid is a fool and dumb enough to walk into the muck by addressing the protestors backing Bundy as "domestic terrorists." By responding he helped opposition create new campaign ads without no effort.

I gotta give props to Glenn Beck and his staff for their actions/stance on this situation.

When Beck left FOX News a few years ago too venture into his own Media soapbox, I called him the next "Ted Turner" and he's proven me correct ever since. It's the major reason why Beck has taken the calm/collective route concerning BLM/Bundy, that reason being that his actions/reactions will affect his company. He does not have Roger Ailes to protect him and hug sponsors/advertisers, he must personally face any backlash that affects the lives that he employs.

To quote Glenn Beck from his radio show on 4/24 "It is hard, because we believe the government is out of control, we believe the government is growing as an oppressor... But you have to know who you’re standing with.”

Too simplify that quote "Be responsible in your actions. Bundy and the BLM are in the wrong on this issue."

Absolutely the actions of the BLM actions of armed enforcement against Bundy is over reaching, but it's also over reaching to have armed protestors wanting to act against the government.

Fact is fact on this issue, however Media and their viewers/listening will take their "Yellow Journalism" by the scoopful and lessen the fat known as Common Sense to fulfill their cravings.

That's it, Slap the tap on a frosty cool one, pass the peanut bowl and hit the play button to watch the movie Idiocracy to realize where we're headed.

CHEERS!

Return of the Great Gun Debate: Sally take your Prozac and hide your Glock

In between the many news reports of how "Obamacare signups caused Malaysian Flight 370 into a Wormhole" there was yet another senseless shooting at Fort Hood that could've been avoided but instead has caused another political kneejerk reaction.

Less then 12 hours after the 2nd tragic shooting at Fort Hood, Speaker John Boehner stated "there’s “no question” that mentally ill people should be prevented from buying guns." However the problem this time around, is the mentally ill Speaker Boehner speaks of happens to be a member of the US Military. Which actually sparks larger debate after the first Foot Hood shooting by Nidal Hasan about all members of the military should be carrying a pistol or rifle.

There are many positions one can hold while serving our nation and not all of those position require a person to carry a weapon. From administrative to medical staff to cooks, unless they are Steven Seagal in the movie "Under Siege," the need for a weapon for every service member is minimal.

Then again, shooting the vending machine for letting the Kit Kat hang is an actionable offense for anyone.

We really need to look at the words of Speaker Boehner's concerning mentally ill as they are extremely vague in detail and not limited to the discussion of the US Military only.

Now, to Speaker Boehner's thought, I do agree that yes guns should not be allowed to be owned by the mentally ill but honestly, who is going to re-define the term "mentally ill."

A simple definition of mentally ill is "that of unsound mind" and even that is too vague to give description as in today's world it doesn't take much to label someone "unsound."

WebMD.com has 2 pages of best known labels for the term mentally ill: Anxiety disorders, Mood disorders, Psychotic disorders (come to think of it that's describes 1/2 my past girlfriends), Eating disorders, Impulse disorders, Adjustment disorders, Sexual disorders, Tic disorders, Dementia, Alzheimer's, and sleep disorder just too name a few.

So where would he begin in his new definition?

In the case of the current Fort Hood incident, Spc. Ivan Lopez was being treated for post traumatic stress disorder, yet also had a history of depression and anxiety. And again, everyone has become an overnight expert on PTSD saying that because he saw no combat while in Afghanistan there is no way he could have PTSD.

Um, yes he can by just seeing those returning from battle or hearing the constant explosions miles away, it doesn't take much and even the medical experts are discovering more reason as to how one can have PTSD symptoms.

Yes, after the shooting of 28 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School by Adam Lanza, everyone became an expert overnight of Autism and Asperger's that it disgusted me. Why? Simple, I am a father of an Asperger's child and everyday the spectrum and knowledge changes.

Again, I ask, where or how do we redefine the definition of mentally ill?

What if someone is prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug like Naproxen for joint, muscle and/or arthritis pain?

Sounds simple enough even though a side effect is mental/mood swings, could that person be defined as mentally ill?

OK, so we really can't redefine mentally ill unless we list specific illness, because if we went by prescriptions, well I'd say 70% of the country would be on a "watch list."

Got Anxiety Disorder? Well step right up as there are over 20+ prescription drugs too choose from to help.

The point being, for every disorder there at least 3 prescriptions to help ease the situation. If we do not redefine the term mentally ill then maybe suspend the 2nd Amendment right for those prescribed certain drugs.

Now if, for some cosmic planetary alignment, Congress would pass the notion of redefining an incredible demographic of American populace, what do to with all these newly acquired weapons?

Think about it for a moment, would Congress "grandfather" weapons for the newly diagnosed? "If you own a gun today and become medically diagnosed with erectile dysfunction and need to be prescribed Viagra which has mood disorder side effects, under this new law you can still keep your gun."

It's an honest question with a follow up notion that under a newly created mentally ill definition, how many would end up collecting SSI and other entitlements?

Fraudulent lawyers and doctors could see massive future riches with claim suits.

One could even further the gun debate and possible place a suspension on gun ownership to members of the Military returning from active combat until cleared for PTSD.

That idea could destroy any political career in a snap.

Well if we rewind back to January 2014, Attorney General Eric Holder was a few steps ahead of Speaker Boehner when he introduced a plan that would further and tighten the limits of gun sales to the mentally ill.

As reported in the USA Today, AG Holder stated "We are taking an important, common sense step to clarify the federal firearms regulations, which will strengthen our ability to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, this step will provide clear guidance on who is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law for reasons related to mental health, enabling America's brave law enforcement and public safety officials to better protect the American people and ensure the safety of our homes and communities.''

The plan actually expanded the definition to include "committed to a mental institution." The addition to the definition includes those that are involuntarily placed in outpatient and inpatient commitments to be prohibited from purchasing firearms.

To further clarify the federal redefinition by AG Holder, the addition also shall include "persons who are found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect; persons lacking mental responsibility or deemed insane; and persons found guilty but mentally ill, regardless of whether these determinations are made by a state, local, federal or military court."

So a new question now becomes "Who do you trust more on limiting mentally ill gun ownership; One who has produced a plan or One who spoke about a possible future plan?"

Unfortunately, that question will be lengthened by adding "Who do you trust more on limiting mentally ill gun ownership; A Democrat who has produced a plan or a Republican who spoke about a possible future plan?"

That's it, Slap the Tap, take a big gulp, pass the peanuts and wait for the next gun debate knee jerk reaction that will fall on deaf ears thanks to the political divide.

CHEERS!

Tuesday Political Quibblers Club: A Skeptics Delight for a Political Price

Somewhere in a basement in “Anywhere, USA” someone is pondering some premise of theory/thought that will make its way thru the bowels of the Interweb and one day become “truth” for a few.

Now whether that notion is political or historical in content will determine its validity amongst the masses of tin foil hats. Plus in today’s techie Social Media “Gotta an app” smothered world, it doesn’t take long for the notion to flow like oil from the Deepwater Horizon.

Take the other day for instance, I was dining out with my family and it must’ve been the weekly "Tuesday Political Quibblers Club” night out for the table next to us as their conversation ran a gambit of various zany political thoughts within minutes of being seated.

Now I don’t like to listen to strangers conversation, I’ll leave that to Agents Jones & Smith of the NSA to do. However this group of grown men that ranged in various age, was spitting out theory after thought in such high revolution that I can only compare them to that of a group of giddy 13 year old girls talking about a member of One Direction (honestly I've heard grown women talk the same as well about One Direction and it’s scary).

Yet one statement has kept with me only because it's intriguing. Now I'm paraphrasing this statement but it goes a little something like:

"What we really should do is split the US. The Northern States go Democratic, the Southern States go Republican and then we'll see who has the better ideology."

I missed what was said next as I was being pulled away by family, but this I know is an awesomely bad idea, yet had to ponder how the US would look if it would flourish.

Yet every theory/thought needs a nickname, so how about “The Quibbler: A theory for a new US Polity.”

Now there are gaps and holes to fill on the "Quibbler theory" as I was unable to finish listening in but I'm absolutely positive I can do some hot patch work better then a "Yinzer" road crew.

OK, so what would a split US look like and how to decide where the split exists between North and South? Well that’s easy if we use the Missouri Compromise.

See the Missouri Compromise helped set up the partition between impending Slave and Free States of any territory wanting to join the Union west of the Mississippi River as well as helped set up how future States would be formed by creating a border that runs along the 36th parallel of latitude. It helped to not have the cluster of States that we know of the East Coast.

So that covers Western States, as for the Eastern half, well we’ll use the Civil War divide.

Contrary to myth, the Mason/Dixon line was not the border between North & South during the Civil War even though it was regarded as such. Maryland never declared itself North or South and even to this day, Marylanders debate if they are considered one or the other.

So for this, Maryland will be considered a Northern state along with West Virginia and Alaska with Hawaii going to the South. So let’s do the math, that’s 28 Democratic states to 22 Republican states.

Seems a little off balanced from the start for the “Quibbler theory" but we’re just beginning.

So all Northern states shall be under Democratic governorship as well their state legislature and the equal for the Southern states under Republican leadership, doesn’t quite have the feel of a Free Republic.

So draw a line across the top border of California, follow that line across to Missouri and then down around Illinois the top of Kentucky, below West Virginia and Maryland all the way to the Atlantic. I know it's wordy to read but without a GPS someone might get lost.

But how does this split affect the business of Federal Government?

James Madison’s Federalist #39 states that "The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America....The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and co-equal societies."

Now under Constitutional Law, each State is guaranteed 2 Senate appointments which means under this theory the Senate shall be democratically led 56-44 as there are more Northern then Southern states.

Well looks like the political power dips further Left which doesn’t seem to be the intention of the “Quibblers theory.”

Under the same law, each State is given 1 guaranteed appointment to the House and other appointments are placed by size of populace. California, Texas and Florida have roughly 116 total Representatives and by “Quibblers theory" the House then would favor the Republicans 245 to 190.

As we see in today's reality, a split Congress is gridlocked and under “Quibblers theory" it strengthens political ideology divide with lopsided numbers that only the moderates of either party, you know those “RINO’s and Blue Dogs” poli-talkers despise, would be the only ones to help push legislation thru to the Oval Office.

It's that or an obscene amount of Executive Orders by whomever sits behind the Resolute Desk.

It's hard to tell how each State would be run with such a political unhinged balance amongst them. By unhinged I reference one political thought running about per State. Yes, I’m positive those reading that are Left/Right will stomp their feet and hold their breath that their party is the one truest. So let’s look at reality, because it appears these “theorists” are not part of.

Currently there are 29 Republican governors at the helm since 2011 and they are scattered across the land. But how are they doing compared to their Democratic equals?

Well Daily Finance released a “Top 5 Best & Worst” run states report not long ago and the results were:

Best 5: 5.Iowa (R), 4.Utah (R), 3.Nebraska (R), 2.Wyoming (R), 1.North Dakota (R)
Worst 5: 5.New Jersey (R), 4.Arizona (R), 3.Illinois (D), 2.Rhode Island (I), 1.California (D)

Doesn't say much for the governorship of New Jersey's Chris Christie and Arizona's Jan Brewer?

California being the worst run state is not a shocker, it's been that way for the past 30 years no matter which party is leading and please don't say "Well when Reagan was governor..." because that was 50 years past.

The average population between the "Top 5 Best" equals roughly 1,833,000, so it's quite easy to govern a small populace in wide open ranges when compared to the size of the “#2 Worst” and smallest state of Rhode Island.

What about the Richest and Poorest of States? Where’s all the wealth sitting or poor squatting? Well thanks to the Wall Street Journal, the list varies deeply from the "Best & Worst" run;

Top 5- 5.Hawaii (D), 4.Connecticut (D), 3.Alaska (R), 2.New Jersey (R), 1.Maryland (D)
Bottom 5- 5.Kentucky (D), 4.Alabama (R), 3.West Virginia (D), 2.Arkansas (D), 1.Mississippi (D)

It’s easy to say that New Jersey & Maryland should be on the list considering they are located near NYC and DC. All that wealth in Connecticut can’t be from WWE’s McMahon family, could it?

I’m sure I can research more “Best & Worst” lists from education, beer halls, roads, drivers and waistlines to dissect and tape together to figure which way to split the States into this or that. However I’m extremely nauseated with this “Quibblers theory" and believe it’s the silliest idea to come along since politicians reading Dr Seuss to explain their discourse.

This “Quibblers theory" of splitting the US between Democratic North & Republican South just doesn’t work even though it sounds great was first spoken and currently the States seem to be running quite well as they are, depending on “how well” one thinks.

That’s it, Slap the tap, pass the chicken wings and pay your political bill before someone figures out a better way to scam it away with another political theory

Cheers!

Presidential Conventions 2016- Drugs, Strippers and Fire Trucks Oh My!

It’s easy to say that right now in 2014, both the Republican National Committee & Democratic National Committee conventions are homeless and many cities mentioned as targets, well many are shrugging their shoulders with very little delight of wanting to host

It’s absolutely mind-numbing reading about which city is on which list and which of those cities does & does not want to be involved in the 2016 convention race. Many of the "hopeful" cities cite “funding” as being the main issue for declining and criteria being second; hotels, transportation, airport, prostitution/strippers, drugs and alcohol must reach a premium to the liking of delegates.


Oh come on, you don’t believe that “P/S, D & A” aren’t a major issue concerning “host” cities?

Sex is big at these conventions or did everyone forget the Rob Lowe 1989 RNC Convention sex tape?

These conventions have become a week long sales pitch for the Party and their agenda because by the time the convention begins, the candidate has already been chosen. Well ok, not chosen just the last one standing with enough money to go from Primary campaign to Presidential campaign.

As RNC head honcho Reince Priebus told Daily Caller's Alexis Pappas, “We have to make sure that we put on a convention that gives our nominee a bump. That to me is the No. 1 purpose of having a convention.” A post convention bump helps navigate the candidates heading into the exciting & electrifying presidential debates.



Honestly, these debates should be produced by the Vinnie Mac and the WWE because who wouldn't wanna see a "Hell in the Cell Presidential Debate?"

However, the past 2 convention cycles, the candidates only received modest bumps. Yes, in 2008 John McCain received a huge post-convention bump, yet that bump was created by the allure of the “Who the hell is that?” Vice President running mate selection of Sarah Palin and after a week the shine dulled.

And strike the notion that the host city helps the candidate win the State as in 2012, the DNC pitched their tents in Charlotte and Obama lost by 97000+ votes and while the RNC held their convention in Tampa a few weeks prior, Romney lost 73000+.

AS I said, these conventions are less about the candidates and more about, well, partying. According to Asawin Suesbsaeng of Mother Jones, Tampa was expecting 50,000 people to attend the RNC Convention with only 35,000 heading to Charlotte, of which 37.5% (close to 31,000)of attendees had press credentials. So how does one keep 54,000 delegates happy? Alcohol, drugs and strippers.

When a national convention comes to town, strippers countrywide travel to the host city to make large amounts of money dressed in their most patriotic G-strings.

Per a Huffpost article from Aug 2012, the Association of Club Executives (representing 4,000 strip clubs) when a national convention comes to town, Republicans outspend Democrats three-to-one, plunking down an average $150 per person compared to $50 for Democrats.

One Tampa strip club scheduled porn star Lisa Ann, best known for her porn portrayal as "Serra Paylin."

And yes, Charlotte's strip scene cleaned up and added venues, however Charlotte's used to big crowds especially when NASCAR thunders into town.

It's rather ironic that in 2008, DNC convention host Denver passed an ordinance that discouraged local authorities from “arresting, detaining or issuing a citation” to any adult caught with up to one ounce of marijuana during the four-day convention.

And skip forward to Charlotte 2012, when the Republican led North Carolina state legislature amended their blue laws to allow alcohol sales on Sunday for the DNC convention. See, compromise can happen.

Within the next month or so, both parties will draft their 2016 convention home, interesting enough, Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio are on both boards. Why not, since Ohio has been the biggest headache for both parties over the past 3 Presidential elections.

Being the "yinzer" that I am, I'm hoping that the DNC takes Pittsburgh off the list, as we do not want a bunch of politicians and delegates hanging around during our most coveted annual convention, the Furries, err I mean "Anthrocon."

Then again, how much would a strippin' "Furry" make during a national convention?


That's it, Slap the Tap on a cold Apocalypse Cow, pay your political tab and leave the buffet open for Chris Christie's acceptance speech.

Cheers!

Debate over discrimination or Arizona's right to use "Gaydar"?

Over the past month, it makes me wonder what goes thru people’s minds that want to regress our society 50 years. One day it’s a redefined “poll tax” and now it’s a form of discrimination that’s not pointed to one group but to all.

Yes, I’m talking about the Arizona State Bill #1062 that Media is misrepresenting as an “Anti-Gay” bill even though it’s called a “Freedom of Religion” bill.

But why am I saying it’s being misrepresented? Because, as pointed about by the folks at Arizona Central (azcentral.com), the law states:

“It broadens the definition of the person who can invoke a shield against being sued for denying service or any other action if that denial is based on religious beliefs.”

Which means a person or business can deny service for any reason to anyone upon ones religious belief. So if someone is LGBT or Muslim or Atheist, yes Bob’s Bistro can tell you to get lost without legal recourse.

So imagine walking into fictional Bob’s Bistro waiting area, to have this happen:

Waitress: Welcome to Bob’s Bistro, how many will be in your party
Diner: 4
Waitress: Booth or Table?
Diner: Booth
Waitress: Jesus or Allah?
Diner: What?
Waitress: Sir please read the placard; we have the religious belief backed by current law to deny service to anyone that does not worship Jesus Christ.

Sounds harsh and it could happen but then again, how does a business know unless they ask?

At worst, this law could hurt different types of Arizona business and it’s already begun before the law has been signed by Gov Jan Brewer

From Apple to the NFL, many companies are informing Gov Brewer that by signing the law may hurt future business within the State.

Sure, Rush Limbaugh has stated Gov Brewer is being bullied by LGBT groups, but that’s half truth as even those that passed the law, even Sen. Bob Worsely (R-Mesa) one of the co-authors of the law, are now pleading for her to veto it.

Talk about a John Kerry Syndrome moment during an election year!

Coincidentally there are other States joining the charge, or shall I say the coincidence being Republican led States joining.

For example, Georgia has open legislation that would allow the “right to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious tenet or belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or a central part or requirement of the person’s religious tenets or beliefs.”

I must've missed the sale of Gaydar detection equipment on QVC, because there sure does seem to be a lot of cause to find these people and ostracize them from society.

Society has the issue and that issue stumbles into business ignorance.

For instance take lawsuit in New Mexico against Elaine Huguenin, a New Mexican photographer that refused to photo the ceremony of a gay wedding in 2006 due to “religious belief.”

The couple sued over discrimination as it is illegal in New Mexico to refuse services as state law entitled New Mexico Human Rights Act states “it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.”

From being denied service to being denied employment in the NFL, the ostracism of LGBT is blanketing our society better then the Polar Vortex.

So Washington lobbyist, Jack Burkman states he is pushing Congress to pass a law that would ban any gay athlete from playing in the NFL and he states he has some legislators backing his notion, even though he won’t mention names.

Yes, the very same lobbyists that help right the majority of legislation and knock on congressional doors with cash & prize in hand. It’s no wonder why Washington is the dumbest place to work with lobbyist like this pushing goodies.

“If the NFL has no morals and no values, then Congress must find values for it,” Burkman said.

What?! Wait, many complain about government intrusion into private business, yet there are people wanting government intrusion for this?

Per Burkman, "Imagine your son being forced to shower with a gay man. That’s a horrifying prospect for every mom in the country. What in the world has this nation come to? We are losing our decency as a nation.”

Hey Burkman, imagine a priest groping your son in the backroom of the rectory. Where’s your morality law on that?

Ok so say the law passes and players stay quiet their entire career and upon retirement comes out and says “I’m gay.” Can other players sue the gay player? Can the NFL deny them their pension?

Seriously the questions can be endless.

By the way this law has no chance; I mean what’s congress going to do threaten the NFL tax exempt status?

As we spin society backwards with modern ignorance we might as well demand GM re-produce the Chevy Corsair and Ford the Pinto so we can spin out of control and explode in a fireball of brilliance

That’s it, Slap the Tap and pour a cool Sheep Shagger Scottish Ale and pay your political tab because it’s an election year and we have to pay for stupid to debate stupid so stupid can pass stupidity.

CHEERS!






http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-next-state-discriminate
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140224an-overview-controversy-around-sb.html?nclick_check=1
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/199057-lobbyist-drafting-bill-to-ban-gays-from-nfl#.UwysYyLg74E.twitter
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2013/08/28/entrepreneurship-threatened-by-ruling-in-new-mexico-gay-marriage-case/

Voter Eligibilty of the 21st Century: Take Your Redefined Poll Tax & Shove It

Here we are, a few months away from the Mid-term elections and the great “Voter” debate is picking up steam. However, this time around the debate has gone away from the “Voter ID” to the larger view of “Eligible Voter.”

By now everyone should know what it takes to be an eligible voter, right?

Hm, yeah that’s what I thought. OK, let’s refresh our modern poli-talking Media minds and remember to be an eligible one must be: 1. U.S. Citizen, 2. 18 years old or older, 3.Meet State Requirements, 4.Be a registered voter (except North Dakota)

Let’s not forget that there is something called the National Mail Voter Registration Form. This little nugget is the only document that will allow a person to vote anywhere in the US.

Seems rather a simple process, 4 little rules yet somehow/somewhere people like to stick their politics into a simple system and create havoc for many.

Now, a few days ago, wealthy venture capitalist Mr. Tom Perkins was asked "what one idea would change the world?" Well Mr. Perkins simply stated "The Tom Perkins system is: You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar of taxes."



Now stop right there and think about it, what one idea would change the world and this man answers with an "only those that pay can play" scenario.

Then again this is also the same ass-clown that wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks past stating that the attack on the wealthy is comparable to the Nazi pre-Holocaust attacks on the Jews.

OK, so per the “Perkins Scenario” only those that pay taxes should be allowed to vote and to add salt to the wound, he believes the amount of tax you pay equals the amount of votes one can cast.

So $1,000 tax paid = 1,000 votes cast.

Well there are many people jumping on this scenario bandwagon, because many think only the wretched losers of our society skip out on paying taxes.

So who doesn't pay taxes in the U.S.?

Well according to CNN Money 43% of U.S. households (that's 70 million homes) ended up owing no federal income tax in 2013. And of those 70 million homes, a whopping 67% have incomes below $30k, which equals zero tax liability.

How can someone have "zero tax liability?" Well many take advantage of the many exclusions, exemptions, deductions and tax credits that cancel out any owed tax that would be paid and others simply have too little of an income to owe a tax.

Did you get that? These losers are using the tax code to their advantage.

So these people, per the “Perkins Scenario” would lose their right to vote. Do you really think our Political parties would let 70 million households go without, regardless of their affiliation?

But the Non-Paying "loser" taxpayer is not just that earning $30K or less in income. Nope there are roughly 18,000 US households earning $500k to over $1 million that are deducting, exempting, excluding and crediting their way to zero federal tax as well.

Now hold on, by all research, there are people making $500k and above also using the tax code to their advantage and have “zero tax liability?”

Wow the losers keep adding up and losing out on the “Perkins Scenario.”

In other words, the “Perkins Scenario” is just another attempt to tighten the rules on voting, much like how many believe Voter I.D. laws will do.

Personally, my only squabble with Voter I.D. laws is that lately States attempt to pass them during an Election year. But I do not have an issue with the law itself as I show my I.D., along with my Voter Registration card every time I vote and each time I've received a "thank you" by the precinct official even though they know who I am.

No, the “Perkins Scenario” truly is a new version of a "poll tax" even if not identified as one by the many poli-talking media experts.

OK, I understand many do not know what a "poll tax" is, so let's review: A poll tax is an inherent pre-condition of the exercise of the capacity to vote.

A little American history lesson will tell us the under the 15th Amendment (1870) gave the ability to vote to all races, yet Southern States placed many “poll tax” laws to restrict eligible voters from their right to vote.

Some of these restrictions allowed only adult males, mostly white, whose father or grandfather had voted in a previous election prior to the 13th Amendment (1865 - Abolition of slavery), without having to pay a tax.

These poll taxes effectively prohibited Poor Whites, Native Americans and African Americans.

Poll taxes stood in place around the Nation close to 100 years until 1964 when the 24th Amendment was ratified and stated:

So here we are, some 50 years later, debating who is eligible and non-eligible all over again.

Now there are some State restrictions that determine who cannot vote such as most States restrict voting rights to those that have been convicted of felony crimes like murder for life. But that restriction varies from State to State where as in Washington felons cannot vote while still in prison but in Ohio a convicted felon can register to vote once released.

And while no one under 18 years old cannot vote in a Federal election, some States allow the under 18 year old demographic to vote in State and Local elections.
And currently there is a movement to restrict the mentally ill/mentally handicap from casting a vote in any election.

Ain’t living in a Democracy awesome!

The “Perkins Scenario” is flawed in many ways and I do not see politicians letting 43% of American households, with a wide range in the economic ladder from poor to wealthy, young to elderly, student to business owner lose their right to vote over a tax code that many take advantage of.

In all honestly, I believe we are about 15 years away from a thumb scan voter registration to determine one’s eligibility. But then again I’m positive someone will speak about the ills of such a system as an invasion of privacy act.

That’s it, Slap the Tap on a tall cold Old Chub Scottish Ale and pay your political tab.

Cheers!

The Great Melting Pot: America, America Xenophobia Reign Supreme

In the late 1800’s, Ralph Waldo Emerson coined the phrase the “melting pot” to describe how the mixing of different nationalities of Europe with the current American populace was transforming America with multiple types of religions, race and individualism.

I’ve always loved history and to me one of the greatest topics was learning about was how all those new immigrants, desperately wanting to come to the land of opportunity, seeing the Statue of Liberty for the first time and reading:

And for today’s mindset, that famous phrase should be updated by adding “leave your religious belief and native tongue, to be American you need to speak it or be gone.”

Hm, imagine where many of us would be had our great grandparents had not made that dream trip of freedom of religion and ignorance.

I love the fact that my 7 year old is so enthralled with his family’s heritage. Oh the travel plans of Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Germany are pinned on a map of his youthful bucket list.

Xenophobia is not new to the American mind as even at the beginning of the 1900 and the Industrial Revolution, the fear of losing one’s job to a foreigner caused mass hysteria and myth of one’s race. The mania has only intensified to critical stages on 9/11/01 and has yet begun to lower.

So it does not surprise me that as the Super Bowl played out on Feb 2, people massed together to cheer for either the Broncos or Seahawks and enjoy what has become a bigger spectacle of commercial watching, that some commercials would draw ire of a few.

So, as bored as I was during the game, I took to Twitter and Facebook to read posts of silliness until Coca-Cola aired that horrible commercial of people singing “America the Beautiful” in their native dialect.

How deplorable was it to have people, who want to be part of the “melting pot” society, dare think of singing that song and not in English by far!

Sometimes I wonder how far we’ve come to know how far we’ve fallen. In other words, people need to revisit American history and get some schoolin’.

Many found the commercial uneasy to accept but added “Maybe if they sang it in their new American language it might be acceptable.”

Have we forgotten American Idol contestant William Hung singing “She Bang?”

To borrow portions of former Rep Allan West’s online response to the commercial:
“Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or leave the country.”

Many families have that one or more members that speak in their native immigrant tongue. I know I still have a few members that speak fluent Italian daily with broken English second. More people complain about those of Latino nationality not learning/speaking English but turn blind eye to the Italian or Asian or German that speak native tongue

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn’t doing his part as an American”

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of accents as well. If there’s anything that annoys me more are accents. New Yorkers, Yinzers, Northwestern accents, get rid of them all. All those living in heritage communities; Latino, Chinatown, Germantown and so forth, drop your accents and your ancestral beliefs. Everyone shall now speak identically in monotone voice fashioned after Ben Stein and for that matter dress akin as in some Utopian-style life like Logan’s Run while changing their last name to either Smith or Jones.

Will that make everyone happy?

Within the realm of recent American history and remembering that many immigrants, without a syllable of English when they arrived have become titans of industry, created jobs and not once thinking differently of whom they employ.

Sergey Brin (Russian) – Founder of Google; Alexander Graham Bell (Scottish) – AT&T; Maxwell Kohl (German) – Kohl’s Department Store; Pierre Omidyar (French) – Ebay

Let’s not forget how would one pop a Viagra pill for a booty call without Germany’s Charles Pfizer?

How long did it take you to learn a foreign language? 3 high school semesters and I bet you weren’t even fluent in that language

It seems rather selfish when we must consider that we, as a nation are not a purebred nation, we are the definition of mutts.

Then again, life in the US would be healthier without allowing Justin Bieber a US work visa.

That’s it, instead of slapping the tap, this one time only, I’m pouring a tall glass of Cap’n & Coke. So pay your political tab in yen or rubles, but leave the loon at home.

Cheers