Archive for November, 2011

Green 960 KKGN moves to Siberia

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

CLEAR CHANNEL is shuffling the lineups at its Talk stations in SAN FRANCISCO, and the net effect is the move of the liberal “Progressive Talk” format presently on Talk KKGN-A (GREEN 960) to the HD-2 channel of Oldies KKSF (OLDIES 103.7), with call letter changes and programming swaps on the two AMs.

After the JANUARY 3rd changes, Talk KNEW-A (FOX NEWSRADIO 910 AM) will retain its format but pick up the new calls KKSF-A and the slogan “SAN FRANCISCO’S TALK 910 KKSF.” ARMSTRONG AND GETTY will continue to be simulcast in morning drive with sister Talk KSTE-A/SACRAMENTO, followed by DIAL GLOBAL’s CLARK HOWARD 10a-noon, FOX NEWS RADIO’s TOM SULLIVAN noon-3p, and what is being billed as “The BAY AREA’s Only Live and Local Afternoon Drive Talk Show” in the 3-6p slot, with a talent search currently underway for the slot.

What is now KKGN-A (GREEN 960) will pick up the FOX NEWS RADIO affiliation and KNEW-A calls, and will pick up PREMIERE’s GLENN BECK for mornings (presently noon-3p on 910 AM), syndicated DAVE RAMSEY 9a-noon (also from 910 AM), PREMIERE’s RANDI RHODES remaining from the GREEN lineup for noon-3p, and FOX’s JOHN GIBSON moving over from afternoons on 910 to the same slot on 960.

The current KKGN lineup, including DIAL GLOBAL’s STEPHANIE MILLER and THOM HARTMANN, PREMIERE’s RHODES (simulcast with 960), and syndicated NORMAN GOLDMAN, will be heard (as “FM PROGRESSIVE TALK”) on KKSF-FM-HD-2 and online.

Dir./Operations DON PARKER said, “SAN FRANCISCO has a long heritage of great Talk programming and talent. We saw the opportunity to expand our footprint in this crucial arena as we head into an election year and a population increasingly engaged in local, state, and national events and activism. ‘SAN FRANCISCO’S TALK 910 KKSF’ will provide a forum for lively debate from a variety of perspectives, anchored by our successful morning team of ARMSTRONG & GETTY and more live, local focus in afternoon drive.”

Story is located here

You cannot do these things if you are a Jehovah’s Witness

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011
  • Belong to another organization or club for the purpose of socializing with nonbelievers
  • Have best friends and activity buddies who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses. See Friendship with Non-believers
  • Consider the viewpoints of Jehovah’s Witnesses who leave the organization. See Apostate Lies
  • Associate with people outside their organization when it is not necessary
  • Attend social functions sponsored by their employer unless attendance is required
  • Associate with coworkers after business hours in a social settings
  • Disagree with their organization’s rules and code of conduct.
  • Disagree with their organization’s doctrines. See Can Jehovah’s Witnesses Disagree?
  • Unless they’re an Elder, Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot read this book: ‘Shepherd the Flock of God’ – 1 Peter 5:2
  • Contribute to the Presidential Campaign Fund on their tax return
  • Join the armed forces and defend their country
  • Say the Pledge of Allegiance
  • Salute the flag
  • Vote
  • Run for leadership in their organization
  • Run for leadership in any organization
  • Take a stand for any political issue inside their organization
  • Take a stand on any political or ‘worldly’ issue outside of their organization
  • Campaign for a political candidate
  • Hold political office
  • Discuss politics
  • Be a union steward or shop steward
  • Actively be involved in a union strike
  • Use a gun for protection against humans
  • Become a police officer if a gun is required
  • Wear military uniforms or clothing associated with war
  • Take yoga classes and practice the discipline of yoga. See Is Yoga For Christians?
  • Smoke tobacco and cigars
  • Work full time selling tobacco and cigars
  • Attend Alcoholics Anonymous
  • Donate blood
  • Have blood transfusions
  • Read books, magazines, publications, and literature from other religions.
  • Buy anything from a church store
  • Buy something at a church garage sale
  • Donate items to a church run store
  • Shop at the Salvation Army
  • Work for the Salvation Army
  • Work for another church
  • Play competitive sports on a school team
  • Play competitive sports professionally
  • Run for class president
  • Become a cheerleader
  • Go to the school prom or school dance.
  • Attend class reunions
  • Be hypnotized
  • Accept Jesus as their mediator, 1 Timothy 2:5. See Mediator
  • Join the Boy Scouts
  • Join the Girl Guides
  • Join the YMCA
  • Serve on jury duty
  • Study psychology, philosophy, sociology, and viewpoints that might shake their faith
  • Attend other Christian churches
  • Attend nondenominational churches
  • Attend non Christian churches
  • Get married in another church
  • Dating non believers is discouraged
  • Casual dating is discouraged
  • Dating someone without the intent of getting married
  • Having sex before marriage
  • Breaking an engagement, separation, and ‘unscriptural’ divorce may result in disciplinary action
  • Marriage to non believers is not recommended
  • Be gay or lesbian. Homosexuality is not acceptable.
  • Throw rice at a wedding
  • Get divorced unless the reason is adultery
  • Can’t remarry unless their ex commits fornication first
  • Toast drinks
  • Buy a raffle ticket
  • Play bingo
  • Gamble
  • Sing any holiday songs
  • Sing the National Anthem.
  • Celebrate Christmas – Why?
  • Celebrate New Years Eve – Why?
  • Celebrate Easter – Why?
  • Celebrate Mother’s Day – Why?
  • Celebrate Father’s Day
  • Celebrate birthdays – Why?
  • Celebrate Thanksgiving
  • Celebrate Flag Day
  • Celebrate Veteran’s Day
  • Celebrate Independence Day. Why?
  • Celebrate Saint Patrick’s Day
  • Celebrate Valentine’s Day
  • Celebrate Halloween – Why?
  • Celebrate Hanukkah
  • Accept holiday gifts – Why?
  • Celebrate any holiday except the death of Jesus – Why?
  • Partake in the bread and wine that represents Christ unless they are part of the 144,000
  • Make holiday artwork for school
  • Engage in holiday parties at school
  • Take on a leadership role in school
  • Porneia
  • Do suggestive and immodest dancing in a public place
  • Attend a class, workshop, or seminar, sponsored by another church
  • Attend social events or fund raisers sponsored by another church
  • Use of bad language (curse words) is discouraged
  • Wear blue jeans, shorts, and overly casual clothing at the Kingdom Hall. See Dress Code
  • Wear pants at a Kingdom Hall if you’re a woman
  • Wear revealing clothes or skirts that are too short (looked down upon)
  • Wear long hair or facial hair if you’re a man (depends on the local customs of the country you live in)
  • Body piercings are discouraged
  • Tattoos are discouraged
  • State or imply that the Watchtower is not run by Jehovah God.
  • Have discussions and express Bible based viewpoints that contradict the organization’s beliefs
  • Say anything negative about their organization. JW’s must ‘speak in agreement’ and be ‘like-minded’.
  • Consider other religious beliefs as valid and truthful.
  • Acknowledge any prayer spoken by a non believer as valid
  • Take another Jehovah’s Witness to court (with exceptions)
  • Wear or own a cross
  • Own any religious picture
  • Own any religious statue
  • Engage in idolatry
  • Believe in miracles (except those found in the Bible) See Miracles
  • Believe in ghosts
  • Witchcraft
  • Black magic
  • White magic
  • Consult with a psychic or become one
  • Study tarot cards, get a reading or give a reading
  • Study numerology or get a reading
  • Dabble in ESP (extrasensory perception), dowsing, or divination
  • Use a tool such as a pendulum to access information from the spiritual realm
  • Attempt to communicate with departed spirits
  • Attend a seance
  • Believe in good luck or say things such as ‘Good luck to you’. Why?
  • Believe in anything superstitious
  • Prophesy
  • Speaking in tongues
  • Laying on of hands
  • Energy healing such as Reiki
  • Read their horoscope
  • Study astrology or zodiac signs
  • Combat training, boxing, or martial arts
  • Go to heaven unless they are part of the 144,000 ( 144000 )
  • Worship Jesus as God
  • Idolize any celebrity or love and admire them to excess
  • Women can’t be elders
  • Women can’t be ministerial servants (assistants to the elders)
  • Divulge secret information to enemies and those not entitled to know. See Theocratic Warfare
  • Greet or talk with disfellowshipped persons (with some exceptions)
  • Associate with disfellowshipped persons except for immediate family living in the same house
  • Keep secrets from the organization. Jehovah’s Witnesses report friends and family members breaking the rules
  • Story is located here

    Facts of Mormonism

    Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they believe your Church is wrong, your Christian creeds are abomination to God, and you pastor or Priest is a hireling of Satan.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that there is salvation only in their church – all others are wrong.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that those who have been through their temples are wearing secret underwear to protect themselves from “evil”. This “evil” includes non – Mormons like you.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU about their secret temple rites at all. If they did, you would spot them as non Christians immediately.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they think “familiar spirits” are good, and that their Book of Mormon has a “familiar spirit”. Leviticus 19:31 says familiar spirits defile one, and are to be avoided at all costs.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that women receive salvation only through their Mormon husbands, and must remain pregnant for all eternity.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they intend to be gods themselves some day, and are helping to earn their exaltation to godhood by talking to you.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they intend to have many wives in heaven, carrying on multiple sex relations throughout eternity, until they have enough children to populate their own earth, so they can be “Heavenly Father” over their own planet!

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that you were once a spirit – child of their heavenly father, and one of his numerous wives before you were born on earth.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the Virgin Mary really wasn’t a virgin at all but had sex relations with their heavenly father to produce the Mormon version of Jesus Christ

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they believe Jesus had at least three wives and children while he was on this earth.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the “heavenly father” they ask you to pray to with them, is really an exalted man that lives on a planet near the star base Kolob, and is not the Heavenly Father of the Bible at all.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that Jesus was really Lucifer’s brother in the spirit world, and it was only due to a “heavenly council” vote that Jesus became our redeemer instead of Satan!!

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that there are over one hundred divisions in Mormonism. They conveniently “forget” this while criticizing the many denominations within the body of Christ

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that all their so- called scriptures such as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and even their official “Mormon Doctrine” statements contradict each other on MAJOR doctrinal points. The King James Bible is likewise contradicted.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the reason the Book of Mormon has no maps is because there is not one scrap of archaeological evidence to support it!

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that the state of Utah, which is predominately Mormon, has a higher than the national average of wife-beating, child abuse, and teenage suicide.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their prophet Joseph Smith was heavily involved in the occult when he founded Mormonism.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that that they encourage visitations from dead relatives from the “spirit world”, a practice forbidden in the Bible. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12.)

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that there are many accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision besides the one they present to you, and all are different

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their secret temple oaths are based on the Scottish Rite Masons.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that before 1978 they considered the Negro race inferior, and even one drop of Negro blood prevented a person from entering their priesthood.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they expect Christ to return to their temple in Missouri, but they haven’t built the temple He’s supposed to return to, because they don’t own the property. (It is owned by the “Temple Lot Mormons” who have plans of their own, and won’t let the Salt Lake City group buy it).

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they consider the Bible to be untrustworthy and full of errors.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that Jesus’ death on the cross only partially saves the believer.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that that according to Anton Lavey’s Satanic Bible, the demon god of the living dead is called “Mormo”. Is it just a coincidence that the Mormons are so concerned with the dead?

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that on their Salt Lake City Temple they prominently display an upside-down star which is a Satanic symbol known as the Goat’s head. Why?

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that they believe the Archangel Michael came down to earth with several of his celestial wives, and became Adam in the garden of Eden.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that that they believe the angel Gabriel came down to earth and became Noah in the days of the flood.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their Prophet Joseph Smith prophesied falsely many times. For example, he foretold the second coming of Christ for 1891. The Bible teaches that one false prophecy puts the prophet under death sentence. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that their Prophet Joseph Smith did not die as a martyr as they claim, but was killed during a gun battle in which he himself killed two men and wounded a third.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which they brutally murdered an innocent wagon train of settlers, of over one hundred men, women, and most of the children, traveling through Utah.

    MORMONS WON’T TELL YOU that Joseph Smith taught that there were inhabitants on the moon, and Brigham Young taught there were inhabitants on the sun as well!

     Story is located here

    The many Gods that we acknowledge every day

    Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

    Picture is located here

    Chart showing Federal Tax brackets

    Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

    Story is located here

    Conservative NH Union Leader Publisher Admits Romney Represents The 1%, Obama Represents The 99%

    Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

    Today on Fox News, Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the conservative Union Leader paper in New Hampshire explained why his publication endorsed Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney and admitted that President Obama represents the 99%.

    “We don’t think he’s got it. We think he’s the managerial type, but he’s sort of a blank slate and he’s going to go with the winds too much. I think — and this is crazy, but so are we — that Gingrich is going to have a better time in the general election than Mitt Romney. I think it’s going to be Obama’s 99 [percent] versus the 1 percent, and Romney sort of represents the 1 percent.”

    Story is located here

    The Dark Legacy Of Reaganomics

    Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

    Exclusive: For half a century – from the depths of the Great Depression until the rise of Ronald Reagan – the U.S. government invested in building the nation and funding key research. And the country flourished. But Reagan then reversed those priorities. The results are in, writes Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    It may be political heresy to say so, but a strong case could be made that the greatest American “job creator” over the past 80 years has been the federal government – or put differently, the government built the framework that private companies then used to create profits and jobs.

    This heretical view also would hold that it was Ronald Reagan’s deviation from this formula for success some 30 years ago that put the United States on its current path of economic decline – by starving the government of resources and providing incentives for the rich, through sharply lower taxes, to get super-greedy.

    Story is located here

    A few budgetary facts

    Tuesday, November 29th, 2011
  • FY 2012 spending accounts for about 24% of GDP.
  • The all time high for federal spending is 44% of GDP set during WWII in 1944.
  • During Reagan’s massive spending binges, the federal budget reached 23% of GDP. Slightly lower than it is today. Remember he was a “fiscal conservative” too.
  • Social Security spending accounts for 19% of the federal budget.
  • Military spending accounts for 19% of the federal budget.
  • Medicare spending accounts for 12% of the federal budget.
  • Financing the debt run up by the fiscally conservative Reagan accounts for 6% of the total budget, $242 billion in 2012.
  • Fiscally conservative Reagan increased federal spending by 21.5% and increased the budget deficit by 89.2% in 8 years.
  • Clinton increased federal spending by 12.4% and turned Reagan’s deficit into the largest budget surplus in history.
  • Fiscally conservative George W. Bush increased federal spending by 32.2%. He wiped out the budget surplus he inherited and turned it into a whopping $1.5 trillion deficit in 8 years.
  • Barack Obama has increased spending by 8% in two years. The deficit has shrunk from $1.5 trillion when he entered office to $1.2 trillion for FY12.
  • Story is located here

    John Hinkley Jr. was the son of an oilman who was mad that tax breaks for oil companies was going to be stopped…by….Reagan

    Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

    So…..Reagan would not have been approved by this Grover Norquist Republican party at all as he was removing this tax break.

    Candidate Ronald Reagan was opposed to tax breaks for the oil companies and this pissed off Texas oilmen such as John Hinckley, Sr., as well as a friend of his who was running against Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush. John Hinckley, Sr., worked hard rounding up other Texas oilmen to get behind the Bush campaign and defeat Reagan.

    Hinckley and Bush may have discussed the topic, maybe not, when they and their spouses dined together, which they did on numerous occasions. If so, the anti-Reagan diatribes would have been pretty heated, because guys in Hinckley’s business at Hinckley’s level aren’t known for holding back. The abuse they unleashed in their own homes and clubs against Ronald Reagan, as the Hollywood cowboy swept through the primaries, must have made Reagan’s ears burn.

    Story is located here

    The GOP’s dual trigger nightmare in one graph…or…the Super Committee failure is the best thing that could have happened

    Tuesday, November 29th, 2011

    On Wednesday, I posted a column about the GOP’s dual-trigger nightmare: the prospect that deficit reduction would now take place through a combination of the supercommittee’s $1.2 trillion spending trigger and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. That would cut the deficit by $5 trillion — actually, $6 trillion, once you include reduce interest payments — but in a vastly more progressive fashion than either party has even considered proposing. To get a sense of how progressive, here’s a graph comparing the spending cuts and tax increases in all of the major deficit-reduction packages proposed thus far. (Note: I’m measuring revenues against the tax code as it it is right now, and I’m not including savings on interest payments.)

    Story is located here

    Joe Scarborough Destroys Newt Gingrich’s ‘Conservative Principles’

    Monday, November 28th, 2011

    Co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough basically took turns basting Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in their own juices all morning, but it was Scarborough who effectively composed the Romney campaign’s next attack ad for them by rattling off a litany of Gingrich heresy.

    “The Manchester Union Leader must have gone on and said that the principle, the conservative principle he stood on was calling Paul Ryan’s budget plan radical right-wing social engineering,” Scarborough began, but he wasn’t done by a damn sight.

    Scarborough went on to list Gingrich’s support for the unfunded $7 trillion Medicare D program, “amnesty for illegals,” and mandatory health insurance (with an assist from Mark Halperin). He ticked off Gingrich’s ties to Freddie Mac, his anti-global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi, and finished with a two-fer, saying that Gingrich “flip-flops more than Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney should have a contest. I’m so dizzy.”

    There are probably a lot of conservatives who will dismiss Scarborough as a RINO, as they often do when they want to protect whatever delusion they’re nursing, but they’re not really the key audience for this, anyway. Joe Scarborough wields considerable influence in Washington, DC, both with the media and within the political bubble. He may be telling conservatives things that they don’t want to hear, but you can bet the other candidates are listening, and taking notes.

    Story is located here

    Debunking the Republican lies about Social Security and Ronald Reagan

    Monday, November 28th, 2011

    “Ponzi scheme!”, “bankrupt”, “liberal conspiracy”. These are terms you often hear from the Republication party and wing nut conservatives when describing the social security program. The issue with those terms is that they’re all false. Whether it’s your conservative uncle around the dinner table, big mouth blowhards like Rush Limbaugh or the Tea Party members of congress, these flat-out lies are being spewed across the country. Social security is important in people’s lives, especially retirees who rely on these benefits. Social security is not part of the budget and doesn’t contribute one nickel to the national debt. Social security is part of a payroll tax, which is 100% solvent until the year 2037, and can pay out over 80% of the benefits until 2085. Social security, from its creation under one of our countries greatest presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has been one of the most successful programs the government has ever provided its people.

    While social security is solvent for the short-term, there are long-term issues with the program that stem from situations that occurred over thirty years ago. In the 1980s, Republican President Ronald Reagan cut tax rates drastically. In 1980 the top tax rate was 70%, which was cut to 50% by 1984 and finally down to 28% by the time Reagan left office in 1988. The term “Reaganomics” was the economic system that Reagan used with the idea of giving wealthy people more money that they would then turn into jobs. This of course hasn’t exactly worked, with the drastic cuts in taxes, primarily for the rich and top tax bracket, Reagan needed a way to make up for the loss in revenue. Reagan tripled the debt, in fact congress rose the debt limit 18 times during his presidency without hesitation. With the lack of revenue coming into the government, Reagan needed a way to keep his fiscal house in order. In addition to raising the debt limit, Reagan also raised taxes multiple times on the middle class, a big no-no in the current Republican party. In order for Reagan to keep the nations debt from exploding out of control was what he did to social security.

    Story is located here

    24 Policies That Republicans Supported BEFORE They Were Against Them

    Monday, November 28th, 2011

    Since President Obama took the oath of office in January 2009, Republicans have reversed their stances on many different policies and beliefs. Here are 24 of them.

    Story is located here

    Understanding The History And Purpose Of FOX News

    Monday, November 28th, 2011

    You’d think a thing like FOX couldn’t happen in the United States. Although they’re free to be crazy and free to support the Republican Party, you’d think Americans would be too smart to fall for the made-up outrages, dishonest reporting and relentless appeal to our meaner nature. Unfortunately, many Americans are not as smart as we used to assume: a huge swath of Americans (especially elderly white Southerners) believe FOX is just another news media outlet. They aren’t.

    What is FOX? Pensitore Review (8-18-09) pulled no punches in answering that question: “ FOX News is indisputably the most popular cable news channel. And yet in 13 years, Fox has never broken a story. That’s okay, because it is not in the news business. It is in the news-shaping business. Its programming is an admixture of right-wing propaganda and fear-porn for feeble-minded paranoiacs, served up by spokesmodels who have no clue what they are reading.”

    Story is located here

    The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

    Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

    Capital gains are the key ingredient of income disparity in the US- and the force behind the winner takes all mantra of our economic system. If you want even out earning power in the U.S, you have to raise the 15% capital gains tax.

    Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation’s earners- rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%- about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million- are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

    It’s crystal clear that the Bush tax reduction on capital gains and dividend income in 2003 was the cutting edge policy that has created the immense increase in net worth of corporate executives, Wall St. professionals and other entrepreneurs.

    The reduction in the tax from 20% to 15% continued the step-by-step tradition of cutting this tax to create more wealth. It had first been reduced from 35% in 1978 at a time of stock market and economic stagnation to 28% . Again 1981, at the start of the Reagan era, it was reduced again to 20%- raised back to 28% in 1987, on the eve of the October 19 232% crash in the market. In 1997 Clinton agreed to reduce it back to 20%, which move was an inducement for the explosion of hedge funds and private equity firms- the most “rapidly rising cohort within the top 1 per cent.”

    Story is located here

    Also posted here

    The Obama Stimulus was not a failure at all

    Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

    We as now know, the economy was in far worse shape when President Obama took office than anyone had anticipated. And because of our collective underestimate, the stimulus package passed in 2009 was smaller than it should have been.

    With that said however, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (stimulus), is still stimulating the economy more than one year after its expiration in early 2010.

    The stimulus was not a failure.

    Story is located here

    Perry Promises To End Civilian-Controlled Military

    Monday, November 21st, 2011

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) has staked his presidential hopes on a radical revamping of Washington’s political structure, reshaping the tax code, making the legislature part-time, enacting term limits on the Supreme Court, and closing multiple government agencies.

    Perry took his radical new vision for America to a new level last night at the Iowa FAMiLY Leader presidential forum. Going against the Constitution, centuries of American history, and the wishes of our nation’s founders, Perry claimed that the United States military should not be “micromanaged” by civilians and needed military commanders to be “truly in charge”:

    By design, the U.S. military has always been under civilian control. While the president acts as the military’s civilian commander-in-chief, Congress has the Constitutionally-mandated authority to apportion military funding and approve any declaration of war. The military’s nuclear weapons, meanwhile, are owned and controlled by the civilian Department of Energy (which Perry, incidentally, wants to abolish).

    The civilian structure of the military Perry has no use for wasn’t an accident — it is the norm in liberal democracies and what America’s Founding Fathers wanted. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, “Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it.” The founders feared giving too much power to military could lead to an oppressive federal government, the specter of which Perry has built his entire political ideology against.

    Not only is Perry’s Constitutional history lacking, but his knowledge of current events is too. American military commanders — whom Perry asserts aren’t currently in charge — back the timetable to begin removing troops from Afghanistan at the end of the year.

    Story is located here

    “NOT DISAPPOINTED BY PRESIDENT OBAMA” by JAKE LAMAR

    Sunday, November 20th, 2011

    On October 8, 2011, Democrats Abroad France held an event titled “Voices for Obama” at the Nikki Diana Marquandt Gallery in Paris. One of the speakers was the American author Jake Lamar. This clip is a shortened version of his talk. (Recorded at the Atelier de la Main d’Or, October 2011.)

    Video is located here

    Excessive CEO Pay and Job Losses: Are They Linked?

    Saturday, November 19th, 2011

    Responding to Mitt Romney’s 59-point plan to kick-start the economy if he is elected president, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote recently: “Remember, corporations are now showing record profits. They’re sitting on $2 trillion of cash. Why it is Romney believes they need more money and lower costs in order to create jobs is one of the wonders of the universe.”

    Reich’s pithy point suggests another possible explanation for the stagnant job market: Corporate greed — or, to be more specific, greed on the part of those who run large corporations.

    It was international news when Bank of America proposed — and this week backed away from — a $5 monthly fee on debit cards. But it created only a ripple in the financial press when Kenneth D. Lewis, the ousted Bank of America chief executive officer, took pension benefits estimated at $53 million with him when he left in 2009. Earlier this year, Brian Moynihan, Lewis’ replacement at CEO, and three other executives were awarded about $33 million in stock. (One of those executives, Thomas Montag, who came to Bank of America in the merger with Merrill Lynch, was paid $29.9 million in total compensation in 2009.)

    Shortly after the stock bonuses were paid in 2011, the financial giant began effecting layoffs: 2,500 at first; then an announced 3,500 in the third quarter of the year. Then, in September, the bank announced that it had plans to shed some 30,000 jobs — 10 percent of its worldwide workforce.

    “Mind you this is the financial giant that paid its global banking and markets president nearly $30 million dollars last year — and this year turned around and announced it’s going to fire 30,000 workers!” thundered AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently. “My question is, just when is enough, enough?”

    There’s an even more disturbing question than that, and it’s this: Are these huge compensation packages themselves one of the reasons corporations are shedding jobs — and not hiring new workers?

    Story is located here

    The e-mail rumor mill is run by conservatives

    Saturday, November 19th, 2011

    Like the Medicare story, these claims are demonstrably false, too. Nevertheless, they are popular on the thriving underground e-mail circuit, a carnival of nonsense whose star attractions have included the canard that Obama is a secret Muslim and variations on the “birther” claims about his origins.

    Grass-roots whisper campaigns such as these predate the invention of the “send” button, of course. No one needed a Facebook page or an e-mail account to spread the word about Thomas Jefferson’s secret love child or Grover Cleveland’s out-of-wedlock offspring (both won elections despite the stories, which in Jefferson’s case were very likely true).

    But it has become a truism that in their modern, Internet-driven form, these persistent narratives spread far faster and run deeper than ever. And they share an unexpected trait: Most of the time, Democrats (or liberals) are the ones under attack. Yes, George W. Bush had some whoppers told about him — such as his alleged scoffing that the French “don’t have a word for ‘entrepreneur’?” — but when it comes to generating and sustaining specious and shocking stories, there’s no contest. The majority of the junk comes from the right, aimed at the left.

    Story is located here

    Did U.S. Tax Policies Increase Economic Inequality?

    Saturday, November 19th, 2011

    The Occupy Wall Street movement continues to protest policies that have made the top 1 percent of income earners richer, while about 14 million Americans are out of work.

    Meanwhile, the Congressional supercommittee only has one week left to come up with a plan that will cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit. Republicans are opposed to raising revenues by raising taxes, even on the wealthiest Americans, who have seen their taxes dramatically cut over the past 14 years.

    “Almost without exception, every proposal put forth by GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates is intended to preserve or expand tax privileges for the wealthiest Americans,” writes Rolling Stone political correspondent Tim Dickinson. “Most of their plans, which are presented as commonsense measures that will aid all Americans, would actually result in higher taxes for middle-class taxpayers and the poor.”

    On Wednesday’s Fresh Air, Dickinson explains how the tax policies pursued by the Republican Party have changed in the past 14 years — and says those changes have led to greater economic inequality in our country.

    He explains that the top 400 taxpayers in the United States have seen their incomes increase threefold since 1997. In that same period, their tax rate has fallen by 40 percent.

    “Today, a billionaire in the top 400 pays an effective tax rate of about 17 percent,” he says. “That’s about 5 percentage points less than your average worker.”

    Story is located here

    The False “Family Analogy” Argument for a Balanced Budget Amendment

    Saturday, November 19th, 2011

    Families must balance their budget every year, proponents of a constitutional balanced budget amendment often argue, so why shouldn’t the federal government? This argument has several serious flaws, the most basic being that families often do not balance their budgets, for good reason.

    A family that takes out a student loan to send a child to college, for example, might end up with a large “deficit” for that year — that is, it will spend more than it earns that year. But a college education is a solid long-term investment that is likely to translate into significantly higher earnings over the child’s working career.

    Similarly, a family that obtains a mortgage will almost certainly have a “deficit” for that year, but it will also have a house to live in.

    Families also build up savings in good economic times and draw them down when times are tight to cover expenses that exceed their current incomes.

    The proposed constitutional amendment would bar the federal government from such practices. The federal government couldn’t borrow to finance investments that boost future economic growth, such as infrastructure improvements. And if it ran a surplus one year, it couldn’t draw it down the next year to help balance the budget if the economy turned down.

    Story is located here

    While Reading Off Her Teleprompter Sarah Palin Calls OWS Ill Informed

    Saturday, November 19th, 2011

    Sarah Palin was reading that entire answer off of her teleprompter. Only a person who was reading an answer could possibly mistake free market for free minute. She immediately corrected herself, but unless she had a commercial for a long distance carrier lined up for immediately after her Hannity appearance, Palin was reading her answer.

    It is absurd that Sarah Palin claimed the Occupy Wall Street protesters are ill informed, while she was reading her statements off of a teleprompter. Back in December of 2010 we first uncovered photographic evidence of Palin using a teleprompter in her Alaska home studio, which was built for her Fox News appearances. In June of this year, Palin’s own emails confirmed that she has to use a teleprompter for her television appearances. Also in June, Palin made an appearance on Fox News Sunday where her teleprompter was clearly visible.

    Sarah Palin thinks that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are ill informed, but she didn’t know enough about the movement to be able to answer a spoon fed question without her teleprompter. Fox News is doing their best to keep their million dollar a year investment in Palin relevant, but she has sunk to below joke level. Palin was literally reading the RNC talking points off of her teleprompter, and she couldn’t even get that right.

    No matter how much her dwindling base of support tries to revive her as a presence, Sarah Palin is nothing more than comic relief for the political world.

    Story is located here

    Gingrich (In 2007): Congress Must Impose an Individual Mandate

    Saturday, November 19th, 2011

    Newt Gingrich has had a tough time during this presidential campaign discussing the individual mandate. Republicans—especially tea partiers—tend to consider the individual mandate (which compels people to obtain health insurance) the worst part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. For them, it is a symbol of Obama’s big-government, anti-freedom, socialistic ways. And Gingrich has been tap-dancing around this issue for months. Last May, he said he supported “some requirement” to “have insurance,” but quickly afterward issued a campaign video declaring he was “completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals.” In a recent debate, he acknowledged that he had endorsed the individual mandate in the early 1990s, but claimed he had done so only as a tactical maneuver in opposition to Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal at the time. The clear implication: that was then, now I don’t.

    Story is located here

    Letter From A Liberal To A Young Marine (That 53% Guy)

    Saturday, November 19th, 2011

    In the picture, you’re holding up a sheet of paper that says:

    I am a former Marine.
    I work two jobs.
    I don’t have health insurance.
    I worked 60-70 hours a week for 8 years to pay my way through college.
    I haven’t had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years.
    But I don’t blame Wall Street.
    Suck it up you whiners.
    I am the 53%.
    God bless the USA!

    I wanted to respond to you as a liberal. Because, although I think you’ve made yourself clear and I think I understand you, you don’t seem to understand me at all. I hope you will read this and understand me better, and maybe understand the Occupy Wall Street movement better.

    Story is located here

    Several parks in #Occupy are being shut down. I say this is the best gift the #Occupy supporters could be given.

    Tuesday, November 15th, 2011

    OCCUPY-THE METHOD

    As I watch the Occupy movement I see it populated by people in a park…. surrounded by other Occupy supporters…being watched by people who may or may not have an inkling as to what they are doing.   I cannot help but think that with the cold weather coming and the act of being expelled from those park encampments by police the Occupy groups are going to have to now move onto a different phase in bringing their message to the masses.  When you bring a new concept or idea to people there needs to be a time of introduction to the already converted public or the First Adopters.  This is the purpose that the park demonstration have  served over the past 2 months.  It is a time of saying, “We are here and this is what we are” but the reaching out to the public has truly yet to happen.  It is now time for the Occupy movement to move to the next phase in moving out of the park and into the lives of average people and this is where the true leverage of Occupy will be found. 

    Parks across the nation have often seen over 1,000 Occupiers taking part.  There are many many more people that have been coming and going as their time and life permit but let’s go with 1,000 for now and lets put it over a big city.  Imagine if those people were placed on street corners in groups of 5 or so.  Imagine them creating their group of 5 and coming up with a few signs and a very clear 30 second “sermon” they could announce to passersby.  When you realize that those 1,000 people could cover 200 blocks of the city you realize the power in getting the movement out of parks.  What if those groups of 5 were to have a coordinated schedule of Occupying a certain block at a certain time….so one group covers the block from 8am to 10 am…another from 10am to 2pm…and another from 3pm to 6:30pm as people going home are walking by.  Or simply get an ad-hoc group together and find a corner that is empty…bring the signs and begin the sermons.  Another possibility would be to canvas neighborhoods just like mainstream political groups do.  This is far more informative and hopefully far more efficient in bringing the message to the masses who do not know the message but are affected by it.  The park means nothing…it is the educating of the masses that will turn this into a strong force and this has to be done with one-on-one education and getting around the mainstream media who is generally driven by corporate concerns as opposed to helping people.  We saw this with the Civil Rights movement in the 50s and 60s.  It wasn’t where the protesters were located it was the educating of the nation through TV and the media and personal stories that turned the tide.  The masses were educated as to the savagery going on and they demanded a stop to it.  This Occupy movement will see the same with the masses understanding that they are being robbed as the top 1% rakes in bushel baskets of cash only once that education process is begun.

    Which has more power?  Sitting in one park or getting out and Occupying AN ENTIRE MAJOR CITY at every corner.  Which do you think would be far more informative to people who lack that information?  Which action do you think would come in contact with more people on a more personal level?  How better can you get a message out with the lowest cost?  The park was only the jumping off point…now we educate people face to face.

    THE MESSAGE

    People are interested in what affects them.  There is a reason why women who are being raped are instructed to yell “FIRE” as opposed to “RAPE”.  A fire could quite possibly affect me…and you…but a rape has an effect on the victim alone and instructs people around that location to leave as nothing else will happen to them.  This is a basic in human psychology and getting a message out.   Your message has no relation to me….I don’t see it affecting me so I shut it out.   This is why the concepts of Occupy need to begin with how this affects YOU…the recipient of the message.  I was with a group recently marching to bring the message of the 99ers to the public.  One of the chants was “We are the 99%”.  This made sense to me and the group but to people who are ill-informed it carried no weight.  The 99%?  They are?  They are what?  Why do I care?  I am not them so they are wastin their time!  After a minute of this chant I began to put myself in the shoes of those people seeing our group and decided the bystanders did not know what we were saying.  So with my very loud voice I began to chant “YOU are the 99%”.  As we walked by a very crowded restaurant the people seated were greeted by our group of 275 telling them that THEY were part of the 99%.  Who cares if WE are but if YOU are…well that is important to YOU so YOU care.   So the next questionin the message is…what is the 99%?  What did those restaurant people think when we told them they were part of the 99%?  Most thought nothing as nothing was said to them.  They were blah blah blah.   It was like talking Spanish to an English speaking group.  Nothing is said without setting a definition of the words being used.  Another group of which I was a part had other signs that varied from TAX THE RICH to PROTECT THE MIDDLE CLASS and more.  If those signs were turned to the recipient of the message as opposed to the sender of the mesage perhaps a message could be received.  It seems to me the message is one aimed at insiders and is not inclusive.  Snappy clever phrases only amuse the authors of those witty one liners.  If you want to educate someone you tell them directly how they are affected and why. 

    Currently the message is not being spread far and wide it is being spread in a park to those already part of the movement.  To fix this the Occupy group needs to leave the parks and take to the street corners and educate people in a one on one manner.  The Occupy groups need to go door to door with informative flyers to hand out and a website that provides more details as to how this movement DIRECLTY affects them.  YOU are the 99% and YOU are getting robbed and here is EXACTLY HOW IT IS HAPPENING and by how much.  Join us and make it stop for your sake and the sake of our children and the future.  Here is a flyer…JOIN US NOW…RIGHT NOW for an hour or so of walking to help spread the word.  If not here is a flyer with our website where you can see future protests and ways to donate.  Please join us the next time.  We will keep fighting for YOU until YOU fight for YOU.

    WE are the 99%.  YOU are the 99%.  Here is why.

    The Free Market in action when it comes to your food

    Saturday, November 12th, 2011

    Food safety incidents in the People’s Republic of China have received increased international media scrutiny following the reform and opening of the country, and its joining the World Trade Organization. in urban areas have become more aware of food safety as their incomes rise. Food safety agencies in China have overlapping duties. The 2008 Chinese milk scandal received the most attention among food safety incidents.

    Story is located here

    A visit to San Francisco radio stations and transmitter sites

    Friday, November 11th, 2011

    The Fybush Sites of the Week site has been covering the San Francisco Bay area
    for the past few weeks. The articles include history, lots of fascinating
    information and photos. Anyone interested in Bay Area broadcasting should find
    these articles to be extremely interesting.

    Here are the links to the five weeks of coverage:

    1 – http://www.fybush.com/sites/2011/site-110826.html
    Cumulus – KNBR 680, KTCT 1050, KFOG 104.5 and KSAN 107.7

    2 – http://www.fybush.com/sites/2011/site-110902.html
    KRE/California Radio Historical Society, Berkeley
    KEAR 610 and KVTO 1400

    3 – http://www.fybush.com/sites/2011/site-110909.html
    Former Citadel, now Cumulus – KGO 810 and KSFO 560 and
    CBS – FM: KLLC 97.3, KMVQ 99.7, KITS 105.3 and KFRC-FM 106.9
    AM: KCBS 740 and KZDG 1550

    4 – http://www.fybush.com/sites/2011/site-110916.html
    Mt. San Bruno –
    Tower 1: KIOI 101.3, KMEL 106.1,
    Tower 2: KQED 88.5, KGMZ 95.7
    Tower 3: KYLD 94.9
    Tower 4: KBLX 102.9
    Tower 5: KITS 105.3, KSAN 107.7
    Tower 6: Non-broadcast
    Tower 7: KKPX 65 (RF 41)
    Tower 8: KMVQ 99.7
    Tower 9: KTSF 26 (RF 27), KRZZ 93.3
    Tower 10: KNTV 11 (RF 12)

    5 – http://www.fybush.com/sites/2011/site-110923.html <— coming next week
    Sutro Tower –
    KTVU 2 (RF 44)
    KRON 4 (RF 38)
    KPIX 5 (RF 29)
    KGO 7 (RF 7)
    KQED 9 (RF 30)
    KOFY 20 (RF 19)
    KMTP 32 (RF 33)
    KCNS 38 (RF 39)
    KBCW 44 (RF 45)
    KCSM 60 (RF 43)
    KFSF 66 (RF 34)

    Socialized Medicine saved Cheney’s life

    Thursday, November 10th, 2011

    Question for the tea party and everyone who voted for tea party Republicans in November: Did you enjoy your purely cosmetic vote to repeal the health care reform law? Personally, I would feel pandered to, and not particularly satisfied with all of that fiscally expensive congressional time being wasted on a vote that meant absolutely nothing. But that’s me.

    I mean, you and your peers are obsessively focused on budget deficits and the national debt. Perhaps all of that federal money, all of that federal time and all of those federal resources would have been more effectively spent on something that had a chance of actually happening. Instead, you mandated that your Republican members of the House spend countless dollars on a symbolic exercise in, well, hooey. Nonsense. The political equivalent of pissing into the wind.

    Considering that many of us on the progressive side of the political divide supported the health care law in part because it actually reduces the deficit, and considering that many of us on the progressive side of the political divide supported the stimulus and, within it, the largest middle class tax cut in American history, I’m getting a strong idea as to who is more interested in fiscal discipline and who isn’t.

    With this meaningless vote, not only have the Republicans proved themselves to be entirely disinterested in reducing the deficit, but they’ve also reinforced their obsession with bumper sticker slogans, self-contradictions and utterly nonsensical political gestures.

    Here are two more fantastic examples of how Republicans seriously dislike health care reform, socialized medicine and “government-run” healthcare — that is, until they actually need it.

    You may or may not recall a study conducted before the health care reform law was passed by the office of Rep. Anthony Weiner. At the time, 55 Republican members of Congress were enrolled in Medicare, including Senators McCain, McConnell, Kyl, Shelby, Lugar, Inhofe and Grassley. All of whom were opposed to the public option and health care reform.

    On the House side, Rep. Weiner’s list includes Peter King, Phil Gingrey, wingnut Virginia Foxx and the godfather of the tea party movement Ron Paul. Seriously, Ron Paul! All 55 members are accepting a form of the public option. Government-run health care. Socialized medicine. I wonder what Ayn Rand would say about Ron Paul accepting Medicare? A program that, more than anything else, will help to bump the national debt from 15 percent of GDP to 35 percent of GDP by 2082. And they claim to be worried about the debt? That’s rich.

    Where are the tea party budget hawks — the tri-corned hat reenactors with their misspelled signs and racist voodoo portraits of the president — screeching for Ron Paul to give up his share in American socialism?

    Speaking of tri-corned hats, it’s worth noting here that the founding fathers, with whom the tea party and the Republicans claim political kinship, actually passed a law in 1798 that included a health care mandate and a socialized medicine plan. According to Forbes reporter Richard Ungar, “Congress passed — and President John Adams signed ‘An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.’ The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.”

    Why did the founding fathers hate America, with their government takeover of health care for seamen? The founding fathers clearly didn’t understand what the founding fathers intended with the Constitution, what with that evil mandate. Perhaps the founders should have met with the founders to discuss the superior wisdom of Cleon Skousen and Ayn Rand. Maybe symbolically dangled some tea bags from their actual tri-cornered hats.

    Fast forward back to 2011.

    One reason former Vice President Dick Cheney is still alive is because of the ingenious left ventricular assist device (LVAD) heart pump — a mechanical life-sustaining apparatus he described during this week’s televised interview on NBC’s Today show. The pump operates both internally using a motorized implant, and externally via a rechargeable battery power pack mounted to a Darth Vader style unit, electronically pumping sand through Cheney’s heart. I made up the part about the sand.

    Suffice to say, the tea party Republicans shouldn’t approve of such technology because the LVAD device was developed by the National Institutes of Health using taxpayer money — ostensibly redistributed from regular Americans and into Dick Cheney’s chest cavity. Put another way: Dick Cheney is alive today because of wealth redistribution, socialized medicine and government-run health care.

    Story is located here

    How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich

    Thursday, November 10th, 2011

    The nation is still recovering from a crushing recession that sent unemployment hovering above nine percent for two straight years. The president, mindful of soaring deficits, is pushing bold action to shore up the nation’s balance sheet. Cloaking himself in the language of class warfare, he calls on a hostile Congress to end wasteful tax breaks for the rich. “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share,” he thunders to a crowd in Georgia. Such tax loopholes, he adds, “sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that’s crazy.”

    Preacherlike, the president draws the crowd into a call-and-response. “Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver,” he demands, “or less?”

    The crowd, sounding every bit like the protesters from Occupy Wall Street, roars back: “MORE!”

    The year was 1985. The president was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

    Story is located here

    Republicans are starting to see Deregulation as a very bad thing which contradicts their views of the Free Market. Welcome to reality!

    Thursday, November 10th, 2011

    Yesterday on ABC, Newt Gingrich admitted that repealing the Glass Steagall Act, the law that separates lending banks and investment banks, was a mistake. Gingrich also stated that the regulatory legislation should be reinstated. Now, a presently serving Republican congressman agreed that Glass-Steagall should be reinstated as well.

    During a conservative radio show with Bill Bennett last week, GOP Rep. Paul Ryan agreed with a caller that the big banks should once again be regulated by Glass-Steagall. Yes, THAT Paul Ryan. You know, the Paul Ryan who heads the House Budget Committee and wants to end Medicare? That’s him.

    Story is located here

    Newt Gingrinch also agrees story is located here

    Funny picture showing the flip flop of the GOP regarding jobs prior to them owning the House and after

    Thursday, November 10th, 2011

    Picture is located here

    Here are the views of a real American Democratic Socialist

    Thursday, November 10th, 2011

    Maria Svart, Democratic Socialists of America joins Thom Hartmann. Cover your ears, Joe the Plumber – most Americans want redistribution of wealth. With the wealth gap between the rich and the poor in America larger than it’s historically ever been – a majority of American want the federal government to step up and address it. According to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll – 61% of American want Washington to “pursue policies that try to” reduce income inequality – as in tax the rich. So I guess we’re all democratic socialists now huh??

    Video is located here

    CHART OF THE DAY: The Regressive Tax Plan Super Committee Dems Shot Down

    Thursday, November 10th, 2011

    To simplify, the GOP proposes to slash benefits for low and middle income taxpayers to pay for a big tax cut that overwhelmingly benefits the rich.

    When all’s said and done, this would raise most people’s overall tax burden, while increasing after-tax income for wealthy people. Here are charts laying out that impact for the analogous plan described above, which – again – contained less extensive rate cuts.

    Story is located here

    Republicans regularly vote against US veterans

    Thursday, November 10th, 2011

    Why Do Republicans ALWAYS Vote AGAINST Soldiers and Veterans?
    By cpmondello

    Support for America’s Veterans and Troops Should be Bipartisan

    Today, House Republican Leader John Boehner gave a regrettably partisan speech before the American Legion in which he continued to criticize President Obama’s Iraq, security, and veterans’ policies, even as the President is keeping his promise to bring home all combat troops from Iraq and strongly supporting our troops.

    Leader Boehner’s partisan rhetoric is an attempt to distract the American people from the failed Republican record on troops and veterans—and their plans to put tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of the needs of our troops and Veterans.

    Last week in his economic speech in Ohio, Leader Boehner said we need to go back to 2008 spending levels on all non-defense discretionary spending. The Boehner Republican budget could result in a cut of $13 billion in veterans’ health care and other benefits, even as the needs of our returning soldiers continues to grow.

    President Obama and Congress, under Democratic leadership, have taken historic action in support of our troops and veterans such as:

    Enacting the new G.I. Bill to provide returning troops with a full, four-year college education

    Enacting historic investments in veterans’ health care and services, and ensuring that funding one year in advance to prevent political or legislative delays

    Expanding economic opportunities for returning soldiers

    Enacting landmark legislation providing support to family members and others who care for wounded veterans, and enhancing health services for the 1.8 million women veterans

    Unfortunately, despite Mr. Boehner’s rhetoric, Congressional Republicans have voted against a number of key measures to meet our solemn obligation to our troops and veterans, voting:

    Against Providing Our Troops with Equipment They Need: Voted against providing our troops in harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan with everything they need during the remainder of FY 2009, such as $1.9 billion more than requested for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to protect our troops.

    Against Stop Loss Payment for Troops: Voted against providing special $500 payments for every month that 185,000 service members and veterans were forced to serve under stop-loss orders since September 11, 2001.

    Against Support for Our Troops: Republicans voted against restoring our nation’s military readiness by funding the Army’s and Marine Corps’ equipment reset requirements, giving the military a 3.4 percent pay raise, and expanding and strengthening health care services.

    Against Extending the New GI Bill for Children of Fallen Soldiers: Republicans voted against extending the New GI Bill college benefits to all children of service members who have died on active duty since 9-11-01.

    Against Veterans Job Creation and Economic Help: Republicans voted against providing businesses with a $2,400 tax break for the hiring of an unemployed veteran, a $250 one-time payment to nearly 2 million disabled veterans receiving benefits from the Veterans Affairs Department as part of the make-work-pay tax credit, and $1.2 billion for veterans’ medical facilities repairs throughout the country.

    Against Activated Military Reservists: Republicans voted against ensuring that activated military reservists do not suffer a pay cut by providing a tax credit for small businesses employers who continue to pay their National Guard and Reserve employees when they are called up to serve.

    Looking back at Congressional Republicans’ record during President Bush’s term in office:

    The Bush Administration’s poor planning for the Iraq war failed to provide essential equipment to protect our troops, with these shortages resulting in many unnecessary deaths and injuries. For example, it took more than 18 months after the Iraqi invasion for the Pentagon to provide body armor to all American soldiers. Soldiers and their families were forced to purchase their own body armor.

    Republicans voted against a $1,500 bonus for troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan while voting for a pay raise for themselves. [H.R. 3289, Vote #554, 10/17/03. Rejected 213-213]

    The Bush Administration cut off veterans’ health care for veterans who make as little as $26,000 a year in the lead up to the Iraq War, which resulted in more than 1.6 million veterans being denied VA health care over four years.

    As the Iraq War began, House Republicans voted to cut $14 billion from veterans’ health care and $14 billion from veterans’ benefits, including veterans’ pensions, compensation, and education. This could have denied health care to 168,000 veterans, or cut the number of VA nurses by 8,700. [H Con. Res 95, 2003 Vote #82, 3/21/03]

    Republicans ousted Rep. Chris Smith from his chairmanship of the Veterans Committee because he was too strong a proponent for our veterans. “Veterans groups were incensed this week when word surfaced that Smith might be replaced. The Veterans of Foreign Wars sent a letter to House Speaker Hastert Monday expressing ’intense opposition’ to any efforts to remove the chairman. … Smith challenged GOP leaders and the Bush administration over funding proposals for veterans, and was one of 10 Republicans to oppose the budget resolution last year.” [Congress Daily, 1/6/05]

    Republicans voted for the FY 2007 budget that hurts America’s veterans, including cuts in health care totaling $6 billion and as much as tripling TRICARE health care costs for military retirees under 65. [HCR376, 5/18/2006, Vote# 158]

    Learn more about the legislation the Democratic-led Congress has passed in support of our troops and veterans»

    Story is located here

    Michael Moore to KCNC’s Evrod Cassimy: ‘You’re Just Punk Media’

    Monday, November 7th, 2011

    KCNC reporter Evrod Cassimy talked with Michael Moore at Occupy Denver yesterday, and the impromptu interview turned acrimonious when the subject of the filmmaker’s income came up.

    Cassimy asked if Moore is part of the one percent, pointing out the filmmaker’s “rumored” net worth of $50 million.

    “Is that what you do? Sell rumors?” Moore answered. “You’re just punk media, is all you are. You lie. You lie to people.”

    Story is located here

    Can’t Handle The Truth: Limbaugh Insults Caller For Being Right On Economy

    Monday, November 7th, 2011

    Rush Limbaugh referred to a caller as a “tool” and a “mind-numbed robot” after the caller accurately stated facts about President Obama’s jobs bill and the economic recovery. Limbaugh also drastically overstated the level of infrastructure spending in the original stimulus legislation.

    Audio is located here

    Scott Walker’s Chicago Speech Taken Over By The 99%

    Monday, November 7th, 2011

    Mike Check….Mike Check.  Mike Check should be the Time’s Person of the Year!

    How do the 99% get their point across to a room filled with people who BOO feeding the poor?

    Video is located here

    Explaining Socialism To A Republican

    Monday, November 7th, 2011

    Story is located here

    I was talking recently with a new friend who I’m just getting to know. She tends to be somewhat conservative, while I lean more toward the progressive side.

    When our conversation drifted to politics, somehow the dreaded word “socialism” came up. My friend seemed totally shocked when I said “All socialism isn’t bad”. She became very serious and replied “So you want to take money away from the rich and give to the poor?” I smiled and said “No, not at all. Why do you think socialism mean taking money from the rich and giving to the poor?

    “Well it is, isn’t it?” was her reply.

    I explained to her that I rather liked something called Democratic Socialism, just as Senator Bernie Sanders, talk show host Thom Hartman, and many other people do. Democratic Socialism consists of a democratic form of government with a mix of socialism and capitalism. I proceeded to explain to her the actual meaning terms “democracy” and “socialism”.

    Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens take part. It is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

    Socialism is where we all put our resources together and work for the common good of us all and not just for our own benefit. In this sense, we are sharing the wealth within society.

    Of course when people hear that term, “Share the wealth” they start screaming, “OMG you want to rob from the rich and give it all to the poor!” But that is NOT what Democratic Socialism means.

    To a Democratic Socialist, sharing the wealth means pooling tax money together to design social programs that benefit ALL citizens of that country, city, state, etc.

    The fire and police departments are both excellent examples of Democratic Socialism in America. Rather than leaving each individual responsible for protecting their own home from fire, everyone pools their money together, through taxes, to maintain a fire and police department. It’s operated under a non-profit status, and yes, your tax dollars pay for putting out other people’s fires. It would almost seem absurd to think of some corporation profiting from putting out fires. But it’s more efficient and far less expensive to have government run fire departments funded by tax dollars.

    Similarly, public education is another social program in the USA. It benefits all of us to have a taxpayer supported, publicly run education system. Unfortunately, in America, the public education system ends with high school. Most of Europe now provides low cost or free college education for their citizens. This is because their citizens understand that an educated society is a safer, more productive and more prosperous society. Living in such a society, everyone benefits from public education.

    When an American graduates from college, they usually hold burdensome debt in the form of student loans that may take 10 to even 30 years to pay off. Instead of being able to start a business or invest in their career, the college graduate has to send off monthly payments for years on end.

    On the other hand, a new college graduate from a European country begins without the burdensome debt that an American is forced to take on. The young man or woman is freer to start up businesses, take an economic risk on a new venture, or invest more money in the economy, instead of spending their money paying off student loans to for-profit financial institutions. Of course this does not benefit wealthy corporations, but it does greatly benefit everyone in that society.

    EXAMPLE American style capitalistic program for college: If you pay (average) $20,000 annually for four years of college, that will total $80,000 + interest for student loans. The interest you would owe could easily total or exceed the $80,000 you originally borrowed, which means your degree could cost in excess of $100,000.

    EXAMPLE European style social program for college: Your college classes are paid for through government taxes. When you graduate from that college and begin your career, you also start paying an extra tax for fellow citizens to attend college.

    Question You might be thinking how is that fair? If you’re no longer attending college, why would you want to help everyone else pay for their college degree?

    Answer Every working citizen pays a tax that is equivalent to say, $20 monthly. If you work for 40 years and then retire, you will have paid $9,600 into the Social college program. So you could say that your degree ends up costing only $9,600. When everyone pools their money together and the program is non-profit, the price goes down tremendously. This allows you to keep more of your hard earned cash!

    Health care is another example: If your employer does not provide health insurance, you must purchase a policy independently. The cost will be thousands of dollars annually, in addition to deductible and co-pays.

    In Holland, an individual will pay around $35 monthly, period. Everyone pays into the system and this helps reduce the price for everyone, so they get to keep more of their hard earned cash.

    In the United States we are told and frequently reminded that anything run by the government is bad and that everything should be operated by for-profit companies. Of course, with for-profit entities the cost to the consumer is much higher because they have corporate executives who expect compensation packages of tens of millions of dollars and shareholders who expect to be paid dividends, and so on.

    This (and more) pushes up the price of everything, with much more money going to the already rich and powerful, which in turn, leaves the middle class with less spending money and creates greater class separation.

    This economic framework makes it much more difficult for average Joes to ”lift themselves up by their bootstraps” and raise themselves to a higher economic standing.

    So next time you hear the word “socialism” and “spreading the wealth” in the same breath, understand that this is a serious misconception.

    Social programs require tax money and your taxes may be higher. But as you can see everyone benefits because other costs go down and, in the long run, you get to keep more of your hard earned cash!

    Democratic Socialism does NOT mean taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It works to benefit everyone so the rich can no longer take advantage of the poor and middle class.

    Interesting read of returning the Federal Reserve to under the control of the US Government

    Monday, November 7th, 2011

    One of the most important steps that we could take to bring prosperity back to America would be to nationalize the Federal Reserve. Doing so would allow the federal government to quit borrowing money, dramatically reduce taxes and eventually pay off the entire U.S. national debt. Instead of inheriting the largest debt in the history of the world, future generations would actually have a chance at economic prosperity because they would not be forced to pay off the horrific debt of previous generations. The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine, it has almost completely destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar and it has an absolutely nightmarish track record of incompetence. There are no good reasons to keep the status quo. Our current debt-based monetary system will inevitably lead to a complete and total economic collapse. We desperately need to make a change while we still can. As you will see below, there are a ton of good reasons why we should nationalize the Federal Reserve.

    Right now, most Americans believe that the Federal Reserve is actually an agency of the federal government. But that is simply not the case. The truth is that the Federal Reserve is about as “federal” as Federal Express is.

    The Federal Reserve openly admits as much. For example, in defending itself against a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Reserve stated in court that it was “not an agency” of the U.S. government and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

    So who owns the Federal Reserve?

    Story is located here

    The Family Research Council reduces itself to a joke as they name Family Man of the Year

    Monday, November 7th, 2011

    The right wing Family Research Council (a.k.a. the sex police) gave an award to Congressman Joe Walsh for his “unwavering support of the family.” Of course, this makes no mention of his no support for the Walsh family. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains in the Rewrite.

    Video is located here

    One Of The Biggest Reasons People Are Mad Enough To Protest In One Eye-Opening Clip

    Sunday, November 6th, 2011

    It’s often referred to simply as Citizens United and it’s unleashed an electoral monster on society.

    Video is located here

    9 Reasons Not To Vote For Herman Cain

    Sunday, November 6th, 2011

    Herman Cain is still running neck and neck with Mitt Romney and he leads the field in some polls. The pizza man has unexpectedly become a force in Republican Party politics. But there are many problems with Herman Cain that should deter citizens from voting for him. Here are 9 reasons why you should not vote for Herman Cain.

    Story is located here

    Optional giving to relieve the problem of poverty fails when it becomes the main vehicle to reduce poverty or hunger.

    Sunday, November 6th, 2011

    Invariably what happens is similar to what George W Bush said during the TARP bailout when he said that Socialism had to save Capitalism.  The food banks are a wonderful idea but they cannot deal with the enormity of poverty in America.  Food banks are OPTIONAL giving meaning when you can you do give and when you cannot then people do without as a result of your not giving. If in a city a factory is closed….all of those people giving are now in need…how is that deficit made up? It ususally is not as the factory closing will affect so many more people and businesses in that city.  No wonder fod banks are closing so often.   However when the government has a program that consistently gives…those in need are assured a baseline of what to expect.  The nation tried Optional giving before….which led to our government programs…because the optional giving failed to meet the demand.  Here is it being discussed again in this article.

    The story is located here

    Power suggests that food banks are incapable of ending hunger partially because people who could be considered hungry don’t use them and they can only supply what is donated, which is often insufficient both in nutritional value and volume. Much of the food that is donated comes from corporations that may have motivations beyond feeding the hungry.

    Food banks are good for corporations, especially food corporations. They can use food banks to offload edible food they can’t sell, then advertise themselves as caring businesses. And holding corporate-wide food drives builds company morale. None of these corporate benefits are problematic in themselves, but they mean that corporations have a vested interest in the status quo.

    Herb Barbolet, from Simon Fraser University’s Centre for Sustainable Community Development, backs up Powers’s claim.

    A lot of the food donated by corporations is unsellable. It may contain too high proportion of salt or transfats or other ingredients that health conscious eaters don’t want. Or, it may be close to being stale-dated. It should be unconscionable to give junk food and garbage to hungry people – and make them stand in line for it, at that.

    The economy as a result of the Bush Tax Cuts did NOT result in enough revenue to overcome the fact that TAXES were CUT

    Thursday, November 3rd, 2011

    Source Data: White House Office of Management and Budget – Historical Tables

     As a percentage of gross domestic product, the amount of tax revenues as a part of the economy has also varied widely, though it is still less today than in FY2001, when it represented 19.5% of GDP. It has dipped from as low as 16.1% in FY2004, to as high as 18.5% in FY2007, before finishing out FY 2009 at 14.9% – its lowest level since 1950 (14.4%).

     It is true when Sen. Sessions said spending has increased every year from FY2001 – the last year the government spent less than it took in.

     In FY2001 spending was $1,862.8 billion; by FY2009 spending was at $3,517.7 billion – more than $1.4 billion more than what was collected in taxes.

     Analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice claims that the Bush era tax cuts resulted in $1,918.9 billion in lower revenue from FY2001 through FY2009, and that the total cost if implementing the cuts (including interest payments on debt) was $2,141 billion.

    Story is located here

    VIDEO: Bishop Gene Robinson Explains Why Religious People Should Support The 99 Percent Movement

    Thursday, November 3rd, 2011

    One-sixth of all the words Jesus spoke, and one-third of all the parables, are about the dangers of wealth and possessions. It is something that we hear from the prophets — particularly of the Old Testament, and of course that’s what Jesus was steeped in, those were his scriptures — that any culture, but certainly one that claims to be Godly, is to be judged on how well the most vulnerable are treated.

    It’s more than about numbers, and it’s more than about disparity of income. It’s really about our sense of community. And indeed, do the wealthy have a responsibility to the larger community? Are we really going to live in an “every man, woman and child for themselves” world, or are we going to be a community in which the greater good, the common good, is also a value that we hold?

    Story is located here

    Is this finally the end of the Reagan Narrative?

    Thursday, November 3rd, 2011

    More than any other political figure, it was Ronald Reagan who put America on its present course toward stunning income inequality and into a brave new world of deregulated industries, which were then able to exploit lax government controls to devastate the economy.

    It was Reagan who experimented with “supply side economics” which held that slashing the top marginal tax rates for the rich by half or more would eliminate the federal deficit and supposedly help everyone by letting the extra money at the top trickle down.

    It was Reagan who declared that “government is the problem” and convinced many middle-class Americans – especially white men – that they should despise “big government” as a threat to their liberty and trust their financial security to the kindness, wisdom and generosity of corporate chieftains.

    It was Reagan who demanded a massive reinvestment in the U.S. military, even as America’s principal adversary, the Soviet Union, was in rapid decline. Reagan also allied the United States with some of the world’s most brutal regimes and insurgent movements, as long as they identified themselves as “anti-communist.”

    It also was Reagan who transformed the Republican Party into a political organization disdainful of science and empiricism – and devoted to retaining its power at almost any price. For Reagan and his P.R. team, the goal was always “perception management,” controlling how average Americans saw the world, not how it actually was.

    Story is located here