On Friday, December 14, 2012,  twenty innocent children were executed by a deranged man who first murdered his gun advocate mother in their home, took her legally purchased weapons of mass destruction and went to a near by school and killed six and seven year old first-graders. The anger I feel is only dwarfed by the frustrations I have knowing that due to the political strength of the National Rifle Association, this sort of thing is not only becoming more frequent, it’s becoming easier for the deranged and the only outrage you will hear from those who say they support Second Amendment Rights is the fear that people will use this incident to take their guns away. They are so concerned over myths propagated by the NRA, they leave little concern or outrage for the vile act that occurred. The old stale talking points begin to surface yet again:

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

“If you take guns away, only criminals will have guns”

“People can use knives and bats to kill too, so why not ban them?”

“Only the Second Amendment keeps this country safe from oppressive government.”

“They all want to take your guns away.”

“If more people were armed, this wouldn’t have happened.”

“Towns with strict gun control laws have just as many gun related murders as any other place.”

Well, this is all just pure bullshit.

First of all, all of this talk comes from the NRA. Here’s what people need to understand about this organization as it stands today. It’s run by lying paranoid nut jobs. Okay, that’s hyperbole, but I’m angry.

In reality the NRA is a lobbyist organization with gun and ammunition manufacturers as their clientele. They say they exist to protect Second Amendment Rights, and that would be a worthy cause if the rights were ever in real danger. They are not and never have been.

Never in the history of this nation has any viable political party advocated taking guns away from everybody. There is debate on the true meaning of the Second Amendment, but that’s only for people who actually read and study for a living correcting the propaganda perpetuated by the NRA.

Either way, gun control advocates don’t want to take guns away from everybody, only some and introduce strict methodology to ensure the wrong people don’t get the weapons and certain type of weapons of mass destruction do not fill the streets.

The NRA says they are protecting Second Amendment Rights. That’s a lie. In fact they are creating an atmosphere of fear, paranoia and mistrust to compel the easily gullible to go out and buy as many guns, and as much ammunition as possible. That way, their clients clean up with huge profits.

A prime example of this misinformation from the NRA? They continue to tell their membership that President Obama is out to take all their guns away. They even have gone so far to say he will do it in a “third term” as president. Now the facts are as of today, President Obama has yet to propose, or side with any legislation that would limit access to guns in any way at all. In fact, he’s signed legislation allowing guns to be brought to National Parks. He’s actually expanded gun rights in the nation. But according to the NRA, that’s all part of his plan to fool the people so he can later take the guns away. If that’s not paranoid thinking, I don’t know what is.

I do own guns. I used to target shoot and I still have one in the home locked away. I do not keep a cache of ammunition because I am realistic. If people are going to declare war on me and attack, having one or two guns I won’t be able to get too many shots off before I’m taken out. But that assuming somebody is going to declare war on me and attack. The odds of that happening to me, or anybody else for that matter, are less than winning the Powerball.

So I have no problems with gun ownership. I have never been arrested or convicted of any crime. As a law enforcement officer, I have passed a psychological evaluation. I have been fully trained on nomenclature, and I qualify on the range. I also understand that whatever the barrel of a gun is pointed at is apt to be destroyed if the trigger is pulled.

As a gun control advocate, all I ask for is that those with criminal records, those who have a history of mental health problems be excluded from gun ownership.

To do so, I believe in waiting periods to investigate who is buying a weapon and that the weapon and ammunition be registered for future reference should it turn out they are used in any crimes. It’s that simple. If you aren’t out to murder someone immediately and have no prior record or mental health issues, why should you need less than a week or so before taking the gun home?

However, the NRA is opposed to waiting periods and any form of registration. Thanks to the NRA, anyone can sell and anyone can purchase high power rifles and guns at any gun show without identification and it’s clearly legal as Fast and Furious pointed out. Again, the NRA isn’t out for responsible gun ownership, they want unobstructed gun sales to as many people as they can. More guns sold, more profit. How do you increase gun sales? Establish an atmosphere of fear and paranoia. That is their business model. Problem is by doing so; there are more guns out there than we really need by many people who have no business owning an instrument designed to kill.

As for the talking points listed at the top of this rant:

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This is true but people owning guns have a much easier time killing than if they didn’t. To follow this talking point to its logical conclusion, then people so inclined to kill shouldn’t have guns. However, the NRA is opposed to that because it disrupts sales. Besides, more people out there killing people with guns, the more people feel a need to buy guns to “protect themselves” though few of them ever go through the proper training to do so and usually whenever caught in such a situation are killed by their own weapon.

“If you take guns away, only criminals will have guns.” This is based on a false premise. Nobody is trying to take all the guns away; they want to take the guns away from the criminals. Enacting stricter gun control laws would only cause a temporary inconvenience for the law-abiding rational people from getting their guns as quickly as they want. To not have these controls actually does result in more criminals and irrational people from getting guns. So by not enacting such controls, more criminals are getting guns, not less.

“People can use knives and bats to kill too, so why not ban them?” People can kill using knives and bats. Only difference is you must get up close to do it and the victim has a fighting chance to avoid being killed. Further, you can only do it to one person at a time. Try attacking a crowded theater armed with a bat and see how effective you would be.

“Only the Second Amendment keeps this country safe from oppressive government.” Well that presupposes our government is apt to become oppressive. A couple of things, oppression is a relative term and didn’t I mention paranoia earlier? If our government was to become oppressive, then how are a small group of drinking buddies armed with a few rifles and handguns going to stop the largest best armed and trained military force in the history of the world? A military with unmanned drones? You wouldn’t last 5 minutes so get real.

“They all want to take your guns away.” Only if you are a criminal and/or mentally insane. If you feel this way, you just answered my point. Again, didn’t I mention paranoia earlier?

“If more people were armed, this wouldn’t have happened.” The best trained military and police departments in the world end up with people dying in fire-fights in many cases due to “friendly fire.” Shooting at a target on a range is one thing; it’s another when the target is shooting back. Further, trained armed professional have to psych themselves as to how to maintain composure while being shot at. It isn’t easy and not too many weekend warriors actually prepare for that. More people armed, more people killed. It’s that simple.

“Towns with strict gun control laws have just as many gun related murders as any other place.” This is true, but there is a good reason for that. Towns, cities, counties and states are not divided up by tall walls and moats. People coming from neighboring territories that have no gun control easily take these guns to areas where sales are restricted. You will note also that currently, with the growth of carry conceal and stand your ground laws coupled with even laxer gun sales laws, the incidents of mass gun murders have been increasing, not decreasing. Currently, the United States, the country with the most lax gun control laws has 19 times the gun murder rate of any industrialized nation in the world. The rate holds for jurisdictions with or without carry conceal.

As the title of this rant states “Enough Already.” We need a mature debate in this country about gun violence and serious means to address it using proven data, not the talking points designed to instill paranoid fear from the gun manufacturer lobby known as the NRA who also support cop killer bullets, unrestricted assault rifle sales, and allowing guns to be carried in school yards and bars. These lobbyist are nuts. Worse yet, they are domestic terrorists.

The Republicans in the House and Senate have grudgingly agreed that President Obama has the upper hand and leverage over them regarding increasing taxes on income over $250,000.00 a year. So politically, they have to respond with something more than demanding cuts in social spending that they know the American people won’t tolerate and the Democrats and President won’t agree to. So they have been hinting (for lack of a better term) that they will get back at the President and show who’s in charge by obstructing any increase on the Debt Ceiling.

If this sounds familiar it’s because we have been here before. In the summer of 2011 we had this same debate. The Republicans in Congress via the propaganda wing at FOX News and some disingenuous pundits in mainstream media, convinced many in the country that raising the debt ceiling meant more spending, thus adding to the ever-increasing debt. So they vowed to stop it. They threatened a refusal to vote to raise the ceiling unless the President agreed to substantial cuts to all “non discretionary spending” not related to defense with no increase in revenues at all. By doing this, they threatened for the first time in our history, to place the country in default.

As a result, on August 2, 2011 the President, after arranging a deal with Speaker Boehner on July 31, 2011, signed the “Budget Control Act of 2011.”

However, due to the rumblings and uncertainty that our government was functioning and whether he had the ability or willingness to pay our debt, on August 5, 2011, Standards and Poor lowered our nation’s credit rating from AAA to AA. This was the first time in our history that this had happened. In their report explaining the downgrade, Standards and Poor explicitly stated that this was due to the obstruction orchestrated by the Republicans, that demonstrated that we did not have a working government that could be relied upon. Although Moody’s and Fitch continued to rate our nation as AAA, the Dow plummeted 635 points (5.6%) in just one day as a result of the downgrade.

A few facts about the National Debt Ceiling that causes people confusion and all should be aware of:

1) All spending originates in the House of Representatives. It is then approved or modified in the Senate. After the House and Senate agree on spending and the means, or lack thereof, to pay for it, only then does it go to the President. The President only agrees to what Congress presents him. The national debt is the accumulation of spending of all Congresses (both Republican and Democratic) for decades.

2) Raising the debt ceiling only acknowledges that the United States agrees to make good on all the debt it has already accrued. It does not increase the debt in of itself; it merely says we will pay what we already owe. The bills have already been racked up, the credit card is almost maxed out and the money is owed.

3) Over time, our debt ceiling has actually increased in relationship to our growing GDP.

4) To not raise the debt ceiling is essentially telling our creditors that we probably will not be paying for what we already purchased. It’s like maxing out your credit card and even though you still have revenue coming in, instead of asking for a credit increase, you tell your bank you won’t be paying a dime on it.

5) We have never defaulted on our debt in our entire history. To do so would obliterate the “Good Faith and Credit” of the United States. Any money we tried to borrow would have extremely higher interest rates applied thus adding even more to our overall national debt.

6) Ronald Reagan increased the debt ceiling 18 times, George W. Bush increased it 7 times. Until this President came to office, the thought of not increasing the ceiling has never been given serious consideration due to the consequences such an act would create.

7) If we default on our debt, the U.S. Treasury would need to make good on our debt and would still have to come up with money for new bills coming through. This would require skyrocketing the interest rates the Fed charges banks and corporations to borrow money.

If we don’t increase the debt ceiling, spending would essentially need to be stopped to levels of revenue already coming in. Keep in mind that due to the consequences involved in stopping the spending, unemployment will increase thus resulting in less tax money coming in.

To stop the debt from increasing you would need to make dramatic changes in both revenue and spending at limits that would throw the country into depression.

Taxes would need to be raised on all Americans to levels not seen in over 60 years.

Military spending would need to be cut to levels not seen since before World War I.

Medicare, Medicaid, all Government agencies (VA, FDA, USDA, EPA, OSHA, etc) would need drastic cuts or elimination to keep the debt from going over the ceiling.

Cuts in veteran services, hundreds of thousands of government employees laid off and as a result, these people would no longer able to contribute to the overall economy due to their lack of employment.

So, by going into default, all Americans regardless of party affiliation, sex, race, religion, socio-economic class would be severely affected.

Unemployment would skyrocket to levels not seen since the Great Depression.

Small businesses would not be able to secure any loans, and interest rates for big corporations would skyrocket while at the same time revenues would be cut dramatically due to lack of business from the consumer class and government cancelling any deals with them.

The defense industry could cease to exist.

This is not a game, this is serious. By the Republicans once again stalling on agreeing to raise the debt ceiling they are already signaling to Standards and Poor, Moody’s and Fitch that we have an uncooperative government of obstructionist Republican and the Stock Market could take another dive, possibly worse than the one in 2011 affecting everyone who owns stocks regardless of party affiliation.

The mere threat of default carries severe consequences; actual default would destroy ours and the world’s economy to levels far worse than the Great Depression. This is what the Republicans in Congress are threatening to do for partisan political gamesmanship. It has no practical value in governance or the needs of anyone in the nation or world. It is petty and childish.

Regardless of your party affiliation, you cannot allow your representative to even consider such a move. It’s Russian roulette, and most of the chambers are filled.

Long ago, many on the right realized that many Americans do judge books by their covers. It’s essentially out of intellectual laziness that they do. So they started finding labels for groups, laws, initiatives, etc that people would look upon and immediately decide on the value of what was described and those either promoting or fighting against it. They trust that the people would be too lazy to actually open the book cover and see what was contained inside and what it has done or would do in relationship to their everyday lives. Right wing conservative hit man and propagandist Frank Luntz is adept at this concept.

So for those of you who actually spend time to look behind the cover art created by the right-wing, here’s a sample of the RWNJ Lexicon that shows what they want you to believe by the title/label and what it truly is by actions and intent.

47%: Per Mitt Romney during the secretly taped speech he gave to donors, and as perpetuated by FOX, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators, was meant to refer to those in America who are wholly dependent on government to survive and are too lazy to take care of themselves. Usually ascribed to minorities and those on “welfare”, anyone who gets any form of government assistance. In reality, those collecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (who actually paid into these programs), food stamps, unemployment benefits, veterans, multinational banks and corporations, small businesses, government contractors, active duty military personnel, elected officials all get some form of government assistance. And many of the 47% actually do pay FICA and state/local taxes and/or paid into their Social Security/Medicare throughout their working lives.

American People: Those who support the right wing agenda. In reality, they do not consider anyone who is a Democrat, RINO (Republican In Name Only), independent, non Christian, atheist, Muslim, anyone who’s political, religious and moral compass who doesn’t FULLY run in line with the views of this group, some 70% or more of the nation, as representative of Americans.

Americans for Prosperity: A political think-tank group funded by the Koch Brothers who advocate legislation that will bring prosperity to all Americans via union busting, “right to work” status, deregulations, etc. In reality, their actions only assist those already in prosperity (usually due to being born into prosperity) in keeping it. The legislation they advocate makes it not only more difficult, but often impossible for those in the lower classes to aspire to the prosperity the Koch brothers and their kind already enjoy and don’t want to lose.

Clear Skies Initiative: An initiative imposed in the Bush Administration to counter regulations in the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that required antiquated coal burning plants to upgrade their plants to bring harmful emissions down. It essentially grandfathered all these plants and excused them from making any upgrades. This was done by the Bush Administration to “save jobs” which is nice, but does little to clear the skies. As a result, the pollution these plants create has been linked in numerous studies to increased premature deaths and cases of asthma and cancer. Studies using methods approved by the EPA have blamed the Detroit Edison plant for 293 premature deaths and 5,740 asthma attacks per year, according to the group Clear the Air. Likewise two old coal-burning plants in Chicago, the Fisk and Crawford plants run by the company Midwest Generation and producing electricity for Com-Ed, were held responsible for 41 premature deaths, 550 emergency room visits and 2,800 asthma attacks in a 2001 study by the Harvard School of Public Health. Numerous out-dated plants in other states cause similar problems.

Conservative: This is the broad term those on the right like to use when describing themselves or anything they do or stand for. Essentially it is suppose to refer to smaller government with limited powers. However, the origins of the conservative movement never made mention of growing government power to determine what Americans do in their bedrooms, what women do with their bodies, or expand government surveillance powers to have unfettered access to what you read, access on the internet, who you associate with, power of corporations over the needs of the people and legislation of religious ideology with force of law, all things fully supported and demanded by the right wing faction of the Republican Party.

Conservative Christian: A common phrase especially by those on the right describing themselves in their bios. However, they ascribe their core principles to things never said by, and in many ways contrary to the teachings of Christ. If Jesus was a conservative, he was a bad one because the Bible clearly shows he supported free healthcare, expected people to sell everything to follow him and aid the poor, indigent and lesser people among them. Jesus made no claim to governance and only expressed anger at the “money changers” in the Temple of God in Jerusalem. Jesus never forbade homosexuality, never said a thing about abortion, and never told the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. “How you treat the least of thee is how you treat me.”

Constitution Constructionist: A term used by those on the extreme right of the Supreme Court and those who support them implying that they will only view constitution rights as the founders intended. However, they seem to overlook the fact that the founders wrote into the constitution the means for changing it along with the times as the need arises. The original constitution as enacted by the founders only saw white male property owners as those who counted. Slaves were only a fraction of a person, women and minorities had no rights. The constitution is by design, and as validated by a clear reading of the Federalist Papers and the letters of Thomas Jefferson a “Living Document” though the right has extreme problems with that definition. Times change and so can the Constitution to address these changes as we evolve as a society and people. The founders knew this to be true otherwise the amendment process would have never been written into the Constitution.

Constitutional Libertarian: This is a new one that I’ve only recently heard. It applies to Libertarians who see the Constitution under the guise of those who cite “Constitution Constructionist” as their policy. As noted above, this is contrary to what the founders intended. They see nothing supporting full equal rights and equal treatment of all Americans because that was not in the original constitution. They also see many things, cite and quote many things not even mentioned, or totally contrary to what it is in the Constitution and her amendments. When I hear “Constitutional Libertarian” I’m left with the thought that it applies to people who take liberty regarding what the Constitution actually says and means.

Death Panels: A very popular phrase that came up during the Affordable Care Act debates. It implies that there were provisions in the Act giving government the right to determine who lives and who dies via what they could or couldn’t get in terms of treatment. In reality, there is nothing to establish such a government panel with that mandate. However, private insurance companies, in their efforts to maintain profitability currently do have “panels” that determine if they will or won’t pay out on procedures based on their beliefs, regardless of what your doctor prescribes or asks for. They can deny payment for any service based on their interpretation of whether it is necessary, experimental, whatever. So if there are death panels, they are actually the part of the private “for profit” insurance companies, not the Affordable Care Act.

Death Tax: A favorite of the right referring to the Estate Tax where they bring up visions of taxing the dead. They imply that no one can get any inheritance from their beloved dead without paying an extravagant tax on it. Well in reality, the Estate Tax only applies to inheritance over $5,000,000.00. Today, 99.87% of all estates pay zero estate taxes. So this only applies to a very small fraction of the 1%. Here’s a link to the myths regarding the estate tax: http://www.cbpp.org/files/estatetaxmyths.pdf

Family Values: This implies that only two parents raising their children in a Christian household beholding to the standards set forth by Ward and June Beaver are consistent with “Family Values.” Otherwise you cannot possibly understand or maintain that standard. So single parents, gay-parents, atheist parents, Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/etc parents, non-GOP, etc do not understand and cannot attain true Family Values. It would appear that only a small fraction of American Families have “values.”

Fox News “Fair and Balanced”: Of course, only Fox News is fair and balanced and by that they mean that they will present both sides of any political position, theirs which is always right despite the facts and the other side which is always wrong. The talk shows openly talk about Republicans and Right Wing Agenda as their own. They make no effort to cover that up anymore. They berate and belittle anyone with a differing position time to present their views before they “have to leave it there.” Fox News is clearly one-sided catering to the low-information viewer.

Global Warming Hoax: Citing a handful of email correspondence regarding research methodology is all they have to say that the entire theory of Global Climate Change is false. They usually cite that God controls the environment and there is absolutely nothing out there to support the theory supported by well over 95% of global scientists using peer reviewed literature. It is true that there are some who offer contrary interpretations. However of these people, nearly all are under the pay of Oil Interests and none of their work is peer reviewed. In fact recently a Koch Brother’s research team came back stating that Climate Change is real and is most likely man-made only to be dismissed by the Koch Brothers, who owe much of their wealth to the oil industry.

Job Creators: These are the people who cannot be taxed at a higher rate because they need tax cuts and the extra money provided to them by the federal government to create jobs. Well the problem is they’re not creating jobs despite ten years of the Bush tax cuts. In reality people only create jobs if there is a financial need to do so. In short demand for goods and services creates jobs, not extra cash in the hands of those at the top. Currently thanks to the Bush tax cuts the job creators are literally sitting on trillions of dollars that they are keeping out of the economy and in bank accounts (usually overseas) not contributing to our economy. When the middle-class grows and has more buying power, they spend that money, if the rich get even more money, they sit on it. There are job creators, just not the ones the right-wing like to refer to.

Liberal Media: Any media that isn’t Fox or right-wing talk radio is “Liberal Media” because they are only supportive of the “liberal agenda.” In reality, most media is controlled by the same corporate interests as much of Fox and right-wing talk radio. What’s more interesting is that a study of news stories from all media show significantly higher “negative” coverage of Obama and traditional left-wing causes than positive, despite national favorability polling of the people. There may be media more to the left than Fox, but it can hardly be called “liberal”.

ObamaCare: The epithet applied to the Affordable Care Act. By doing so they made the whole act completely to work of a President that many on the right doubt was ever born in this country, is extremely liberal, and is Marxist. Well much of the Affordable Care Act is made up of Republican Ideas presented during the “Hillary Care” debates of the 1990’s. The individual mandate was proposed by the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think-tank now about to be controlled by Jim DeMint. It is modeled under the conservative model of “Romney Care” that was instituted in Massachusetts. It isn’t liberal by any means, it is actually a center-right response to the Single-Payer, Universal Healthcare that those on the left truly want. However, in calling it “ObamaCare” the right-wing is actually correct in a way they would never admit, Obama is a centrist who does embrace Republican/Conservative ideas as a means of governance, not the liberal he’s portrayed to be by RWNJs.

Right to Work: This applies to Right to Work legislation in various states around the country designed to limit, if not out-law collective bargaining rights of workers via unions. It implies that everyone has a right to work and that union style “collective bargaining interferes in “job creators” ability or desire to create jobs. What it actually does is limit the ability of workers to use democratic principles to join together and as a group demand better working environment and pay than the employers, who need the people working for them, are willing to part with because it cuts into their profit margins. Studies across the nation clearly show that Right to Work legislation often results in lower wages, lower job security, and worsening work environments than states who still recognize and allow workers to exercise their democratic rights to be heard. Further, employment rates in right to work states are often below the national average. It’s not an issue of providing good jobs for workers; it’s providing bigger profit margins to corporations that usually do not translate to better jobs.

Socialist: This essentially applies to anyone who counts on government to supply those things that only government can provide on a fair and productive means. Anyone who isn’t “anti-government” is socialist. Anyone who believes in Infrastructure, Roads, Safe food, Clean Air and Water, Police, Courts, Fire-Fighters, Military being provided by government of the people for the people without a profit margin is a socialist.

Socialized Medicine: Although enjoyed by most industrialized nations in the world at less cost with better outcomes than what is provided in this country. Of course, we actually do have what the right will call “socialized.” Veterans Care, Medicare, Medicaid are all under what the right would call socialized medicine because it’s government controlled and managed and nobody receiving it would be willing to give it up. In reality, it truly cannot be said that ObamaCare is socialized because the heart of it keeps healthcare under the control of the for-profit insurance companies, much to the dismay of those on the left.

Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party: One of my favorite groups to talk about. These are the people who were created essentially as a grassroots, but were quickly taken over by corporate interests. They base their existence that as citizens, they are paying higher taxes with no true representation than ever before. In reality, on a federal level, citizens are paying to lowest federal tax rates in over 60 years and it has even gone lower under President Obama. Further, though they want to pay even less taxes, they do not want any of the services provided by government (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) cut or reduced in any manner. An extremely fun group to work with.

Traditional Marriage: From what the right-wing says, from the “Bible” and throughout history, marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman for the procreation of offspring. Anything outside of that is not traditional and should be outlawed. Of course, many on the right had this same believe regarding interracial marriage. They do not seem to understand that in reality, traditional marriage was a property arrangement and could involve multiple spouses and concubines. In a pragmatic sense, marriage today has little or nothing to do with the history of the union of people more than a legal classification of non-siblings for property rights during their lives together and after death. Nothing in the Bible says that people of the same sex cannot get married. Most of the references to marriage talk about polygamy. But no matter, for these people, tradition is what they cherry pick from history, not history itself.

Union Thugs: An epithet applied to anyone who supports unions and/or collective bargaining rights of workers. This applies to the history of some bad people associated with unions in the past. However by doing so, they ignore what the existence and work of unions throughout our history have provided for all workers over the objections of the business leaders. These are the things that those who assail union supporters as thugs would themselves not likely give up: paid holidays, paid vacations, paid sick-time, safe working conditions, employee benefits, fair wages, family leave, 40-hour workweek, overtime compensation, the list goes on.

There are many terms/labels in the RWNJ Lexicon that will come up in conversation either on talk radio, social media, workplace, or at family gatherings. It’s important to realize that you can’t judge a book by its cover nor can you judge a situation by its label, especially if that label is applied by someone with a narrative to promote. Look at the history and the facts of any group of people, process, initiative or law before applying either negative or positive support for it. This is where we do better than those on the far right-wing fringe, we want to know, they just want to support or disapprove of whatever they’re told by the labels they are given.

Now I know this position of mine will clearly upset people on both sides of the political aisle, but having seen what implementation of term limits has done in Arizona, and the clear damage a large group of inexperienced legislators can cause to not only State, but Federal government, I stand firm on this assertion.

In my humble opinion, from my observations and read on history, the implementation of term limits has always been a tool by those who can’t quite get the trust of the people to vote for them, by forcing out those who do well in their elected offices. Being a good politician who has the trust of the people is no different from being a good employee. Someone with talent and years of experience, who continues to excel at their job and produce for the employer, or in the political sense, the people they represent.

Now those in favor will rightly point out the power of the incumbency that allows poor politicians to remain in office and how term limits end up being the only way to move them out. However, the way I see it is that this is more the problem of an uninformed and disengaged electorate, not the system. If an elected official isn’t doing their job to the satisfaction of the people, they can (in many cases) be recalled or better yet, voted out in the next election cycle. This has happened more time in history than the other way around, where bad politician remain in office. But again, it’s because of the disengagement of the constituents in the particular district than the system itself. If you require term limits, then good and productive elected officials are also forced out, to the loss of the constituents they represent and who benefit from good representation.

In Arizona, during a time when even though the state was becoming more Republican, the Democratic Party had “safe” seats in the Legislature and we had a good balance of representation. Both sides were experienced in working together for the benefit of the people they represented. The democrats who were in office for the most part were very good and experienced representing the people. However we had an issue where it was discovered that some Democratic representatives were involved taking bribes. The push was made by the Republicans to enact a constitutional amendment creating term limits in the State House and Senate that passed. Problem solved? Well, what was expected and designed to happen, happened.

Both good and bad representatives were term-limited out of their seats. Now these were people with years of experience representing their constituents who were replaced (mostly by Republicans) who had little to no experience in how to legislate, negotiate and govern. They didn’t know the rules; they had no experience in negotiating across party lines. A large group of inexperience, right-wing legislators took over the House and Senate. The only place they could go to in order to “learn the ropes” were party staffers and lobbyists. So by placing a large number of inexperienced representatives in positions of power, the real power switched to unelected staff members and lobbyists who had different agendas from “serving the people.”

Sure enough, gridlock became more partisan, more pro-business legislation came to fruition and as these people ended up being term-limited themselves, just as they were getting to learn things on their own, another group of inexperienced legislators came in who were also dependent on party staffers and lobbyists to show them the way. This is why Arizona is now listed near the bottom in terms of governance in the country. We use to do pretty well before term limits came to play. Now it’s the lobbyists and party staffers fighting for a different agenda, using elected people as figure heads.

Many call for term limits in Federal office. Each election cycle the call goes out because people remain in office that others feel have an unfair advantage. If this was to go into effect, I promise you a continuous recycling of the 112th Congress every four to six years. Now although it wasn’t due to term limits, in 2010 due to the “Tea Party” revolution which itself was due in part to voter disengagement, a large number of extreme hard-line, right-wing, Tea Party representatives came to the House and Senate. Most of these elected officials had little to no experience in governance. So guess who they went to in order to learn the ropes? Like in Arizona, the staffer and lobbyists actually have more control over what’s happening in Congress. Again, the agenda wasn’t for the people, it was for the Republican Party (staffers) and big business (lobbyists) because they legislated for their agenda using the inexperienced people elected to sit in Congress as figureheads.

It’s true that some very bad in unproductive elected officials would be eliminated if we had term limits. Nut jobs like Jim DeMint and John McCain certainly come to mind. But by that same rule, imagine what good, experienced and productive legislators we would have lost before they worked much of their magic for the nation. Ted Kennedy and yes, even Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater. Many accomplished representatives do leave when their time comes, either by retirement or death, but by remaining and honing their skills as legislators over time, that includes working with the other side for the common good of the people, they control the process, not the staffers or lobbyists, which is what we have in State Houses with term limits and due to voter frustration in recent years, the House and Senate. The issue in my opinion isn’t term limits, its’ voter engagement. If the people are not actively a part of the system, the system will fail them as it did in 2010.

I don’t expect all or even most of you reading this to agree with me, but from my perspective, regardless of the political leaning of any particular candidate in office, I would prefer one experienced and seasoned enough to do their own work and have the tact to work with those on the other side, than be almost completely dependent of professional party staffers and corporate lobbyists, using those people for their own agenda.

I leave you with one thought. After being elected to a fourth term as President, the Republicans (when they took over the Congress after World War II) pushed for the amendment limiting the President to only two terms. They did so because FDR was so good, so effective they feared another one taking his place. Imagine if that amendment was in place before FDR was elected, he would have been term limited just before the outbreak of World War II when we needed the most experience and political savvy man in the Oval office that we could get. If we had another president in office on December 7th, 1941 I shudder to think how we would have done afterwards with a new president just learning the ropes. We don’t force good experienced and productive employees from their jobs because they’ve been there too long (at least good businesses wouldn’t) so why should we with politicians?

During the George W. Bush administration, his State department under Condi Rice, negotiated a treaty with the United Nations that essentially codified for the world, our own American with Disabilities Act, to prevent discrimination of the disabled for all nations that signed the treaty.

Although Bush’s administration was unable to complete negotiations while he was in office, it was finished by President Obama’s administration.

All treaties signed by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. As I said, this treaty merely gave the same protections to disabled people around the world that disabled people have here. However, those on the extreme right-wing paranoid Tea Party faction, led by Utah Senator Mike Lee, came up with a preposterous position that signing such a treaty would jeopardize our sovereignty. That is of course purely unfounded bullshit.

This treaty was supported by veterans associations across the country, former President George H. W. Bush, several prominent Republicans both in and out of office, and former Republican Senate Leader and Presidential Candidate Bob Dole, was there with his wife Elizabeth Dole, while 38 Republicans basically gave him a finger as he sat there in his wheel chair to vote against ratification.

It was a sad day for him, those who support the rights of the disabled from being discriminated against, and the nation as a whole.

Here is the list of each of the 38 Senators who voted against ratification. Let these heartless, uncaring, inhuman scum know what you think.

Alexander (R-TN)

Blunt (R-MO)

Boozman (R-AR)

Burr (R-NC)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coats (R-IN)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Hatch (R-UT)

Heller (R-NV)

Hoeven (R-ND)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Isakson (R-GA)

Johanns (R-NE)

Johnson (R-WI)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Lee (R-UT)

McConnell (R-KY)

Moran (R-KS)

Paul (R-KY)

Portman (R-OH)

Risch (R-ID)

Roberts (R-KS)

Rubio (R-FL)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Thune (R-SD)

Toomey (R-PA)

Vitter (R-LA)

Wicker (R-MS)

A few of these Senators won’t be back in January, but many will. Don’t ever let them forget this vote and make sure everyone remembers when it’s their turn to run for re-election. These bastards don’t deserve to sit in our Senate.

It is of course one of the rallying cries of the far right wing, tea party faction of the Republican party (“you know, morons”) who love to trot out this talking point. It is of course totally baseless and contrary to the facts. Now of course these idiots don’t give a lick about facts, but I’m assuming that you do. So here they are when confronted by this talking point at work, church, family get-togethers, Twitter or Facebook.

President Obama has yet to raise anyone’s taxes. In fact in addition to extending the destructive Bush Tax cuts for all income earners for an additional two years, he’s implemented a “payroll tax holiday” by cutting FICA withholding that ended up giving the average American working family an additional $2,000.00 a year, that they in turn have spent, thus stimulating the economy during this recession. Looking at the statistics, federal taxes are currently, in reality, under Obama our federal tax rate are at the lowest rate in over 30 years, even lower than under Ronald Reagan

Per Politifact, with a few minor deviations, taxes are actually lower than at any time in the past 50 years, which for those of you not too keen on linear time, predates Ronald Reagan:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/28/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-families-are-their-lowest-/

So it is clear that President Obama has not raised taxes. In fact, he’s only advocating raising taxes for any income over $250,000.00.

To clarify, the first $250,000.00 remains under the Bush tax rates and the amount over $250,000.00 would be taxed an additional .03% or three cents on each dollar.

Further, this would only apply to the 2% of individuals or 3% of business that earn that much in the country.

This in not anywhere near the tax hike implemented by Bill Clinton in 1993, that didn’t destroy the economy as all Republicans at the time said.

Now to the spending talking point:

In advocating lower taxes, the right-wing insists that the main culprit in our deficit is excessive federal spending, and go so far as to say that President Obama has increased federal spending more than any president in history. Well again, this isn’t true it is in fact a bald face lie.

A few facts those who advocate this tend to leave out.

First of all, President Bush neglected to ever place the two wars he waged on the books. When Obama took office, he did. In short, he acknowledged federal spending already underway from his predecessor.

Further; TARP, that bailed out the banking industry was a Bush administration idea, not Obama’s. It was in fact pushed by House minority leader (at the time) John Boehner.

Finally, the stimulus that Obama pushed was mostly tax cuts for businesses and wealthiest Americans, not spending. So it did add to the deficit, but not the spending.

So what are the historic facts regarding federal spending under Barack Obama?

Well, he has actually presided over the smallest increase of federal spending since Dwight David Eisenhower.

In fiscal year 2009, federal spending under George W. Bush increased 17.9% for policies and spending he enacted. In fiscal 2010, (Obama’s first budget) spending actually fell 1.8%. Under current projections by the Congressional Budget Office, at the end of Obama’s fourth year in office, federal spending is set to increase only .4% for all four years.

Now, 17.9% for last year of Bush to only .4% for end of Obama’s first term. Hardly the largest increase this century let alone since Eisenhower.

From Market Watch:

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Many want to cite spending and debt as it relates to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Well here are the charts that explain that for the past several years to include Bush through the last four years of Obama. Look at the trend; it continues to improve from Bush’s last year in office.

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/misc/debt-revenue-and-expenditures-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

And another article with charts going over this “Big Fat GOP Budget Lie” that clearly explains the phenomena in terms even a tea bagger could understand.

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/07/29/the-big-fat-gop-budget-lie/

To sum up in one chart:

No, President Obama isn’t spending the country into oblivion. The only additional spending he’s advocating for are for those things that both Democratic and Republican Presidents have advocated for over the past 100+ years to stimulate our economy and invest in our future. What’s more, as a percentage of GDP, historically it’s nothing especiall compared to World War II.

Now this doesn’t jive with the Grover Norquist narrative to justify even lower taxes and even lower spending, to justify more austerity to keep the wealthiest Americans and corporations (who he lobbies for) wealthy. What he advocates is the same type of austerity Greece has undertaken. See how well that’s worked out for them.

Ed Schultz sums up spending lie:

If they have to make things up and lie to get their point across, maybe it’s because they know they have nothing. Don’t let these lies go unchallenged. They facts are ours to exploit and theirs to ignore. Afterall, like true lemmings, the GOP will in order to maintain their narrative and ignorance of reality, run over the fiscal cliff because that’s what lemmings do. We don’t have to follow them because we research, think and accept reality.

Oh, and just an added bonus for when you confront others who decide they must defend the wealthiest Americans from having to pay more taxes because they already pay a higher share of all federal tax revenues; well the 1% control 40% of the nation’s wealth and per Bush Press Secretary Ari Fletcher, pay a staggering 28.1% towards federal tax revenues. It would be nice if they paid a percentile commensurate to the percentage of the nation’s wealth they control, don’t you think?

Don’t be fooled with the continuous lies of the leaders and talking heads of the Republican Party when they say we must as a nation address the deficit and national debt, that spending is the key. The mere fact that they continue to demand that the Bush tax cuts be made permanent for everyone is the proof. As well as the insistence to continue to spend more money on an already bloated Military Industrial Complex.

When Bush and GOP leadership in House and Senate pushed both tax cuts, they knew full well that such cuts would add to the deficit and national debt for an indefinite period of time. How do I know this? Well they had to use reconciliation to pass it along with Dick Cheney’s vote. This is a historic fact. Why is reconciliation key? Well it was the only way they could pass it and avoid a Democratic Filibuster. Under the reconciliation rules, you only need a simple majority to pass a fiscal bill. However, if that bill adds to the deficit and national debt, it must be required to expire in ten years. Although the Republicans at the time had majorities in both houses of Congress, they didn’t have a big enough majority to pass these cuts without using reconciliation. So they knew the cuts would add to the deficit because the Congressional Budget Office told them it would.

In 2010, they held the US economy, food stamps and unemployment hostage and required Obama and the Democratic controlled House and Senate to extend the cuts for two years to expire on December 31, 2012 and here we are again. They are trying to convince the President and Democrats to extend all of them permanently, even though they know that these cuts are one of the major contributors to our current deficit. Again, this information comes from the Congressional Budget Office as well as every reputable economist in the world. Its basic math.

Today they are trotting out the same lies they trotted out during the Clinton administration and almost every year since that “taxing the wealth job creators” will kill job growth and destroy the economy. Again the history is clear. When President Clinton and the Democratic controlled House and Senate proposed the tax increases for the wealthiest Americans to 39% in 1993, Newt Gingrich and the GOP said it would kill jobs and bring about an economic collapse. Not a single Republican voted for that tax hike citing Grover Norquist’s childish pledge. What happened next? We had the largest sustained economic growth in peace time in our history. 21 million jobs were created, the budget was balanced with a surplus.

Had it not been for the Bush tax cuts, two wars, and Medicare Part D (that forbade the government from negotiating  prices with big Pharma), projections showed that our entire national debt would have been paid off in (get this) 2012, this year. The Republicans took over the House and Senate for a time on the lies that only tax cuts and limited government spending and elimination of business and banking regulations would save the country from economic collapse. The people believed them and then came 2008. It was a perfect storm of devastatingly low tax revenues, increased government spending on things that don’t contribute to overall economy and banking deregulation that crashed not only our economy, but the world’s. Even with 9-11, the country would have done well economically, were it not for the Iraq war (which we were lied into).

All the studies are clear and undisputable unless you are a liar, extremely ignorant, or just have you head stuck in a fart bubble up your ass; tax cuts for the wealthy “job creators” do not create jobs. Jobs are created by demand for goods and services, not excess cash. That is why expanding and paying a large middle-class via government assistance and investments does actually create jobs and keeps the economy perpetually growing. To put it another way, if you take the money being kept out of the economy from the wealthiest Americans and place them into taxes, that money is used to fund roads, infrastructure, airports, educations, law-enforcement etc. Jobs are actually created. With those government created jobs, those people start to spend their money for goods and services provided by the private sector requiring business people to hire more people to continue to provide goods and services and make profit. It’s simple macro economics that has historically worked.

The lies from Speaker Boehner, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell. Koch brothers, et al only serve to reduce revenue to federal and state governments that result in jobs being lost in the public sector, which then end up in jobs being lost in the private sector. Only the venture capitalists like Mitt Romney will make money by loading failing businesses with additional debt, forcing them into bankruptcy and then cutting them up and selling the parts for personal profits. By the way, it also results in more jobs lost, pensions destroyed, healthcare lost and more money out of the economy only to be hoarded by the wealthiest Americans. This has been the lie continually perpetrated by the GOP and their billionaire overlords that is destroying the country. It is why income disparity is at its highest rate since before the Great Depression. You suffer, they thrive and the mainstream media won’t spend time calling these politicians out on their lies. You need to do it yourself.

The Republicans don’t care about the deficit or national debt. If they did, the national debt would have been paid off by now by simply not slashing tax revenues and eliminating regulations that had the country with a surplus that would have continued to expand the economy. Instead, they were interested in the very few getting more of the overall American wealth.

Below are some key articles about this subject matter that will give you talking points to use on social media and correspondence with your local, state and federal representatives. Let them know you won’t be lied to anymore and demand positive “progressive” action from them. It’s in your hands and we need to make sure they all clearly get that message in 2014.

The Truth about the Bush Tax Cuts and Job Growth:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/07/17/the-truth-about-the-bush-tax-cuts-and-job-growth/

Do Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/do-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth.html?_r=0

Tax Cuts for Rich Do Not Generate Jobs:

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/tax-cuts-rich-do-not-generate-jobs

GOP Super Committee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Create Jobs, Can’t explain Why:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

Do Lower Taxes Create Jobs? Let’s Look at the States:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/03/do-lower-taxes-create-jobs-lets-look-at-the-states

Boehner Revives Flawed Study to Defend Tax Cuts for Wealthy:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/08/1164121/boehner-revives-flawed-study-tax-cuts/

I know most of you understand this little bit of linear time, but many in mainstream media and political pundits are spending their time talking about the race for 2016 starting now as if 2014 isn’t going to happen. Well as I posted after the President’s win, the work continues and we need to focus on 2014 to avoid another 2010 that left us all in a deeper mess that the President has had to contend with.

The President won in an electoral landslide and had a 51% majority of the popular vote to Mitt Romney’s 47% (Karma is a bitch Mitt). Further, the Democratic control of the Senate expanded when mainstream media had been predicted for the past two years, would most likely go to Republican control. Although the House remains in Republican hands, their control has been decreased and many suspect that were it not for the district gerrymandering that took place after the 2010 race, the Democrats would have taken control of the House. In fact, Democrats running for the House garnered far more votes than Republicans. Many of the key Tea Party candidates (Allen West, Joe Walsh, etc) lost their seats.

Now you would think the country and Republican Party have woken up and all would be working to actually start legislating for the majority of the American people. You would be wrong. Subtle signs are already beginning to manifest showing that things could go bad if we don’t stay focused and ensure there is no loss of power and influence in both the House and Senate in 2014.

Now after the high voter turnout in 2008 that gave us a President Obama and large majorities in both the Senate and House, people on the left began to complain that Obama and the Democrats weren’t “liberal” enough. They were upset that he didn’t provide “single-payer universal healthcare”, upset that he continued many of the same policies regarding national security as the previous Bush administration, upset that he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans to include the 1%.

Mainstream media, including those on MSNBC picked up on that problem and started to complain that Obama wasn’t doing what he should. They went so far as to say that during the 2010 race, people should register their complaints at the polls. Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Keith Olbermann in their commentary expressed their dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. At the same time, the Republicans and their financial backers placed resources into the fledgling “Tea Party” movement. They were out in force at town hall meeting expressing their opposition to “ObamaCare” and government takeover of healthcare. Then came the 2010 election. The extreme right wing came out in force while the disenchanted left wing stayed home.

The Republicans swept the House seats and took over many governorships and created many “super-majorities” in State legislatures. The Republican Tea Party took enough control of the country to begin pushing anti-choice, anti-union, and pro-business and 1% legislation, while blocking all efforts of the Obama administration to push job bills to help the country. They went to war with Obama by attacking many of the American people (women, minorities, LGBTs, non-Republicans) by making their lives miserable in hopes of making them so angry; they would take it out on Obama and the Democrats in 2012.

In short, they were working the Mitch McConnell primary legislative agenda to make Obama a one term president. They started redistricting congressional districts to make the GOP House State Legislature seats safe; they started enacting voter suppression laws to keep as many from the polls as they could. They fully understand that their influence in elections does better when fewer people vote than if many showed up.

Well in 2012 they were unsuccessful. Voter suppression turned into anger at the polls and the people knew who to be angry with. Despite the predictions of mainstream media, the youth turned out, the LGBT community turned out, minorities turned out. The numbers did what the Republicans hate in a national election, they grew. It’s a fact; the party that represents more people will do better if more people show up. A party that only caters to a few at the exclusion of the many will do better if no one shows up. As Paul Weyrich who founded ALEC famously said at a Republican Party event:

So here we are. The first issue to be contended with is the so-called “fiscal cliff” that if the lame-duck congress doesn’t address before December 31, the Bush tax cuts disappear for all and sequestration of both military and domestic spending will go into effect. Taxes go up for all, spending goes down, and it is likely that if not corrected by the new Congress, the country can slip into another recession. The GOP understand that their party is being held responsible right now and are grudgingly agreeing that maybe, just maybe, the upper 2% should go back to the Clinton Tax rates while the other 98% remain under the Bush tax cuts and Obama payroll tax cuts. Maybe, just maybe military spending should be cut to reduce deficit spending. The Democrats are saying they would hold firm that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are off the table. We’ll see.

Many on the right are being marginalized today, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, are being ridiculed in Republican corners. So you would think that they have learned their lesson. You would think that they would begin to discredit the Tea Party influence. You would think they would be willing to work with the President and Democrats for all the people. The rhetoric from Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, would give you hope for the future. Well, don’t be so sure. There are other things going on that shows that they haven’t changed and most likely won’t change. In fact, if given the opportunity, they will go back to what was happening in the past two years hoping for a repeat in 2014 from what happened in 2010 to secure their holdings in Washington and prepare to take complete control in 2016 and eliminate everything the President and Democrats have worked to get all of you.

In Ohio, Governor Kasich and the Republicans in the legislature have introduced a new round of misogynistic laws taking free choice away from women.

In preparation for the 2014 elections, the Republican Senate has named Senator-Elect Ted Cruz to the National Senatorial Campaign Committee. Ted Cruz is a Tea Party advocate who is on record supporting and recruiting Tea Party candidates in the past. Expect more Sharon Angels, Christine O’Donnells, Todd Akins, and Richard Mourdocks, to be running in 2014 on Tea Party agenda.

They are continuing their rhetoric that all things sciency is fraudulent or from the pit of hell.

They still say the unions are responsible for companies going bankrupt even after tripling the salaries and benefits of their CEO’s and top executives while being financially strapped.

They continue to focus on Benghazi and “word smithing” by Obama spokespeople while divulging the names of Libyan operatives aiding the United States in our attempts to apprehend the perpetrators of the attack and not appearing all that interested in bringing anyone to justice for the attack, only Susan Rice for not saying it was a terrorist attack when reading the declassified talking points from the CIA.

Paul Ryan was chosen by John Boehner to negotiate the fiscal cliff talks even though he thinks the Republicans got a mandate for his budget ideas in 2012.

Governors in red states are refusing to accept federal funding for expansion of Medicaid to insure more people in their states under ObamaCare and also are refusing to establish state exchanges for insurance for those wanting to buy it at a discount per ObamaCare.

The list goes on.

2012 wounded the Tea Party Republicans, it didn’t kill them. They are counting on a much need blood transfusion in 2014 to begin the attacks anew. We cannot allow this to happen. Twitter is already beginning to fill with emo-progs saying that if Obama doesn’t do this or that they won’t have anything to do with the Democrats again. Social media is already begun to read like it did before 2010. People need to constantly be reminded of some key facts:

Obama is a centrist, in many ways he’s always been more of a moderate Republican than Liberal Democrat and by being so, has been very effective.

The only alternative to Obama and the Democrats the Republicans are willing to provide the voters are extreme right-winger who do and vote only as they are told by the 1% financial backers. Social programs will be cut, taxes for rich will be cut, military spending will go up and middle and working class will suffer under Republican control. Certainly more so than under Obama and the current Democratic representation.

GOP have sponsored a law suit to be heard in the Supreme Court to overturn the voting rights act of the 1960’s.

Voter caging and suppression acts continue to be pushed and will be in full force by 2014 to keep many from the polls. If the laws cannot be overturned or ruled, then you must start now to get your IDs and get registered to vote.

If you don’t vote, those on the far extreme right will be the only ones voting as they did in 2010 and will be voting for an extreme right-wing agenda that will impact your states and nation as a whole.

GOP obstruction is likely to continue over the next two years. Everyone who has been active these past two years must remain as active, if not more during the next two to hold you local legislators and Congress accountable to the people, not the 1%. You cannot let up at all. Whatever happens in the next two years will impact the nation for generations to come.

It’s not just the Supreme Court, its ending 30 years of supply-side “Reaganomics” and going back to building a strong middle-class as we had before. 2014 is prologue to what we can expect in 2016. So let’s focus on 2014 first so we can have a better 2016.

It’s very simple, stay active, register, get ID and Vote like we did in 2012. Your country’s future depends on you.

As with most second term administrations, several of President Obama’s Cabinet Secretaries will be stepping down and new ones will need to be confirmed by the Senate to replace them. In this case, the most notable person to be stepping down is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Even though no official word has come from the White House of those being considered for her replacement, Senator John Kerry and current Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice are being floated. However, both Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are expressing outrage at the prospect of Susan Rice being nominated and have vowed to do all that they can to prevent this from happening. There is speculation that the reason they don’t want Ambassador Rice nominated is that they would prefer John Kerry, thus opening up his Senate seat for recently defeated Senator Scott Brown. Plausible, but this rant is over the logic these two Senators are using to justify their “outrage” of the nomination.

Both cite Susan Rice as being at the center of the “Benghazi Debacle” that the right-wing and their Fox News propaganda wing have been trying to morph into an “impeachable offense” against the President. They feign outrage and disgust over what she said when she spoke regarding the incident. It was a tragedy, much is still not known, but the “debacle” has been how the Republicans have been using this incident for political purposes and in doing so, creating problems for the diplomatic corps and those in the area trying to help us out. For example, Representative Darryl Issa divulging the confidential names of Libyan supporters in the area to the public and thus placing their lives in jeopardy.

Here are the known facts from the Pentagon, about Benghazi as we know them today (not the propaganda with no basis or reality or fact from the right)

September 11, 2012 9:42 p.m. (Benghazi time): Armed men begin their assault on the U.S. Consulate.

9:59 p.m. (17 minutes later): A surveillance drone is directed to fly over the U.S. compound, but is unarmed.

10:32 p.m. (33 minutes later): The Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff are notified of the attack by the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon. “The information is quickly passed to Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey.”

11:00 p.m. (28 minutes later): Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey meet with President Obama at the White House where they discuss the unfolding information and how to respond. The meeting had been previously scheduled. The President instructs them to take all necessary steps needed to secure our personnel and insure others are not in danger. This is 1 hour and 18 minutes after the attack began.

11:10 p.m. (10 minutes later): The surveillance drone arrives over the Benghazi facility.

11:30 p.m. (20 minutes later): All surviving U.S. personnel are evacuated from the consulate. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and State Department computer expert Sean Smith were killed in the initial attack.

September 12, 2012:

Midnight to 2:00 a.m. (30 minutes later) Panetta and other senior leaders discuss possible options for further violence if it were to break out. Panetta gives verbal orders for Marine anti-terrorist teams from Rota, Spain to prepare to deploy to Tripoli and Benghazi. Panetta also orders special operations force team training in Croatia and an additional special operations force team in the United States to prepare to deploy to a staging base in southern Italy.

1:30 a.m. (30 minutes later, and 2.8 hours after the initial attack): A six-man security team from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli (404.5 miles away) arrives in Benghazi.

2:39 a.m. to 2:53 a.m. (1 hour 9 minutes later) The National Military Command Center gives formal authorization for the deployment of the two special operations force teams from Croatia and the United States.

5:15 a.m. (2 hours 22 minutes later, and 7 hours 33 minutes after initial attack) Attackers launch assault on a “second” U.S. facility in Benghazi. Two former U.S. Navy SEALs acting as security contractors are killed. They are identified as Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

6:05 a.m. (50 minutes later) A C-17 aircraft in Germany is told to prepare to deploy to Libya to evacuate the consulate personnel.

7:40 a.m. (1 hour 35 minutes later): The first wave of Americans are evacuated to Tripoli via airplane.

Later this day at the White House, President Obama commented about the attack using the words “Act of Terror” in context with his statements regarding the Benghazi attacks.

September 16, 2012 (5 days after the attack): On request of President Obama and using “talking points” provided her by the CIA on September 15, UN Ambassador Susan Rice makes a statement regarding the Benghazi Attack. The CIA informed her of the theory at the time that the attack was “spontaneous.”  She cites that at that time, they had “no evidence” that this was “pre-planned” as the CIA were still gathering information.

CIA Talking Points:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/

Note: Libya is a foreign country still rebuilding a government and security forces following the collapse of the Kaddafi government. U.S. military resources are scattered throughout the region and a State Department request for additional funding from Congress was denied by the Republican controlled House.

Further, although John McCain and Lindsay Graham say that from an intelligence point of view, Susan Rice should have known better, the fact remains that as UN Ambassador, she is not privy to continuous intelligence briefings on every intelligence operation or investigation. She is provided that information on a “need to know” basis. She spoke according to the talking points provided her by the CIA.

Susan Rice as Ambassador to the UN, is there to represent the interests of the United States to the World Community. She was easily confirmed to that position based on her record in the Clinton White House. She has always served with distinction.

She was confirmed for the position by a majority vote in the US Senate to include John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Susan Rice’s current job duties do not include interpreting intelligence data from the CIA. That was the job of another Rice, namely Condoleezza Rice.

Now let’s compare the job record of Condi Rice prior to her nomination and confirmation of Secretary of State under George W. Bush.

Condi Rice when she first came to the White House was George Bush’s National Security Advisor. She was responsible for interpreting and advising intelligence information for the President and advises him appropriately. In the early months of the Bush administration, there was this group known as Al Qaeda operating in the United States. Various intelligence agencies were concerned regarding traffic going on regarding a potential attack forthcoming. The president gets what’s known as a Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), giving a summary of issues that the President needs to be aware of.

On August 6^th, 2001, while the President was vacationing in Crawford, a Presidential Daily Briefing was delivered to Bush. This one was prepared out of frustration over the apparent lack of action from previous PDB’s prepared regarding Al Qaeda for the President and Condi Rice. It was entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States.” Nothing of substance was done until after September 11, 2001 when Bin Laden did strike in New York, Washington DC and Pennsylvania resulting in the murder of over 3000 Americans on American soil.

Later, Condi Rice went on the airwaves as National Security Advisor helping the Bush Administration convince the nation that the “intelligence” was a slam dunk, that Iraq was not only involved with Al Qaeda, but were acquiring weapons of mass destruction and were preparing to attack the United States. So with Condi’s help, we attacked a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11, had no weapons of mass destruction, that resulted in the deaths and wounding of thousands of U.S. Military personnel and hundred of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

When Condi Rice was nominated for Secretary of State, she was given glowing recommendations from John McCain and Lindsay Graham and was confirmed for the position. They made no reference to her absolute failure to interpret the intelligence (her job duty) and her either being blatantly wrong or was blatantly lying to the American people. The very same thing they are accusing Susan Rice of doing (which she didn’t) that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans on foreign soil.

Lawrence O’Donnell questions Condi Rice’s participation in the lead up to the Iraq War and is confronted with her lies as the “The Young Turks” clip will attest:

President Obama called McCain and Graham out on their lies yesterday and they are doubling down. Susan Rice has been effective as UN Ambassador and had nothing to do with Benghazi other than to report out as per the President’s request using data prepared for her by the CIA. In fact, even though things did go wrong in Libya, we need to examine what went wrong and develop plans to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

Using the death of 4 murdered Americans for partisan political purposes does dishonor to those who died, their families, the U.S. diplomatic corps, The U.S. Government, the U.S. Senate and the people of the United States. There is “no there there” this was a tragic incident that we must learn from.

Lawrence O’Donnell goes after McCain and Graham himself:

Now 9-11-01 resulted in over 3000 murders on U.S. soil based on the National Security Advisor not doing her job properly and then lying to the American people in the following months resulting in the additional deaths of hundred of thousands more. Who is more qualified for Secretary of State? One who did her job and no one ever complained about regarding her job performance until just recently or someone who literally has blood on her hands prior to being nominated?

John McCain speaks of being responsible for what you say and do. Well, this is the man who not only supported Condi Rice for Secretary of State, he chose Sarah Palin for Vice President. This is the man who cavalierly speaks of bombing Iran. The only proper thing he’s done in recent years was voting to confirm Susan Rice for UN Ambassador. Even a broken clock is right two times a day.

To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Our Rice is better than your Rice.

This was a rallying cry of the 1960’s from angry white blue-collar conservatives angry at the liberals who were angry with the nation for being involved in the Vietnam War and supportive of the corporate agenda. The liberals wanted change, the conservatives didn’t want anything to change so they told the liberals “American, Love it or leave it.” Today, it would appear the phrase has new life, only the roles have reversed.

As you all may know from recent reports, there is a movement going across the nation following President Obama’s win of people petitioning the White House to secede from the Union. The White House has a website called “We the People” that invites people using their zip codes to start a petition drive about any policy change. If they collect more than 25,000 signatures, they are to get a response from the White House within 30 days. Texas has already collected over 80,000 signatures to secede from the Union and form its own government. Other states across the nation have started similar petitions on the web site.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/texas-petition-secede-reaches-threshold-obama-comment/story?id=17701519

People from over 40 states have now signed versions of that petition. However, the states that have the most signatures are not only those from the former Confederacy, but they all tend to be Red states, that take in far more in federal give-aways than they send back to Washington in taxes. These states are far more dependent on Washington to survive that the Country is dependent on them.

We all know how well the last secessionist movement went. However, things do tend to be a bit different these days than in the mid 19th Century. Now I don’t believe a minority of angry, America loving, but American hating, folks have a right to drag their States into treason. Even the Red states have some decent Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans, of sound rational minds, residing there and want to remain part of the greatest nation on earth. In fact as Jeb Bush noted recently, even Texas is destined to turn Blue in as soon as four more years based on her demographics. Many of the Red states are at least getting more purple. But what to do with these angry secessionists?

Now as you can expect, since it happens all the time, many on the right have promised, or inferred that if Obama won, they would leave the country. They never say that they would leave because a Black man was reelected; they’re not bigots mind you. No, they would leave the country because they don’t want a Marxist, Socialist, European Style, Muslim national government to contend with. A lot of countries were floated out there just prior to and since the election.

They spoke of moving to Canada, a nation with national healthcare and a socialistic government that has a higher tax rate on her citizens than in the United States.

They have mentioned Australia, a nation with national healthcare and a socialistic government that has a higher tax rate on her citizens than in the United States.

They have mentioned European nations, nations with… Oh you get it.

Even Rush Limbaugh said if ObamaCare passed (which it did, and was held up as Constitutional by the Supreme Court) he would move to Costa Rica, a nation with single payer national healthcare and a socialistic government that has a higher tax rate on her citizens than in the United States.

Now there are nations that would better fit what these people want. Somalia comes to mind. It really has no government, no healthcare, and no taxes. A Libertarian, Tea Party, Republican dream. There’s any number of middle-eastern nations (Not Israel that has national healthcare, a socialistic government and higher tax rate on her citizens than the United States), but there is Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. Not only do some of these nations have smaller governments, many have small government just large enough to allow religion to take control of that government. Oh, wait; maybe it’s the wrong religion? Misogynistic, anti-gay, pro-life, male dominated beholding to a single God. Maybe it is the right religion? Who knows?

It’s very simple. Obama and the Democrats won. Yes, many on the left whined and cried about when Bush won his two terms and talked about leaving the nation. Only difference was that those who actually did leave, left for nations closer to what they aspired to; Canada, Australia, Costa Rica, any European nation. None of them talked about secession. Those on the right want to go to nations that embody what they say Obama is bringing to this nation, or they want to secede.

Well, they can’t secede. That is an illegal act; it’s treason against the government of the United States. They all should really read history. Now if they want to leave. Then they should go. However, considering that those who want to leave, have been dependant on government assistance to balance their State budgets, build their roads and infrastructure, pay for education, healthcare, and keep the air and water clean, food and drug safe, all from money provided by the rest of us. Well, if you want to leave, pay your tab first. After all, you all aren’t freeloaders who just want stuff are you?