Running to Forget (the Bush Administation)

I really enjoy the visual image presented in the “Running to Forget” ad that the misnamed “Americans for Job Security” has been has been running. 

 What’s not to like about an image of a young, attractive, “mom” in a $200 jogging suit, jogging down a tree-lined suburban street, while pushing “her child” in a $500 jogging stroller?

The voice-over message, however, is quite unsettling. The voice states:

“I run to forget. Forget about my problems. Forget that my husband’s been laid off twice in the last four years. Forget the bad economy. I voted for Obama, but Hope and Change was just a slogan. Obama promised to turn the economy around in three years. But, spending and debt have exploded. Now we’re facing another recession. The future is getting worse under Obama.”

“Americans for Job Security is responsible for the contents of this Message.”

I have no idea how many “takes” were required to “film” the commercial, but the baby hired to play the role of the woman’s “child” appears to be very uncomfortable in the "establishing shot." It appears that she was attempting to slide out of the stroller to get away. 

Who can blame the baby? She's been placed in a jogging stroller, sent hurtling down a street she’s never seen before, being pushed by some unknown abductor, with her real mommy nowhere in site. She has every right to be terrified.

Now, I don’t blame the woman who was hired to play the “jogging mom.” She had her own acting to do. Her view of the baby was obstructed, and she had no idea the baby was terrified. The production crew, however, should have stepped in to comfort and protect the child. But, I suppose they thought a “terrified child” made for a better ad.

If the baby had heard the voice-over message, and was able to understand it, I suspect she would have been even more terrified.

After all, in just four years of “running to forget,” her “mommy” had already forgotten about the Bush administration which helped push our nation’s slide into the Great Recession. She’d forgotten how President Bush started two expensive wars, while, for the first time in our nation’s history, giving huge tax cuts to the very wealthy.

Had the child heard the message, she might have been very concerned about what would happen to her when she turns four. Will her “mommy” forget about her, too?

Yet, the ad hits a number of Republican "talking points." It implies that the child is a product of a “traditional” one-man, one-woman, family unit. It dismisses “Hope and Change” as just a slogan. It reminds us that President Obama promised “to turn the economy around in three years.” And, it reminds us that “Spending and Debt have exploded.”

Personally, I liked President Obama’s “Hope and Change” campaign slogan. It showed that he was looking forward with optimism for our nation’s future, after a truly depressing Bush administration. I think President Obama has done a remarkable job, despite being obstructed at every turn by a Republican Congress more intent on pushing Grover Norquist’s agenda, than an agenda for recovery, such as the one which President Obama laid out.

President Obama set a challenging goal of turning the economy around in his first term. And, he has done a remarkable job of stabilizing a nation which had been hurtling uncontrollably toward total financial collapse. He managed – with absolutely no help from a Republican Congress – to pull our nation out of its tailspin. He deserves our thanks for what has been accomplished, rather than the Republican scorn for failing to reach the challenging goal he set.

If it had been up to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, our nation (and GM), would have been allowed to go bankrupt, eliminating all those pesky middle class jobs and the future economic security of those workers. Going bankrupt would have allowed good private companies, such as Bain Capital, to swoop in and buy up our nation’s assets for pennies on the dollar. Imagine the profits to be made by “flipping” our country and selling it – in pieces – to the highest bidders. If selling their PC business to the Chinese was good for IBM, imagine how good it would be for Bain to sell off our nuclear technology to the Chinese also.   

But, seriously, one can only wonder how far our nation might have come in the last four years, if only Republicans had supported our nation’s President during a time of war, rather than following Grover Norquist’s plan to destroy the United States. It’s no wonder Michele Bachmann suspected some in Congress were unpatriotic.

Yes. Spending and debt have exploded. And, despite the denial of Republicans – amplified by Fox News, their 24x7 propaganda channel - this started under President Bush. It turns out that President Bush’s two expensive wars, while also giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy, was not a good way to reduce spending and hold down debt.

Democrats have long been accused of being the “tax and spend” party, as if that was a bad idea. Now that we’ve seen the Republican trickle-down approach, combined with their more traditional “cut taxes, spend and borrow” approach (which leaves the debt for future generations), which seems to be the more honest approach to you?

I can understand the statement that “the future is getting worse under Obama.” From the standpoint of the wealthy businessmen who produced this ad, it's very true. The future does look worse, much worse – for them, not for our nation - under President Obama. After all, in the wake of the Wall Street scandal which pushed our nation to the brink of financial collapse, President Obama was able to secure much needed regulatory reforms to limit the possibility that Wall Street could do it once again. The future has been getting worse - for those who choose fraud over fair competition.

American’s love to compete and are quite capable of competing with anyone, given a level playing field. Unfortunately, large Corporations and the very wealthy have convinced the Republican Party to tilt the “playing field” in their favor, at the expense of our nation as a whole. President Obama, and the Democratic Party, have started the process of reversing this trend. They want to level the playing field to allow all Americans – not just large corporations and the very wealthy – to compete and succeed. And, if history is an indication, our nation will be much stronger as a result.

Living in a strong, free, nation – one which treats all its citizens fairly and equally – is enough to put a smile on every child’s face.

DISCLAIMER: Jogging is a form of exercise enjoyed by many. The idea, like the other lies told by the misnamed “Americans for Job Security” organization, that jogging somehow causes selective memory loss is FALSE. It’s false, even if Fox News devoted three days of breathless coverage to promote the false claim - including airing interviews with numerous highly paid corporate doctors, who swore that it’s true (Besides, Obamacare would make anyone suffering from selective memory loss stand in endless lines just to get treatment for it. Private health insurance companies will not make patients stand in long lines. They will deny coverage over the phone.). Before starting any exercise program, consult your physician to determine the suitability of the program. As long as your physician is not owned by corporate America, they should be able to honestly evaluate your health and recommend an appropriate exercise routine.

Faulty Logic = Bad Math

In his ad, Congressman John Kline appears in an otherwise empty Metrodome, looks into the camera and tells us that “America’s national debt stands at 16 trillion dollars. It’s the equivalent to selling every seat in the Metrodome, every single day, for nine thousand years.”

It's unknown if Congressman Kline actually paid to rent those empty seats, or if he "borrowed" the Metrodome as a "Congressional Perk."

The announcer in Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s ad tells us that “We all owe it, our portion of the national debt. Each of us owes over fifty thousand dollars to pay it off.” Congresswoman Bachmann then tells us, “I approve this message.”

It's not known if the baby's acting fee will be enough to pay their "debt," or if Congresswoman Bachmann invoked her "Congressional discount" to prevent the baby from joining the annoying middle class.

And, in his ad, Congressman Erik Paulsen, “the Math Guy,” tells us: “The national debt is up ten trillion dollars in 10 years. That’s fifty thousand dollars for every man, woman, and child. That’s unacceptable.”

It's unknown if his daughters were allowed to keep their acting fees for appearing in his ad, or if Congressman Paulsen demanded that they "donate" the funds to his campaign so that they don't learn to demand more "hand-outs" in the future.

These ads continue to drive home the message that the Republican Party has been repeating for almost four years: The deficit is our nation’s biggest problem. The hole President Obama – and all Democrats since the beginning of time - dug in creating it will cost each one of us, our children, and our grandchildren (not to mention their children and their grandchildren) more than $50,000 to pay off. 

(I have no idea why Congressman Paulsen went “off-message” to acknowledge that, perhaps, six years of the deficit might have actually originated during the Bush administration. The official Republican “fantasy” is that the entire budget deficit is the result of President Obama’s "failed policies" – which, for the most part, Republicans blocked him from implementing.)

Anyway, the Republican solution to our “deficit problem” is as it’s been for the last decade or so - take an axe to government programs, and use the money "saved" to provide more tax cuts for the very wealthy. After all, this worked so well during the Bush administration, when Dick Cheney assured us that "deficits don’t matter.”

But, I digress.

The above ads, and the recurring fantasy that “trickle-down economics” is somehow good for our nation, got me thinking. I know that “trickle-down economics” has been very good for the very wealthy, while being devastating for the middle-class and those less fortunate. But, how much does "trickle-down economics" really cost those who the Republican Party refuse to represent? Our nation’s deficit is just one cost. What other costs do Americans of modest means face?

Using the same faulty logic and flawed math demonstrated by Republican Representatives Kline, Bachmann, and Paulsen in their ads, I decided to find out. 

I decided to look at the cost of soda. Like other items in my shopping cart, the cost of soda has continued to rise. So, I looked up the total compensation for all named executives of the Coca-Cola Company (Coke) and PepsiCo (Pepsi).

According to their 2012 proxy statements, the named executives of the Coca-Cola Company (5 of them) received total compensation of $60,437,264 in 2011. The named executives of PepsiCo (6 of them) received total compensation of $63,441,406 in 2011. That’s a total of $123,878,670 for one year, for 11 executives at just two companies.

How that money is supposed to trickle-down into the pockets of “working class” Americans has never been clear to me.

But, using the same faulty logic, and the same bad math, as the three Republican Representatives, I did a bit of my own math. What I found was quite startling:

 

That’s right, at a consumption rate of one two-liter bottle per day, every day, for about 169,000 years, my family might come close to paying the total compensation for 11 top executives, at just two companies, for just one year.

Further, did your compensation go up during the Great Recession? At many large corporations, it sure did -- at least for their Chief Executive Officers.

At Coca-Cola, the CEO received $18,813,013 in 2009, $24,782,017 in 2010, and $29,115,573 in 2011, for a total of $72,710,603 in just three years. At PepsiCo, the CEO received $15,768,350 in 2009, $16,175,381 in 2010, and $17,116,089 in 2011, for a total of $49,059,820 in just three years. I don't know how many employees - if any - were laid off to justify such rewards.

Just like the faulty logic, and "voodoo math," used in promoting trickle-down economics, the faulty logic used in the three ads referenced above leads them to the claim that "every man, woman, and child in America owes over $50,000 to pay off our national debt." Hogwash. It’s our nation’s debt. Our nation is responsible for paying it off. How it chooses to pay is still to be determined. However, if the Republican Party has its way, 98% of the population will have to pay more, so that the favored 2% will be able to pay less.

Similarly, the “logic” used to show how many bottles of soda my family would have to buy to pay for one year of top executive compensation is equally flawed. The respective companies are responsible for compensating their executives, not my family.

In short, no matter how many times a politician, or a news corporation - especially Fox News - presents a “simple common sense solution” (such as Congressman Paulsen’s, “Just spend less”) to a complex issue, you’re probably being lied to. 

In a complex world, there’s no such thing as a "simple solution." No single issue stands alone. Everything is intertwined with something else. Everything has a cost. For each solution, there will be "winners" and "losers." And, just as in our personal lives, to be successful, our nation's leaders must consider numerous trade-offs involved in every decision they make. They should not be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities by signing away their minds to any special interest group. No matter how powerful people such as Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, or the Hunt Brothers might seem, selling out our nation to serve them is not a good idea.

Modern-day Republicans have decided to tip the scales in favor of the very wealthy. And, despite the pain already inflicted, their plan is to continue to do more of the same, no matter what it costs our nation.

Our economy and our nation’s fiscal health will only show significant improvement when a more normal,  balanced, approach is allowed to return.

I implore patriotic Republicans: Tear up the pledges, and start leading for a change. 

DISCLAIMER: I do not directly own any shares of either of the companies named, nor do I plan to acquire any shares in the foreseeable future. I suspect, however, that one of the mutual funds I have probably owns shares of both. Unlike the companies I directly invest in, I have not researched either the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo to make an informed decision regarding the appropriateness of either company for my investment portfolio. If I ever decide to do so, Executive Compensation will be just one of the many variables I will consider.

 

Unbelievable $10 Million Offer

I just heard that a new, up and coming, “reality” TV show star, I think they called her “Baby Boo Boo,” just offered to donate ten million dollars to Governor Mitt Romney’s favorite charity if he will:

“Release at least 10 years of his tax filings, amended tax filings, and copies of all correspondence with the IRS regarding those returns, by 5 PM on Wednesday, October 31, 2012.”

Wow. I know that most reality TV stars are idiots, albeit amply paid idiots, but what was “Baby Boo Boo” thinking?

Governor Romney would never be swayed by a mere ten million dollar offer. He has repeatedly stated that such records are “none of the American people’s damn business.” Apparently, they represent his business “trade-secrets” and releasing them would be like the Coca-Cola Company releasing its formula for Coke.

Besides, “average Americans just aren’t capable of understanding his tax returns.” The rules really are very different for very wealthy Americans. “Less affluent people, commonly referred to as the 98%, give us copies of their tax returns, their bank account statements, and their Facebook passwords, along with anything else we request, so that we can know who we’re dealing with. That’s the way it works; not the other way around – that’s backward.”

Baby Boo Boo should know that. The Governor has spoken. Discussion over. No tax returns. And, it was a courageous decision, according to every Fox News "contributor" who insisted on commenting (at great length).

Still, I can understand why Baby Boo Boo made such an outrageous mistake. She’s locked in a bitter ratings battle with the aging “reality” TV star, Donald Trump.

Just a day or two earlier, with massive media coverage (I understand that Fox News spent some sixteen hours breathlessly covering his “Big Announcement”), Mr. Trump had offered his own challenge to President Obama. He offered to donate five million dollars to President Obama’s favorite charity if, by 5 PM on Wednesday, October 31, 2012, President Obama will:

“Release copies of all his college applications, college records, passport applications, passport records, dog license applications with complete vet records, receipts for all his law school text books, his grade-school report cards, at least 30 years of certified dental exam records, and copies of all electric bills that he – or his mother – personally paid since he was first born in Kenya.”

Quite a list, isn’t it (I never would have believed that Donald Trump could be so subtle).

So, “reality show” fans, regardless of which “star” you like best, the newcomer Honey Boo Boo, or the aging, falling star, Donald Trump, which list - if compiled and released - would provide the best information to the American people?

Actually, that’s a trick question. While Governor Romney could easily release his tax returns if he wanted to; it’s impossible for President Obama to release records which don’t exist.

But, really; Why are we more interested in unreal “reality” show stars than we are in finding ways to work together to secure the best future for ourselves, and the generations to come?

White Supremacy Protection Amendment?

Kalley Yanta, as spokesperson for the misnamed “Minnesota for Marriage” organization is at it again.

In the third ad released as part of their marriage amendment “Vote Yes” campaign, I hear her saying:

“When equal rights for Negroes have been imposed elsewhere, it’s not been “live and let live.” People who believe that Negroes are inferior to Whites have faced consequences.

Small businesses fined. Individuals fired. Charities closed down. Churches sued. Negro equality being taught to young children in elementary school; with parents having no legal right to be notified, or to take their children out of class.

We can prevent this from happening here by voting yes on the White Supremacy Protection Amendment.”

Don’t those words sound ugly? For most Americans (but sadly not all) living in this century, the words are ugly.

Just as the words were ugly back then, they’re especially ugly now. They show how little we’ve progressed in over 200 years as a supposedly free nation, with equal rights for all.

To be sure, Ms. Yanta didn’t use the above words exactly. I like to translate outrageous political ads to reveal their true message.

Illegal discrimination is illegal discrimination – Period.

It just seems so very appropriate to point out how the hateful messages being delivered by Ms. Yanta sound so very similar to the hateful words used by Deep South bigots to oppose equal rights for Blacks. Most Americans (but sadly not all) now know that such ideas are wrong.

On their web site, the misnamed “Minnesota for Marriage” organization posted a convenient “fact sheet” to go along with their third ad. I downloaded a copy for review.

The problem with the ad, and the related “fact sheet,” is that both slant unrelated “facts” to support their agenda. A “no” vote on the marriage amendment will not legalize same-sex marriage – state law already prohibits it. And, a yes vote will not prevent the “consequences” they show in their ad from occurring, as the cases cited were not related to same-sex marriage. Rather, the “consequences” noted came from businesses ignoring existing anti-discrimination laws; and, an employee being fired after violating his employment agreement with a private employer.

In the case of the Catholic Church, they did shut down a couple of their adoption service businesses rather than agreeing to comply with existing laws. Same-sex marriage was not the issue. As was their right, the Church decided to quit that business, rather than to remain in it and obey existing laws.

In short, the ads we’ve seen so far from the misnamed, “Minnesota for Marriage” have been just as false and misleading as any of the ads we’ve seen during this political cycle. But then, I would expect that, as the politicians who voted to place this anti-equality amendment on the ballot did so not out of a love for Minnesota, or a love for our nation’s Constitution, but rather in an attempt to secure votes for themselves and their supposedly  “God fearing” political party, by going after a minority group. It’s just wrong on so many levels.  

If it were up to me, all Minnesotans who value the freedom and equality promised by our nation’s Constitution would vote against those politicians who would condone enshrining illegal discrimination in our state’s laws and Constitution, while also voting against the discriminatory amendment they promoted.

There should be consequences for those who attempt to take equal rights away from anyone to satisfy their own political agenda.

Illegal discrimination is illegal discrimination – Period.

Illegal Discrimination is Illegal Discrimination – Period

The misnamed organization, “Minnesota for Marriage,” has been saturating the airwaves with a commercial featuring former TV news anchor Kalley King Yanta asking the question, “Who should decide the definition of marriage.” She goes on to state that they think the people should decide. She urges us to vote “Yes” on the proposed amendment seeking to add discrimination to Minnesota’s Constitution, so that “voters always have the final say.”

The commercial is wrong on so many levels, it’s pathetic.

The United States Constitution has the final say. And, despite the efforts of modern-day Republicans to weaken it, the U.S. Constitution still guarantees freedom and equality for all; not just the wealthy, not just those in the majority, and not just certain religious groups. Freedom and equality for all. Our Constitution exists to protect the rights of everyone.

I always find it annoying when extremist groups adopt a name which attempts to hide their true purpose. Perhaps it’s because a name like “Minnesota for Illegal Discrimination,” while more accurate, just doesn’t sound nice.

It isn’t nice.

A few weeks ago, the group presented a photo-op featuring a variety of religious leaders standing on the steps of the state Capitol encouraging a “Yes” vote on the proposed Constitutional amendment. This was expected. Throughout our nation’s history, many of our most irrational, discriminatory, laws have been promoted by religious leaders.

As recently as the 1960’s there were white churches in the Deep South still preaching that segregation of the races was okay. They had also preached that there was a Biblical basis for slavery, so slavery was okay.

This brings me to Rev. Jerry McAfee, of the New Salem Missionary Baptist Church of Minneapolis. At the Capitol photo-op, he appeared with the rest of the religious leaders urging a “Yes” vote. But, he took it a step further. He stated that it was “an insult” to compare discrimination against same-sex marriage to racial discrimination. He’s quoted as saying “While they certainly have their own rights, to equate it on the same level as a civil rights struggle that my people have gone through? It’s an insult to me." (Added emphasis is mine.)

I nearly went ballistic when I heard this particularly ignorant comment. Here was a black man who is regarded as a “Civil Rights advocate” not only speaking FOR illegal discrimination, but also stating that he was “insulted” that a minority group, with their “own rights” would be demanding rights equal to those of “his people.” Similar words were once heard coming from Southern whites as they sought to maintain illegal segregation, “They are entitled to their own rights. We have given them their own schools. They have their own drinking fountain, and their own bathrooms out back. They have their own seats at the back of the bus. I’m insulted that now they want use the same schools, the same water fountains, the same bathrooms, and the very bus seats reserved for my people.”

Until the U.S. Supreme Court declared such laws unconstitutional in 1967, it was still illegal for couples of different races to marry in 17 states. Those states had defined marriage to be only between same-race couples. Among the arguments used by those states to show that their laws were not discriminatory was similar to one heard today -  Blacks could marry anyone they want to, as long as it was another Black (today’s version: Our laws are not discriminatory, same-sex couples can marry anyone they want, as long as they’re a member of the opposite sex).

Illegal discrimination is illegal discrimination - Period.

A New Pledge of Allegiance?

I used to enjoy attending local Chamber of Commerce meetings, until I finally recognized that we were being used by the national organization to provide unwavering support for Big Business - and to the Republican Party which they have apparently purchased. They were certainly not representing me, or local "Main Street" businesses.

Each Chamber of Commerce meeting started by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. While I've always been a patriotic American, I started to feel uncomfortable reciting the Pledge as part of an organization intent on destroying our nation.

I hate regulations and taxes as much as anyone, but they have never held me back.

I refuse to accept the notion that it's impossible for American businesses to make a profit under what some  call "crushing taxes" and "burdensome regulations." It's been my experience that good, well managed, businesses have always been able to make money in good times and bad, without lying and cheating, or demanding "special favors" from politicians they've "purchased." Many fine businesses have done this year after year. And, they've been able to do this no matter what the tax rate and regulatory climate happens to be.

Our nation is in danger of being destroyed from within. Grover Norquist disciples started two expensive wars under false pretenses (among other things, they lied about finding Weapons of Mass Destruction). They used borrowed money to pay for their wars, along with the tax cuts they gave to our wealthiest citizens, leaving our nation with a massive debt. Big Business doubled down by demanding more government handouts, insisting that they're necessary for them to create new jobs to replace the ones they've cut and sent overseas.

It also hasn't helped that our nation has been fighting a civil war for decades, fueled, in part, by a 24x7 propaganda channel, Fox News, spewing out dogma as if it were fact.

Until recently, I'd never seen much difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans would spend and borrow, while Democrats would spend and tax. More recently, the Grover Norquist disciples have added a whole new obstacle to the success of our nation, by their refusal allow ANY tax hikes, and their refusal to work toward shared solutions to our nation's problems. Only their solution is acceptable - Abolish our Government, turn valuable government programs like Social Security and Medicare over to Big Business, so that they can be killed off as a "business decision" by the private sector. If they achieve their goals, all will be well.

Except it won't.

I'm beginning to suspect that the Republican Party is preparing a new Pledge of Allegiance to be recited at all business meetings. I shutter to think what they might require our school children to recite.

New Pledge of Allegiance

Our nation was built on a foundation of freedom and equality for all. It thrived under people willing to work together to find shared solutions to complex problems. It stagnates and wilts under single-issue politicians, more beholden to special interests than to our nation, who refuse to even look at realistic shared solutions.

The danger is real. Our nation will fail if its future is turned over to an unelected lobbyist, funded and controlled by unknown groups.

Election 2012 - The Choices are Clear

Like the proverbial canary in a coal mine Michele Bachmann tried to provide a warning of the danger facing our nation. First, she questioned whether some members of Congress were being unpatriotic, suggesting that they should be investigated for un-American activities. She followed up with a warning about a terrorist group having infiltrated the highest levels of our government.

Michele Bachmann then falsely accused some innocent individuals. Those of us who know Ms. Bachmann as being an ignorant bird brain (with apologies to Big Bird, and other innocent birds everywhere) quickly dismissed and condemned her unsubstantiated remarks.

In spite of Michele Bachmann’s utter failure to properly identify the source of the danger facing our country, her warnings do have some basis in fact (although as a loyal Fox News viewer she’s incapable of accurately interpreting facts to reach a proper conclusion). Many experts would agree that a terrorist group has infiltrated the highest levels of our government. In fact, the leader of one such group, Grover Norquist, owns the Republican Party. And, they do his bidding – or else…

If all terrorists ran around yelling “Death to America!” as stereotypical foreign terrorists do, identifying those who have infiltrated the highest levels of our government would be easy. But it’s not so easy when the terrorists have been duly elected to serve our nation and choose instead to swear allegiance to a man whose stated goal is “Death to America.” Sure, Mr. Norquist has stated it much more subtly. He states that he only wants to reduce the size of our government to the size where he can “drown it in a bathtub.” It’s a much more subtle message, allowing Republicans to claim that they’re still patriotic Americans.

No matter how he states it, the message is clear – Death to America!

It’s hard to believe that the once proud Republican Party could have sunk so low. I remember when they stood up for America, not aligning their “brand” with a man intent on destroying our nation. Yet, Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, and the vast majority of elected Republicans – and Republicans hoping to be elected, including Mitt Romney - have all signed a pledge to Grover Norquist and his innocently misnamed “Americans for Tax Reform” organization.

Grover Norquist led his Republican disciples to – for the first time in American History – start two expensive wars, without raising taxes to pay for them. Indeed, they took the unprecedented step of also giving wealthy Americans a huge tax cut. They ran up the national debt to finance their wars, then turned around and said that our government must cut popular government programs like Social Security and Medicare because they were too expensive in light of our increasing deficits. Death to America!

When unsustainable healthcare costs were determined to be a threat to our nation and its citizens, Grover Norquist ordered his disciples to obstruct any effort to deal with the issue. Democrats attempted to work with their Republican Party counterparts. They even weakened parts of the Affordable Health Care Act in an attempt to compromise with Republicans. But, Grover Norquist ordered his disciples not to compromise. Such a law, however beneficial to the citizens of our nation, would interfere with his plan to destroy America. Under his direction, not a single Republican voted for this first step at securing America’s future. Death to America!

Like a third world dictator, Grover Norquist has repeatedly directed his Republican Party disciples not to compromise. His orders are to be followed no matter what – or Else.

Under his orders, Republicans have refused to negotiate on many matters of critical national importance. Grover Norquist has given them clear goals to dismantle our government, and because his view is the only correct view, no negotiation is possible. This philosophy led our nation to the brink of defaulting on its obligations, resulting in a first ever downgrading of our nation’s credit rating. The situation could have – and might still, as the Norquist disciples still refuse to negotiate and compromise - led our nation into defaulting on our loans, which could have could have easily cascaded into the total financial collapse of the United States. “Death to America!”

If anyone ever doubted that the Republican Party is owned by Grover Norquist, it was never more apparent during the Republican Presidential debates. At one of the debates, the moderator asked each candidate – including Mitt Romney - if they would accept a deal offering $10 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax hikes. All said “NO.” Grover Norquist wouldn’t allow it. Death to America!

We face serious problems in this nation. Yet, Grover Norquist is only concerned with one thing: Death to America! And, unfortunately, his Republican disciples have determined that this unelected dictator is the holy Savoir needed to lead their party and our nation into the future.

Heaven help us.

Until Republicans – and all politicians – develop enough of a spine to stand up to narrow special interest groups and egomaniacal dictators intent on destroying the United States, our beloved country will continue to be threatened. Further decline will be inevitable. Death to America!

Those politicians – no matter what their political affiliation - who sign pledges to special interest groups – especially terrorist ones - should immediately be disqualified from holding public office. They are incapable of fully representing the citizens of our free nation. If they’re currently holding a government position they should be immediately removed and banned from ever again holding public office.  

This election cycle represents some of the clearest choices I’ve seen in my lifetime. Who do we want to lead our country, President Barack Obama or Grover Norquist? 

President Barack Obama and Grover Norquist

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are irrelevant. They’ve pledged their loyalty to Grover Norquist, and they will do as he tells them – or Else.

The time is now for patriotic Americans to stand up for our country, and make the right choices. Do we want to remain a respected free nation, or do we want to elect surrogates for an unelected dictator intent on destroying our nation? 

Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and the majority of the Republican Party have made their choice. They’ve committed to Grover Norquist as their spiritual leader, and will continue to follow his orders. Death to America!

Patriotic Americans can and should make a different choice. Voters in Wisconsin can make an especially powerful choice when voting. They can vote to prevent Grover Norquist from controlling the Presidency, and they can vote to remove Paul Ryan, a key Norquist disciple, from office. 

Finally, in an appeal to Michele Bachmann, her paranoia, and her misguided religious intolerance, I offer the following to see if she really wants to investigate possible Islamic terrorist infiltration into our government. According to his Wikipedia profile, Grover Norquist co-founded a group called the “Islamic Free Market Institute” (IFMI). The members, sources of funding, and the goals of the IFMI are unclear. It’s also unknown how much money Mr. Norquist might have arranged to be laundered through the IFMI into his misnamed “Americans for Tax Reform” organization to assist him in bringing “Death to America!” 

We’ll probably never know who’s funding Grover Norquist in his quest to destroy our nation. Like Mitt Romney, he’s determined to keep his financial dealings hidden. And, unfortunately, current laws allow both of them to do so. It’s quite amazing. 

God Bless America.

Politicians Who Favor Discrimination

In May, 2011, Minnesota politicians voted to pass a proposed Constitutional Amendment which would deny equal rights to all Minnesota citizens. Past proposed amendments to Minnesota’s Constitution have always sought to expand equal rights, not deny them.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

– George Santayana, 1905

Irrational fear, hatred, and bigotry have left many stains on our nation’s otherwise proud history. What is amazing is that some politicians, in 2011, believe that it’s still alright to vote in favor of discrimination.

The few politicians who were willing to speak openly about their proposed Constitutional Amendment gave the same arguments used by politicians in the 1950s and 1960s as they opposed Equal Rights for Blacks.

There is NO valid state interest in adding discrimination to Minnesota’s Constitution.

It’s important that the names of the politicians responsible for yet another setback in our nation’s long struggle toward true freedom for all be available for generations to come. Their names appear below.

Please do not use this list to harass these poor misguided souls. If you do, you’ve missed the intended message. Help educate them, and hold them accountable, but do not  harass them.

If you happen to meet any of these individuals at a family gathering, a social affair, or in work setting, it might be very appropriate to ask why they support discrimination. Everyone – especially their children and grandchildren – should ask them about their vote.

Listen carefully to their answers. Do they repeat the same irrational reasons given by past opponents to equal rights to justify discrimination? Do they say they are only following their religious teachings? Do they believe that their religious views, no matter how faulty, must be added to our nation’s laws? If so, which religious views? All of them, or just the ones they believe in? Why can’t they see that discrimination harms our nation?

Critical listening and open discussion is needed to shine a light on those who would advocate discrimination. Eventually, all politicians must learn that irrational fear, hatred, bigotry, and discrimination have no place in this great nation. Only then will we have a truly free nation.

In May, 2011, the following Minnesota politicians voted (SF-1308) for a proposed Constitutional Amendment to deny Equal Rights to all:

Rep Jim Abeler (R-Anoka)

Rep Bruce Anderson (R-Buffalo Township)

Rep Diane Anderson (R-Eagan)

Rep Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck)

Rep Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth)

Rep King Banaian (R-St. Cloud)

Rep Bob Barrett (R-Shafer)

Rep Michael Beard (R-Shakopee)

Sen Michelle R. Benson (R-Ham Lake)

Rep Mike Benson (R-Rochester)

Rep Kurt Bills (R-Rosemount)

Sen David M. Brown (R-Becker)

Rep Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan)

Sen John Carlson (R-Bemidji)

Sen Roger C. Chamberlain (R-Lino Lakes)

Rep Tony Cornish (R-Good Thunder)

Rep Roger Crawford (R-Mora)

Sen Gary H. Dahms (R-Redwood Falls)

Sen Theodore J. "Ted" Daley (R-Eagan)

Rep Kurt Daudt (R-Crown)

Rep Greg Davids (R-Preston)

Rep Matt Dean (R-Dellwood)

Sen Al  DeKruif (R-Madison Lake)

Rep Bob Dettmer (R-Forest Lake)

Rep Denise Dittrich (D-Champlin)

Rep Connie Doepke (R-Orono)

Rep Keith Downey (R-Edina)

Rep Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa)

Rep Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton)

Rep Dan Fabian (R-Roseau)

Sen Michelle L. Fischbach (R-Paynesville)

Rep Mary Franson (R-Alexandria)

Rep Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington)

Sen Paul E. Gazelka (R-Brainerd)

Sen Chris Gerlach (R-Apple Valley)

Sen Joe Gimse (R-Willmar)

Rep Steve Gottwalt (R-St. Cloud)

Rep Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe)

Rep Bob Gunther (R-Fairmont)

Rep Tom Hackbarth (R-Cedar)

Sen Dan D. Hall (R-Burnsville)

Rep Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake)

Rep David Hancock (R-Bemidji)

Sen David W. Hann (R-Eden Prairie)

Sen Gretchen M. Hoffman (R-Vergas)

Rep Mary Liz Holberg (R-Lakeville)

Rep Joe Hoppe (R-Chaska)

Sen John Sterling Howe (R-Red Wing)

Rep Larry Howes (R-Walker)

Sen Bill Ingebrigtsen (R-Alexandria)

Sen Michael J. Jungbauer (R-East Bethel)

Rep Andrea Kieffer (R-Woodbury)

Rep Debra Kiel (R-Crookston)

Rep Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake)

Sen Amy T. Koch (R-Buffalo)

Rep Lyle Koenen (D-Clara City)

Sen Benjamin A. Kruse (R-Brooklyn Park)

Rep Morrie Lanning (R-Moorhead)

Rep Ernie Leidiger (R-Mayer)

Rep Mike LeMieur (R-Little Falls)

Sen Ted H. Lillie (R-Lake Elmo)

Sen Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove)

Rep Kathy Lohmer (R-Lake Elmo)

Rep Jenifer Loon (R-Eden Prairie)

Rep Tara Mack (R-Apple Valley)

Sen Doug Magnus (R-Slayton)

Rep Pat Mazorol (R-Bloomington)

Rep Joe McDonald (R-Delano)

Rep Carolyn McElfatrick (R-Deer River)

Rep Carol McFarlane (R-White Bear Lake)

Rep Denny McNamara (R-Hastings)

Sen Geoff Michel (R-Edina)

Sen Jeremy R. Miller (R-Winona)

Rep Mark Murdock (R-Ottertail)

Rep Pam Myhra (R-Burnsville)

Sen Carla J. Nelson (R-Rochester)

Sen Scott J.  Newman (R-Hutchinson)

Sen Sean R. Nienow (R-Cambridge)

Rep Bud Nornes (R-Fergus Falls)

Rep Tim O'Driscoll (R-Sartell)

Sen Gen Olson (R-Minnetrista)

Sen Julianne E. Ortman (R-Chanhassen)

Sen Mike Parry (R-Waseca)

Sen John C. Pederson (R-St. Cloud)

Rep Joyce Peppin (R-Rogers)

Rep Branden Petersen (R-Andover)

Rep Duane Quam (R-Byron)

Sen Claire A. Robling (R-Jordan)

Sen Julie A. Rosen (R-Fairmont)

Rep Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines)

Rep Tim Sanders (R-Blaine)

Rep Joe Schomacker (R-Luverne)

Rep Peggy Scott (R-Andover)

Sen David H. Senjem (R-Rochester)

Rep Ron Shimanski (R-Silver Lake)

Rep Kirk Stensrud (R-Eden Prairie)

Sen LeRoy A. Stumpf (D-Plummer)

Rep Chris Swedzinski (R-Ghent)

Sen Dave A Thompson (R-Lakeville)

Rep Paul Torkelson (R-Nelson Township)

Rep Dean Urdahl (R-Grove City)

Sen Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake)

Rep Bruce Vogel (R-Willmar)

Rep Doug Wardlow (R-Eagan)

Rep Torrey Westrom (R-Elbow Lake)

Sen Pam Wolf (R-Spring Lake Park)

Rep Kelby Woodard (R-Belle Plaine)

Rep Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove)

We must never allow them, or us, to forget. Please share this list of names with everyone who believes in Equal Rights. Post it on your blog or on your social networking site. Make it easy for search engines to find, so that their ancestors will know the truth.

Disgraceful Abuse of Power (Equal Rights In Peril)

My compliments to those Democrats (and one Republican) who stood on the floor of the Minnesota House and spoke so eloquently in support of Equal Rights for all Minnesota citizens.

 

The proposed Constitutional Amendment under "debate" on the House floor - the first ever proposed Constitutional Amendment in Minnesota to deny Equal Rights, rather than expand those rights - perfectly reflects modern-day Republican views and values. They believe that they were elected into office to cut - no matter what the consequences. Throughout this session, they've voted to cut all sorts of programs in this once proud state. They've voted to throw the poor and senior citizens under the bus, so why not vote against Equal Rights for everyone too?

 

The only arguments heard on the House floor by proponents in support of the proposed Constitutional Amendment centered on letting the people vote. The House author of the proposed amendment refused to answer repeated questions about the merits of the amendment or his thinking in authoring it. Instead he kept repeating only his prepared words - that the amendment gives Minnesota voters the opportunity to vote on an existing law. 

 

What a crock of "Bull Whoee." The original law was wrong, and now he wants to enshrine it in Minnesota's Constitution. 

 

Equal Rights are granted by the US Constitution. Revoking them should not be subject to pandering wrong-minded politicians and the bigoted special interest groups who support them. No politician, no special interest group, no group of voters, and no wrong-minded judge should ever be allowed to deny Equal Rights to American citizens.

 

In 2012, Minnesota's voters will, for the first time ever, vote on a Constitutional Amendment to deny Equal Rights to Minnesota citizens.

 

Between now and then, Minnesotans will be bombarded with messages and commercials, both pro and con.

 

I have heard nothing from the Republican majority to indicate why denying Equal Rights to all should be enshrined in Minnesota's Constitution. I've heard nothing to support a legitimate state interest in denying same-sex marriage - in fact, all legitimate evidence supports the benefits of a loving relationship, including relationships between same-sex couples.

 

Shame on Minnesota Republicans. Shame on those equally wrong-minded citizens who elected them.

 

The fight for Equal Rights continues, despite this appalling setback. And, as with all past Equal Rights struggles, this setback will (eventually) be corrected. History shows that Equal Rights will eventually prevail. But, it's unfortunate that the once proud Republican Party has turned its back on Equal Rights, and all this country is supposed to stand for.

 

Shame on you Republican Majority.

Un-Equal Rights Amendment Nearly Set

Last week, the Minnesota Senate voted to add a constitutional amendment to the ballot in 2012. If approved, the amendment would deny equal rights to certain citizens of the state. This week, the Minnesota House is expected to vote to approve placing the measure on the ballot. Minnesota's Governor cannot veto this bone-headed legislation.

I've never been so ashamed of Minnesota's Republicans, and the downward spiral they've been forcing on this once great state.

I listened to a portion of the Senate "debate" (or at least what passes for debate these days). Among the arguments heard supporting the amendment were:

1) It's the "people's right to vote" on such "monumental" issues.

2) Other states have approved similar amendments to their Constitutions.

3) It protects something which has been in effect since the founding of our great nation.

4) It respects and protects our religious traditions. Religious leaders support this.

5) This amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from deciding the issue.

The Republican votes to place this constitutional amendment on the ballot appear to be historic. In reviewing the list of past proposed constitutional amendments (found on the Minnesota Secretary of State's web site), one finds that there have been some civil rights amendments placed on the ballot before. Yet all past proposed civil rights amendments seem to have been designed to promote equal civil rights, not to deny them.

As I reviewed the list of proposed amendments to the Minnesota Constitution, some involving civil rights stood out:

1865 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Rejected)

1867 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Rejected)

1868 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Adopted)

1875 - To authorize the legislature to grant women suffrage in school affairs (Adopted)

1877 - To authorize women to vote in local option elections. (Adopted)

1898 - To permit women to vote for and serve on library boards. (Adopted)

It appears that modern day Republicans have become the southern politicians of past generations, attempting to block equal civil rights at every turn.

When this country was founded, we already had a massive civil rights problem. Our "free" nation allowed slavery. Due to a political compromise designed to appease southern states (and the business interests within those states which "required" slaves in order to run viable, profitable, businesses) slavery was partially enshrined within the US Constitution. Slavery was not only allowed, but slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation purposes and for determining how many representatives each state was allowed in the US House of Representatives.

I won't go into the long struggle to abolish slavery and grant blacks full citizenship, voting rights, and equal rights. There was a Civil War. And, there were many bone-headed politicians, judges, Church leaders, and voters involved who made bad decisions designed to deny equal rights to all American citizens.

The same bigotry and arguments used to deny equal rights to Blacks were also used to deny equal rights to women. Like Blacks, women were deemed to be inferior. They were the "property" of - and must be subservient to - their husbands. Women were "too ignorant" to be allowed to vote.

The absurd arguments continued as each state decided whether or not to allow women to vote. While some states allowed women to vote (either in all elections, or only in some) before then, it took the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution (on August 18, 1920) to secure full voting rights for women in all states (Interestingly, the state many Minnesota Republicans seem to want to emulate, Mississippi, finally voted to ratify the 19th Amendment on March 22, 1984, after originally rejecting it nearly 64 years earlier, on March 29, 1920).

Again, along the way, there were many bone-headed politicians, Church leaders, and voters involved who made bad decisions designed to deny equal rights to all American citizens.

It took a long time, but eventually those who attempted to block equal rights were proved to be totally misguided and wrong. Yet, bone-headed politicians, along with some Churches and hate groups, once again conspire to deny equal rights for all.

The current civil rights struggle is over same sex marriage. Assuming that the Republicans have their way, the current legislation would require that the 2012 ballot have the question "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

In answer to some of the arguments heard in the earlier Senate "debate" on this civil rights matter:

1) It's the "people's right to vote" on such "monumental" issues.

No. Denying civil rights should not be up to the whims - and prejudices - of the voters. Expanding civil rights, when bone-headed politicians refuse to, is valid. But enshrining bigotry, hatred, irrational fear, and discrimination, in our Constitution is wrong.

2) Other states have similar amendments in their Constitutions.

That's no reason to add such an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. Until Republicans took control, I mistakenly believed that Minnesota had higher standards than other states. This legislative session has severely shaken that belief.

3) It protects something which has been in effect since the founding of our great nation.

Past discrimination should not be used to condone current or future discrimination. There is absolutely no state interest in requiring that marriage be limited to being between one man and one woman. Denying equal rights to same sex couples is discriminatory and wrong.

4) It respects and protects our religious traditions. Religious leaders support this.

Again, this is not an argument for amending the Minnesota Constitution. Some churches, and some religious leaders, have repeatedly been proven wrong in some of their teachings (And, it's important to note that some religions still deny equal rights to women). At one point or another religious leaders in various areas promoted the idea that: The earth is flat; The Sun revolves around the earth; Negroes are inferior and should not be allowed their freedom; Negroes should not be allowed to become citizens of this nation; Women are inferior to men, they must obey their husbands, and they must not be allowed to vote; Marriages between those of different religions are wrong and must be banned (even today, in some cultures, persons who ignore such teachings may be put to death); Interracial marriages are wrong and must be banned.

Bone-headed. Extremely Bone-headed.

Some Churches, and some religious leaders, still hold to their past misguided teachings. Minnesota's laws - our Nation's laws - must not be based on the misguided teachings of any Church, religious leader, or politician. There is no valid state reason to deny same-sex couples to right to marry.

5) This amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from deciding the issue.

This is so wrong. In recent years, Republicans have labeled any court decision that they didn't like as being the work of "activist judges." This is appears to have been designed to further erode public trust in government, laws, and the courts. Sure, there have been bone-headed decisions handed down by judges over the years. Yet, eventually the courts and/or the people have come down on the side of equal rights.

While it's far too early in this century to declare same-sex marriage as "The civil rights issue of the century," it's shaping up as such. And, Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue.

With this bone-headed and embarrassing constitutional amendment (apparently) heading to the voters, I can think of three constitutional amendments I'd like to substitute:

1) Any individual, or leadership of a group, who conspire to release a misleading, inaccurate, or false campaign ad (or issues oriented ad), shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by not less than 10 years in prison and not less than a $50,000 fine. Upon conviction, they shall permanently banned from holding elective office and voting in any election.

Rationale: To reduce or eliminate the number of false or misleading "attack ads" run during political campaigns. We don't allow businesses to run false or misleading ads to sell their products. Such ads shouldn't be allowed to "sell" politicians either. We cannot have respect for our elected representatives if they're elected on lies and misrepresentations. We need to "raise the bar" and not allow our representatives to start lying the minute the campaign starts. If they "approve" a false or misleading ad they're subject to felony arrest. If a special interest group, an "independent PAC," or even a single individual, runs a false or misleading ad, those responsible are subject to felony arrest. The stakes for the nation are just too big to continue to ignore fraudulent ads.

2) Any individual who signs or otherwise pledges their loyalty to any special interest group, regarding any issue likely to be considered as part of their elected duties, shall be permanently banned from holding elective office (Federal, State or Local) representing the people of Minnesota. If they are currently holding elective office, they shall be immediately terminated. The vacant office shall be filled as provided by law.

Rationale: Too many politicians have been compromised by pledges made to special interest groups. As such, they are incapable of representing the people of Minnesota. Like judges, we must expect our politicians to listen to all sides of an issue, and attempt to find the best solution to each. They must not prejudge the merits of any issue. They must not simply represent special interest groups. We must demand better of those who hold elective office.

3) Any politician who votes to restrict civil rights and equality for any Minnesota citizen without demonstrating a clear legitimate state interest for doing so, shall forever be banned from holding elective office (Federal, State or Local) representing the citizens of the state of Minnesota. If the politician currently holds such an elective office, they shall be immediately terminated. The vacant office shall be filled as provided by law.

Rationale: This country was built on the concept of "liberty and justice for all." Hatred, bigotry, irrational fear, or misguided religious beliefs should not be allowed to enter the Constitution or laws of the State of Minnesota. Any politician who facilitates any effort to limit equal civil rights, and equality under the law, should not be allowed to hold elective office representing the citizens of the State of Minnesota.

In spite of years of Republican statements denying it, Minnesota has been a great state to live and work. While it's suffered from years of bone-headed Republican support for only the state's wealthiest five percent of the population, and a misguided belief that honest negotiation and compromise are wrong, it still may eventually return to its former glory. Cutting programs, jobs, and safety nets for our poor and elderly won't accomplish this. Nor will simply raising taxes. A compromise of carefully cutting some programs, and adding some taxes would start us in the right direction.

Boneheaded adherence to special interest groups demanding divisive and discriminatory "social issue" legislation is not the way to go. It's 2011, Republicans. It's time to stop repeating the sins of the past.