Psychiatrist: A physician who specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. All psychiatrists are trained in diagnostic evaluation and in psychopharmacological treatment.

On Sunday, following the trouncing Joe Biden laid upon Paul Ryan by having the audacity of calling him out on his lies, FOX news had to bring out the “Medical A-Team” and their hired gun, Keith Ablow to give Fox a televised blow job by doing an on-air “Differential Diagnoses.”

Now Keith is a board certified psychiatrist and what he terms to be a forensic psychiatrist. He’s been used in Court. Of course, expert witnesses in Court will be experts for whoever is willing to pay them to testify. Usually these people arrive with their resumes and little else, to put on a show for Judges and Juries that belie the actual facts. You will note that on nearly all high-profile cases, you have experts on both sides with equally impressive resumes, providing diametrically opposing viewpoints upon examination of the same facts. Expert witnesses always need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Keith Ablow is something else. He’s adept at completing psychoanalysis on people he’s never met, never interviewed nor ever reviewed any in-depth history on who they are or what they have experienced. Then he goes on air and “projects” his opinions with authority and knowledge to back up the narrative of the people on FOX who pay him. He’s gone after LGBT in general and Chaz Bono in particular, he’s gone after President Obama (of course) and anyone that FOX wants to vilify.

As a Board Certified Psychiatrist, are Ablow’s on-air differentials ethical? Do they even correspond with the Hippocratic Oath?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Now in reality, doctors are not held legally to the Hippocratic Oath (I’ll discuss Ethics later on). It’s merely a long guideline for those in the medical field dating back to the fifth century BC. However, there is one passage of the Oath I found interesting for this rant:

“What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself holding such things shameful to be spoken about.”

This boils down to patient’s confidentiality. Now Ablow’s loophole to this is that the people he vilifies on behalf of FOX are not, nor ever will be his patients. So he’s allowed to make unsubstantiated claims about them based on the weakest of supporting evidence to sell a narrative to the lemmings that watch and believe in FOX.

I’m not a doctor or psychiatrist, but I will be playing one for this rant as I analyze “Mr.” Ablow and those who use him and those who give him any credence of professionalism.

Mr. Ablow graduated from Brown University in 1983 magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in neurosciences. He received his Doctor of Medicine degree from John Hopkins Medical School in 1987 and completed his psychiatry residency at the Tufts-New England Medical Center. As a medical student, he worked as a reporter for Newsweek, Washington Post and Baltimore Sun. Since 1996 he has had a private practice in forensic, adult and adolescent psychiatry. As mentioned above, he’s also a hired gun, excuse me, “expert witness” having testified in numerous high-profile cases to include Dr. Richard Sharpe, Clark Rockefeller, Richard Rosenthal, Mary Winkler and Joseph Druce.

Of interest is that on January 6, 2010, Mr. Ablow was physically assaulted and kicked in the head by white supremacist and alleged murderer Keith Luke while visiting him in jail. He had been hired to assist in his “insanity defense.” It was after this attack that Mr. Ablow became more notorious in his “psychiatric opinions” on air.

In April 2011 he criticized designer Jenna Lyons for publishing an advertisement in the J. Crew catalogue in which she was depicted painting her young son’s toenails hot pink. Mr. Ablow stated that by doing this one act would result in the child having long-term issues with “gender identity” and stated that gender distinctions are “part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race.”

During the 2012 GOP primary, Mr. Ablow wrote a column arguing that Newt Gingrich’s three marriages actually made him more qualified to be president: “When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.” Even Rod Dreher of “The American Conservative” stated that Ablow’s argument represented “shamelessness crossing the line from character defect to psychopathology.”

In February 2012, Mr. Ablow with Steve Doocy decided to go after Media Matters chief David Brock because Mr. Brock has the ability to show FOX for the hypocritical nut jobs that they are by playing their statements in full context. Brock makes FOX look bad so they used hired gun Ablow to go after him.

http://www.newshounds.us/doocy_and_ablow_stigmatize_mental_illness_in_get_brock_segment_02162012

In September, 2011, Mr. Ablow decided to go after Chaz Bono who was in the spot light at the time due to his involvement with “Dancing with the Stars.”

http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201109260010

Mr. Ablow was on FOX and authored opinion pieces using his role as a psychiatrist warning kids to not watch Chaz. His verbal assault on Chaz Bono and transgendered people prompted Cristan Williams, the Executive Director of the Transgender Foundation to author an open letter to Beverly Sheehan, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society:

http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2011/09/18/open-letter-to-the-executive-director-of-the-mass-psychiatric-society-beverly-sheehan/

I found this letter interesting and it prompted me to pull American Psychiatric Association’s “Principles of Medical Ethics” With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/about-ethics-group/ethics-resource-center/educational-resources/federation-repository-ethics-documents-online/american-psychiatric-association.page

Section 1 refers to “A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.”

1. A psychiatrist shall not gratify his or her own needs by exploiting the patient. The psychiatrist shall be ever vigilant about the impact that his or her conduct has upon the boundaries of the doctor-patient relationship, and thus upon the well-being of the patient.  These requirements become particularly important because of the essentially private, highly personal, and sometimes intensely emotional      nature of the relationship established with the psychiatrist.
2. A psychiatrist should not be a party to any type of policy that excludes, segregates, or demeans the dignity of any patient because of ethnic origin, race, creed, age, socioeconomic status, or sexual orientation.

“On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

And now to the reason I decided to rant about Mr. Ablow, his analysis of Joe Biden’s performance at the Vice Presidential Debate. Note he made no mention of the truth of the matter’s discussed, but his analysis of a man he never met, never interviewed, never researched, and was never asked by either himself or family to involve himself in the Vice President’s conduct. If family or friends retain a psychiatrist to evaluate an individual, it’s because they are concerned for behavior that places that person at risk to themselves or others. When FOX retains a psychiatrist, it’s to fulfill a disinformation campaign and character assault because this person just humiliated someone they support. This just doesn’t sound ethical to me:

So Mr. Ablow diagnosed Joe Biden as possibly alcoholic, demented, etc simply because he confronted Paul Ryan on easily disprovable lies and didn’t let him get away with those lies. His behavior wasn’t indicative of someone suffering from any disorder, quite the contrary; he owned the room and dealt with a liar. No other rational explanation is plausible. Mr. Ablow’s conduct hasn’t gone over well with peers in his profession.

From John M. Grohol, PSYD of PsychCentral:

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/15/forget-biden-dr-keith-ablow-may-have/

Dr. Grohol asks a very poignant question, “Should a psychiatrist be discussing differential diagnoses of the Vice President of the United States especially if they’ve never even met the man?”

I’ve never met or interviewed Keith Ablow and I am not a board certified psychiatrist. So based on the standards established by FOX and Ablow, I’m going to make a diagnosis on this blog.

Keith Ablow exhibits Freudian Psychological Projection based on a need to be heard and to get attention. He misses the attention he received as a child from his parents who spent long nights with him cleaning up the wet spots on his mattress from bedwetting. The kick to his head from the White Supremacist has created additional feelings of inadequacy and need for validation. This has also led to his addiction to psychotropic medications and skittles. Or maybe he’s just an asshole.

This differential diagnoses is just as valid as Ablow’s and should be given as much validation as his.

I’m sorry I’m late to this party. However I’ve been involved in other things over the past several days and I know much of this has already been blogged about, tweeted about and it’s even starting to get coverage in mainstream media. So slash my pay for being late on this rant and for the lousy pun in the title, but here goes.

Sensata Technologies ( http://www.sensata.com/ ) is a company that works on electronic sensors and controls. They are international, with some manufacturing plants in the United States. One of their plants is in Illinois and works on Automobile parts. This plant is controlled by Bain Capital. Even though the decision to move their jobs overseas was made after Mitt Romney “left the company” he stands to gain financially over the decision to ship 170 American Jobs to China effective November 5, 2012 (one day prior to the election).

http://www.inquisitr.com/362821/sensata-technologies-scandal-could-be-brewing-for-mitt-romney/

According to  The New York Times, Romney stands to profit off of the Sensata outsourcing:

“In addition, Mr. Romney’s generous retirement agreement ensures that he continues to profit from the deals and decisions that Bain makes. He owns about $8 million worth of Bain funds that hold 51 percent of Sensata’s shares. If Sensata saves money by closing the Freeport plant, that could add money to Mr. Romney’s trust accounts, now or after the election.”

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/bain-never-left-romney/#h[]

Now what is interesting about this situation is Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy Talking point that the Obama administration has been too weak on China and that he’s going to be tough on them. However, how then does he explain saying and doing nothing about Bain’s decision to move the Sensata Jobs from Freeport to China?

Obviously Mitt would still have some pull with Bain considering the stock he owns and his influence over those who “make the decisions.” Further, if Mitt agrees that we need to build jobs in this country, he would work to keep jobs here. Bain will be using the same tax write off regarding sending jobs overseas that Mitt denied any knowledge of during his debate. You would think he knows about it now.

Maybe Mitt is upset that Sensata is doing well due to Obama’s Auto Bail Out that saved the auto industry. But then again, according the Mitt, Obama was doing what he himself advocated, so that couldn’t be the answer.

Jobs going overseas has been supported and advocated by members of Congress ever since corporations starting sending their lobbyists to Congress to get these laws enacted. Labor costs in this country does tend to be higher than countries like China and India. So for international corporations to make the most profit they can, it make sense to ship the jobs overseas.

Now on the other side of the equation, these same lobbyists have a plan from those who pay them to keep jobs here. It’s simple, elimination of minimum wage and employee benefits created over generations since The Great Depression. Pay slave wages here, wages even lower than they do in China and India, you can bring the jobs back here and still have ballooning profits. Only problem is you won’t have a middle-class here to buy the products being created by the slave labor here. But that’s not really a problem since the multi-national corporations are actually gearing their sales to the new middle-class being developed elsewhere in the world because those workers are now getting paid more as they unionize and have more money to spend. The pendulum swings, but the rich continue to get richer.

The coverage of Sensata has been almost non-existent in this country. It’s been mostly a thing of YouTube and social media. Daily Kos has been covering it fairly well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/13/1143996/-The-Sansata-Story-Could-Destroy-Romney

What I like about this final entry is that they acknowledge that the story floating around about the American Flag being taken down was not quite accurate.

http://bainport.com/post/33539176657/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-chinese-flag

It’s good to see people correcting themselves and apologizing for it. It tells me they can be trusted to monitor themselves unlike those on the Right. I had heard the Flag Story over the weekend and was incensed, though it did seem rather melodramatic. But that has been cleared up and the basics of the story remain unchallenged. American workers, in order to assist Bain’s profit margin for Sensata, are training their replacements in China and will lose their jobs when finished. Bain and Mitt Romney come out financially ahead and the American workers suffer. All the while, Mitt complains about China and promises to be tough on them.

Our national economy cannot improve its way out of this deep, Republican created recession unless we start building our middle-class back up to where it was prior to the Bush Administration, even prior to the Reagan Administration when the battle against them truly started. We need to hire back the public service jobs (teachers, first responders, etc) that Mitt Romney said we had too many of. We need not only to force companies to bring manufacturing and other jobs back to this country by overturning the laws that allow them tax credits (that has been blocked by GOP House members), we need to increase the minimum wage across the country. The more money the more people have, the better the overall economy. Henry Ford knew this and he was no bleeding heart liberal. Further, those areas with the higher minimum wages are doing economically better than the rest of the country.

Raising the Minimum Wage:

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib341-raising-federal-minimum-wage/

Our economy moved from manufacturing to consumer based because we had a strong middle-class consumer base that had the financial ability to buy the things not only manufactured here, but elsewhere. 30 years of Reaganomics, Supply Side, Trickle-Down, Voodoo Economics has destroyed that middle-class base. With the shipping of manufacturing jobs overseas the problem has grown exponentially. Without good paying jobs, we have no economy, no recovery. It takes more than tough talk against those you sleep with Mitt Romney. It takes actual plans to bring back jobs, including public sector jobs to rebuild our economy. It worked for FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and even Ronald Reagan. All these presidents did this, and three of them were Republicans, even that Reagan guy.

Sensata is the tipping point and the represents the truth about Mitt Romney’s economic plans for this country. He is in it only for himself and his cronies. He wants to increase his wealth and influence and gives little about the Americans he says he wants to help. Video of him and the 47% comments as well as saying “Corporations are People my friends” demonstrates exactly who this man is. He doesn’t care for the American Worker, he just wants their votes. Don’t let him have them.

Thom Hartmann talks about Sensata:

Romney’s Bain Selling Out American Workers to China:

Mitt Romney and what he truly feels about the 47%:

When Ronald Reagan was running for president in 1980 and during the GOP primary debate, he spoke of the concept of massive tax cuts to all Americans, but especially those at the top to give them more money so that they would invest and create jobs. One of his opponents in the primaries was a senior statesman who was formerly a Congressman and was the Ambassador to China by the name of George H. W. Bush who called the plan “Voodoo Economics.”

Well, Reagan won the nomination and selected George H. W. Bush as his running mate who later embraced “Voodoo Economics” only it was being presented to the voting public as “Trickle-Down” Economics because the increased wealth of the wealthiest of the nation would trickle down to all the people.

John F. Kennedy had once remarked that a “rising tide raises all ships” implying that as the middle-class grew in economic wealth and prosperity, the entire nation, including the wealthy would do better. Trickle-Down was designed to skip a step. Instead of policies that helped the middle-class to raise the tide, policies would be put in place that were geared towards the richest Americans (as well as the corporations and banks) and out of the goodness of their hearts; the rest of the economy would grow. Essentially, raise the ships, and the tide would follow.

As president, Ronald Reagan eliminated regulations on business and banks and sure enough, he slashed tax rates. He also eliminated tax loopholes in an attempt to maintain some revenues. Problem was, he didn’t slash the loopholes used by the wealthiest of Americans, instead he cut the loopholes used by middle and working class Americans. For instance, Americans were once able to write off the interest charges of credit cards and loans from their taxes. It encouraged them to borrow money to buy things and promote the economy. Well, it was eliminated and their taxes essentially went up and further, they borrowed less and the economy began to stagnate a bit.

Now even though Reagan took over as the economy was suffering from double-digit inflation and interest rates; this was the result of the bill coming due from the monies borrowed by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to pay for the Vietnam War. It was actually the policies of the Federal Reserve and the lowering of their interests rates that improved the overall economy in the nation. The Reagan Tax cuts actually ballooned our deficit and national debt. As a result, Reagan began to raise taxes again, but mostly on the middle-class, not the upper classes. When George Bush ran for President he famously said “Read my lips, no new taxes” in response to his party being upset with both Reagan and him for raising taxes. However, due to the fragile status of the economy and debt from Reagan/Bush, George H. W. Bush ended up raising taxes to put a Band-Aid on a growing problem.

However, trickle-down economics remained through the Clinton administration, who nearly finished the job started by Reagan/Bush by signing NAFTA and repealing some New Deal Banking regulations like Glass-Steagall. Clinton did significantly raised taxes on the wealthiest of Americans, a move that all Republicans said would “destroy the economy.” Well it didn’t and instead, the economy boomed under Clinton. However, the underlying problems with deregulation were not fixed.

When George W. Bush took office, he placed “trickle-down” economics on steroids and pushed and received the largest tax cuts in history that again, favored the wealthiest. Problem was, he also started two wars without providing funds to wage them, he implemented Medicare Part D without paying for it or even allowing government to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, and he removed the last vestiges of New Deal Banking Regulations. As a result, the deficit ballooned even worse than under Reagan, the housing market collapsed due to banks being allowed to gamble with investor savings and guaranteed mortgages for overly inflated home loans. Did I mention that because Bush wanted to increase economic spending, he had Alan Greenspan tell people to use their homes as “ATMs” to borrow money on the equity to spend and still write that off. That is what overpriced the housing market. Then came 2008.

Its four years later and again, the concept of “Trickle-Down” is being presented by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Well, for those who don’t get it, Trickle-Down has never created jobs and will never create jobs, by giving more money to corporations or to the wealthiest Americans they end up keeping it for themselves and will not put it back in the overall economy unless they have to. It’s very simple sociology, human nature and economics.

The goal of “For Profit” Business is to make profit. Can’t get any simpler than that. One of the highest budget item on an expense column is payroll. The more people you employ, the more it costs the company. If you can maintain production with fewer employees, paying them just enough and provide just enough benefits where they stay with you, the higher your profit margin. Businesses rarely hire people just because they have the money; they hire them because they need them to maintain production. If they can automate to increase production at a lower cost, they will and will lay off employees. If they can crush “collective bargaining” so as to remove pay and benefits to reduce labor costs and increase profits, they will crush the unions. If they can get more out of an employee so they don’t need as many in order to increase profits, they will. The goal is increased profits. Hiring people eat into the profit margins.

So, just because they have more money on their accounts due to lower taxes doesn’t mean they go out and higher people they don’t need to maintain production, if they don’t need those people and that expense. Some tax breaks were imposed to give companies incentive to hire more people. If they hire them, then they get a tax break they wouldn’t have otherwise. However, those were eliminated. Instead, tax breaks were given to companies to ship jobs overseas. Its good business for them, wages are lower overseas and they get a credit for doing it. Did this idea come from government? Well, it came from business lobbyists who end up paying for the campaign of those in government who play ball with them. Even though Mitt Romney said during his first debate with President Obama that he was unaware of such tax credits, he in fact has used them in his dealings with Bain. It’s a fact.

So, companies have more money from tax breaks and don’t use it to hire people they don’t need. In the mean time, due to the recession and fewer people working, there is lower demand for goods and services from businesses. So they don’t need the people they already have to maintain production that isn’t necessary and they lay more people off. But don’t you worry about them, thanks to the tax cuts and grants; they still have money coming in to make up for the loss of business revenues. Where do they get this money from? Well, social safety net programs designed to help the people who are out of work are slashed at the request of business lobbyists. People’s “welfare” is then diverted to “corporate/business welfare.” And what make matters worse, with no one paying taxes to fund this because the wealthy have had their taxes slashed and the people don’t earn any money to pay taxes on, the debt rises to keep businesses safe and secure. That is what is important to today’s Republican Party. Survival for the businesses that pay government legislators, officials and executives to keep them in business at the cost of the well-being of the people.

Mitt Romney is a businessman who has a businessman mentality. He has no concern for people or jobs. He wouldn’t have been as successful in business as he has been if he did. People eat into corporate profits. Mitt wants more “Trickle-Down” telling you all the same lie that the more money in the hands of the few people and corporations means they will create jobs. They never had and never will. They want government assistance that is geared more to keeping the few rich people safe and secure than the “47%.”

Their ships are still rising while the tide is out. It’s very expensive and ultimately destructive to the nation. Trickle Down only works for the richest among us, and then again, only for the short term. This economy is reaching critical mass. If government doesn’t start increasing tax revenue from those who have been prospering from 30 years of tax breaks to start repairing and growing the middle-class again, as the New Deal and post war programs of FDR, Harry Truman and Republican Dwight David Eisenhower implemented in the first place, that made us an economic giant, the ships will fall and our society is doomed.

We cannot trust anyone who still advocates and supports the failed and disastrous policies of trickle down. Time to focus on the middle class.

UPDATE:

@RATM 47% reminded me in a tweet about the “Two Santa Claus Theory” that many use to explain the “Trickle-Down” Insanity. Thom Hartmann does the best job explaining this theory:

This is a rant about writer’s block…………

It was…..er, uhm.

Forget it.

I’ll do my rant on procrastination sometime later.

Have a nice Day 🙂

We know how Paul Ryan, in addition to wanting to privatize Social Security also proposes “fixing” Medicare by introducing a “Voucher” system. In the debate, Mitt Romney suggested he still agrees with that Ryan plan for now. When I first heard of this scheme, my first thought was of the Voucher system that has been introduced over the past 20 to 30 years for education. This rant will examine my belief that Vouchers are designed to destroy successful government programs designed to help Americans and at the same time distribute wealth from the middle and working class up to those who don’t need it. In short, the reverse of the Robin Hood tale.

Thomas Jefferson and most of our founders believed that if you were going to have government of the People, by the People and for the People,  those people had to be knowledgeable and educated. They introduced and promoted basic and advanced education, subsidized by government in order to get as many citizen educated for the least cost to them. Early on they were successful. Though a formal federal program of education was not in place at the time, most of the states instituted education program for their citizens. Many states like Virginia and Massachusetts, abiding by the wishes of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams subsidized advanced education for those who had the ability. Our citizens were so well-informed and educed in our early days, Alexis de Tocqueville commented about it when he toured even the rural areas our country for his book “Democracy in America” how well-informed they were of world events. Education and a vibrant Press kept our citizens able to read, reason and be aware of issues of the day.

Over time, though many States still recognized the need for government subsidized education to provide for all citizens, including those of lesser means, assistance was needed from the federal government, not only for financial support, but to establish national standards. In time, the Department of Education was created to monitor and assist this endeavor. Even in 1912 when Arizona became a State, it was written in the State Constitution that a college education was to be made as “free as possible” for citizens of the State.

Now in addition to public schools and public colleges and universities, we still had private and parochial schools and colleges and universities that wealthiest among us attended. State and federal governments knew that these schools did very well by being able to hire the best qualified teachers and professors available and still make a profit. Government developed scholarship plans to assist the less fortunate the ability to pay tuition to these schools. Though they could still get quality education from public schools and colleges for next to no cost (because tax payer dollars went to them) they had the ability to attend even higher and more prestigious schools with assistance from government or other philanthropic groups. The dividing line was parochial schools. The argument used against tax payer dollars to subsidize that was the separation of Church and State. Then came “Vouchers.”

The argument for allowing tax payer funded vouchers to allow students “of all incomes” to attend Catholic or other private schools, (and later Charter Schools) was the argument that public schools were failing to properly educate our children and the parochial and private schools did much better. Over time, the Courts relented and laws were enacted to establish vouchers for private schools. But there were some problems that were not really discussed in the open when this was going on.

First of all, although inner city public schools did have the problems you would expect from children from lower socio-economic areas that didn’t generate enough tax revenues to effectively fund those schools; overall, the public schools were doing just fine for the whole.

Another problem was “Where would the money come from to pay the tuitions for private, parochial and charter schools?” Well that was simple; money would be diverted from already underfunded public schools making matter worse for them.

Finally, “How would voucher help pay tuition for a child from a poor working class family who couldn’t come up with the rest of the money?” In theory, tuition would go down. Well in reality, they didn’t. In fact, they went up. Remember, these schools are in the private sector where profits must be maintained.

So what were the results of introducing vouchers to pay for school?

More and more tax-payer money has been pulled from public schools to fund voucher for all students to attend private and charter schools. However, since the vouchers do not cover the full tuition costs to attend those schools, working class families can’t afford the tuition with the “education coupon” they get so have only the option of the now even more underfunded public schools. So tax payer dollars end up only benefitting those who don’t even need the money to send their children to private schools. And as the costs of college education continues to sky-rocket and government cutting funding for grants and scholarships, again, only the rich end up being able to afford college educations for their children. Unless you want to get your degree and also be nearly $100,000.00 in debt after you graduate. So school vouchers take from poor, working-class, middle-class and wealthy in taxes and effectively only provide to the wealthiest among us. It is redistribution of wealth upwards.

And what is the Free Market Argument AGAINST Vouchers?

Now for Paul Ryan’s plan to voucherize Medicare (otherwise known as VoucherCare).

First of all, it has been no secret since the mid 1960’s that the Republicans want to eliminate Medicare. It is still in their mind “socialize medicine” and should have never been enacted. After all, providing needed medical service to the elderly with only a 3% administrative cost overhead puts private insurance companies to shame. Republicans want to privatize Social Security and Voucherize Medicare. Problem for them is that the people like Social Security and Medicare as it is. What was the famous sign from the Tea Party during the debate for the Affordable Care Act “Keep Government Away from my Medicare”?

So to deal with that dilemma they followed their game plan from defunding education services to fund the profits of private schools and universities, “Voucher.” Rather that have government provide healthcare benefits to the elderly, the elderly would get a voucher that they can give to a “for profit” insurance company. Nice plan if it would cover the costs. It won’t. As with educational vouchers, the money for Medicare Vouchers would come from money collected from Payroll taxes, depleting money destined for Medicare to give to the private insurance companies. So money going to an organization with only 3% cost overhead would go to a company with 20% cost overheads who have to show a profit. And keep in mind, prior to ObamaCare, insurance companies could have cost overruns far exceeding 20%. It’s by law that it is limited to 20% now. But that’s why the GOP wants to repeal ObamaCare; it eats into their donor’s profits.

Those with the money will now get tax payer money they don’t need to pay for healthcare from private insurance companies. Those who don’t have the money will get a voucher that won’t pay the premiums required for what Medicare already provides. Now they say that the increase of government money going to private insurance companies will drive down the cost. Remember, they said the same thing about private schools and vouchers. It has yet to happen. Just like more jobs being created from trickle-down economics has yet to happen. Tax Payer money going to any “for-profit” organization, whether it be education, healthcare, defense, fire-fighting, policing, what have you only results in more profits to their stockholders with reduced services to the customers who end up not even being able to afford the services provided.

Vouchers are a con from the cons who call themselves conservatives whose only interest is to redistribute money upwards to them and their campaign donors. In education it has already resulted in failing schools across the nation, even the private schools. Apply it to Medicare; it would bankrupt the program while insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank. And privatizing Social Security? Well, I think you all get the idea.

Here’s what the President has to say about Vouchers:

Education must be part of the commons for it to be any good for the entire nation as should healthcare. Privatization only provides for those at the top at the cost for those at the bottom. This isn’t what the founders wanted for a country Of the People, For the People and By the People. Corporations are not People Mitt.

I take no particular pleasure in the following rant. Anyone who’s followed my rants on Twitter and my Blog knows full well how I feel about Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The term “Sheriff” is not an appropriate title for him.

In Maricopa County, the office of Sheriff is an elected office. So you need to be a politician to take that office. To actually have law enforcement experience is a plus, providing you work as a professional law enforcement person, not a politician. From the day Joe announced his original candidacy for office and the day he took office, it was clear that Joe is more of a politician than a Sheriff. What’s worse, he’s a self-centered narcissistic corrupt and racist politician. Joe catered to the low information, non-critical thinking and racist elements in Maricopa County to become “America’s Toughest Sheriff.”

From the day he took office, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) buildings and sites had Joe Arpaio’s name placed everywhere, in much larger and bolder lettering than Maricopa County Sheriff. He effectively began a propaganda campaign that he was “tough on crime” because he was tough on criminals. He came up with pink underwear, green bologna sandwiches, and Tent City to treat criminals like slime, something low information and racist voters like to think they all are. He’s been effective in his propaganda, especially since he diverted tax payer dollars to feed his propaganda message across Maricopa County and Arizona, the country and world. Why does he need to advertise outside of Maricopa County if he’s only Sheriff here?

Well, he’s become a millionaire as Sheriff by portraying himself as “Tough on Crime.” In reality, he isn’t tough on crime. He’s tough on low-risk, minor offenders, but that’s about it. His pink underwear business got things started. He made his first million that way. As for Tent City; housing inmates in 115 degree plus weather isn’t what it would appear to be. There has never been a shortage of jail space in Maricopa County. In fact there is a maximum security jail actually sitting vacant of inmates, across the street from his 4^th Avenue Jail. He houses stray dogs and cats in the “Madison Street Jail.”

The “criminals” housed in Tent City are almost entirely low-end, low-risk first time offenders for misdemeanor offenses or those serving jail as a term of probation. Any offender classified as a high risk offender (due to history of violence, etc) is held in the air-conditioned 4^th Avenue Jail, Towers Jail, Durango Jail, etc. So the worst kind of criminal you are, the better you are treated in Maricopa County thanks to Joe Arpaio.

Joe has been responsible for millions of tax-payer dollars being spent to pay off lawsuits from inmates and families of inmates, who were needless injured or killed while in custody due to: brutal behavior, lack of basic medical care, neglect, and lack of supervision. He’s loses most of the suits filed against him, yet continues to allow cruel and negligent monitoring of inmates to continue.

People in Maricopa County don’t realize that Joe only runs a jail, not a prison. No one can be housed in a County Jail for more than one calendar year for their offense; most are housed for less than 6 months. These people get out much angrier and anti-social than they were going in, more apt to take things out on the community. This is why despite a drop of violent crimes everywhere in the nation; it continues to rise in Maricopa County. It’s human nature to not respond well to needlessly abusive behavior. Sheriff Joe make crime worse here, not better.

What’s more, he wastes money on pointless and ineffective “crime-sweeps” looking only for low-risk, low-end undocumented immigrants. He does these sweeps within city limits of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe, Glendale, Mesa, etc where there are already well-trained and professional police officers around to deal with these offenders. Sheriff Joe’s responsibility is to patrol the unincorporated lands of Maricopa County, not the cities and towns.

He also is sitting on 45,000 open warrants for violent felony offenders while he picks up harmless undocumented immigrants. He ignores investigating Hispanic children being sexually assaulted in El Mirage while he picks up harmless undocumented immigrants. Worse yet, to feed into his political aim of getting support from the most racist elements in Maricopa County, he’s now gone all Birther. He’s wasted tax payer’s money on a total wild goose chase on a matter already proven to be false. He made headlines for a day to two, but that’s about it.

Sheriff Joe isn’t law-enforcement, he represents the worse in low-information, angry, racist politics and as a result, crime isn’t being effectively dealt with in Maricopa County. He needs to go.

This is the difficult part of this rant for me.

Long ago I gave my support to Scottsdale Police Lieutenant Mike Stauffer. Someone brought his name to my attention and I looked him up. He originally planned to run against Joe Arpaio as a Republican in the primary. However, since Joe controls a lot of Republican politics here, he knew he would have problems. He is a professional law enforcement officer with an excellent resume. He understands the theories of law enforcement and how to effectively and economically house inmates. He’s center-right with law enforcement without being fringed right-wing, racist, or counter-productive. I gave him my support as the best alternative to Joe Arpaio, especially in a strong conservative Republican county that we have here.

A while after Mike Stauffer began his run as an independent for Sheriff; Paul Penzone began his run for Sheriff on the Democratic slate. Penzone also has a very impressive law enforcement resume. However, I had already gave my support to Stauffer and wasn’t willing to change my support. Of the two, I honestly felt that Stauffer had the better chance to grab the attentions of the people of Maricopa County and with Joe’s continuing loss of support due to people here finally waking up, had the best chance of beating him.

I was wrong. Polling done in September now shows Joe Arpaio with 44.5% support, Paul Penzone with 39% and Mike Stauffer with only 8% support. This is the closest anyone has come to beating Joe Arpaio. Mike Stauffer disagrees with these poll results. The Phoenix New Times have postulated that Mike is actually an “Arpaio plant” to take support away from his opponent. That I do not believe, but the poll results however, are convincing.

With only a month to go until November 6 and early voting about to begin, the message and answer is clear. The best opportunity we have in Maricopa County to finally rid ourselves of this obnoxious self-absorbed freak is to give full support the Paul Penzone for Sheriff.

Sorry Mike, but removing Joe is the most important thing to do and supporting you for Sheriff only helps Joe keep office. I admire what you have tried to do, but this isn’t your year.

I’m voting for Paul Penzone because he does have an excellent law-enforcement resume, is a real professional, and can beat Joe Arpaio this year.

This is a long post, but please read through to the end, I think if you are of a hopeful rational mind, you will appreciate it.

When I was checking my mail the other day, I saw this very serious “Official Republican Party Document – DO NOT DESTROY” mailed to me. And hey, this had a registration number and code. Now being one who takes the time to make sure everything is properly read and responded to, I thought I would respond to this “Survey” in real time and let anyone interested in what is being asked see what my responses are and why.

Before I begin, from someone who has his Masters in Sociology and worked on creating true and accurate public opinion surveys. To get an accurate and meaningful survey responses, beyond getting a large and representative group to question, it is important that your questions are designed to get an opinion from the participant as opposed to responding to the opinions and preconceptions of those taking the survey. To do that ends up with skewed data.

So let us begin. I will post each question and possible responses verbatim and then give my response and reasons for each response.

Section I-Presidential Performance and Issues

1)    Do you believe Barack Obama has used the presidency and the powers of his office to look out for the concerns and interests of Americans like you?

□ Yes                      □ No

I answered Yes.

2)    Do you agree or disagree with the statement below?

“President Obama inherited an economy losing 800,000 jobs a month and averted a worse economic mess while passing health care reform, saving the auto industry, killing Osama bin Laden, and winding down the war in Iraq. He has done a good job and deserves to be re-elected.”

□ Strongly agree      □ Somewhat agree

□ Strongly disagree  □ Somewhat disagree        □ Unsure

I answered Strongly agree. At this point I seriously doubt they would be tabulating any more of my answers. But to continue.

3)    How important is it to voters in your state to have candidates give attention to the following issues during the 2012 campaign?

Strengthening border security

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “somewhat” as the borders are fairly secured right now.

Reducing federal spending

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “somewhat” knowing that only federal spending at this time can get us out of the recession.

Keeping taxes low

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “somewhat” knowing that the Bush tax cuts are the biggest reasons for the deficit and somebody, preferably those with the means, should be paying more.

Exposing Obama’s radical left-wing policies

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” since he has no “radical left-wing policies” to expose. He’s a centrist.

Repealing ObamaCare

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” since ObamaCare has already proven its worth to millions in the country and is the next step to single payer which is what this nation truly needs.

Expanding domestic exploration for oil and gas

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” since under President Obama, we are already at record rates for both exploration and production.

Stimulating job creation in the private sector

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “very” because the Republican House has sat on all private job creating efforts presented to them by the President. They are the ones stalling growth.

Reining in government employee’s unions

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I answered “not” because those unions have never been the problem and are in many ways the solutions to better governmental outcomes for the people. Collective bargaining is a right that should never be infringed in order to satisfy the few elites.

Demanding free and open trade to get U.S. manufacturing growing

□ Very important      □ Somewhat important       □ Not Important

I voted “not” because all the Republican free trade deals have only served to end up shipping our jobs overseas instead of creating them here. Their ideas haven’t benefitted our workers and our employment rates.

SECTION II-Economic Issues

4)    Do you believe that President Obama’s policies have helped make the economy better, had no impact on the economy, or made the economy worse?

□ Strongly believe they have made the economy better

□ Believe they have made the economy better

□ Believe they have had no impact

□ Believe they have made the economy worse

□ Strongly believe they have made the economy worse

□ Unsure

I answered Strongly believe they have made the economy better. It would be better still if the Republican Congress hadn’t blocked 90% of what he’s trying to put forth for public sector job retention and private sector job growth.

5)    President Obama has indicated that if reelected, he will fight to increase tax rates on individuals and families he considers to be “wealthy.” Do you support Obama’s position?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered yes, but let’s be clear with the question. Obama isn’t proposing tax increases, he proposing allowing the Bush Tax Cuts for those making over $250,000.00 a year to expire as they should have expired in 2010. Those people can pay the Clinton rates at no loss to their current standard of living.

6)    Are you concerned about inflation undercutting your savings, devaluing your home and increasing your cost of living?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “Yes” which is why I will vote against all Republicans in November because it was 30 years of their policies that created the atmosphere where this could happen.

7)    Do you believe that the policies of Barack Obama have helped create good jobs and improve the economy in your area?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “Yes” because they have and would have created more if he weren’t blocked by Congress. Further, he is now at Net Job Growth and has created more jobs in less than 4 years than Bush did in 8. Over 30 months of economic growth under the President.

8)    Do you support a federal Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to stop deficit spending in Washington?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “no” because that is the dumbest idea anyone has ever came up with. Reasons states have to go to the federal government for assistance is because of all their “balanced budget amendments” in order to stay afloat. Federal government spending, even if its deficit spending is often indicated and necessary to keep the economy afloat in dire times. It has always worked in the past and will so for the future. It’s a lame concept presented to people with no critical thinking skills to understand the consequences of such a stupid act. It would result in ongoing depression not only here, but across the World.

SECTION III-Entitlement Spending

9)    Would you support a phased-in increase in the retirement/eligibility age for Social Security benefits that would no affect anyone over the age of 50?

□ Yes            □ No

If that was where it would stay, sure taking into account people are living healthier longer lives. However, these are not entitlements; these are payouts back to the people who paid into these programs.

10) Should retirees be exempt from property tax increases on their residence?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “No” but have no problems with some sort of “means” testing to assist those on limited, fixed incomes.

11) Would you support allowing individuals under the age of 50 to opt to put a portion of their Social Security withholdings into private accounts that they control, but cannot access without penalty until their retirement?

□ Yes            □ No

I answered “No” because this is privatization. Privatization would bankrupt Social Security and prevent those who need it the most to avoid poverty. This only benefits Wall Street Investors, if there is privatization and we have another crash, then those who need it to just survive are quite simply shit out of luck. Stupid idea GOP that why majority of nation will never support it despite what you propose to help only the wealthiest among us.

SECTION IV-National Security Issues

12) Has the Obama Administration done enough to counter Iran’s drive to acquire a nuclear weapon?

□ Yes            □ No

They have done as much as any rational administration can do to avoid another pointless bloody war with no winners at the end. This is what those who fund the GOP appear to want.

13) Should the United States demand that Pakistan reform its military and intelligence agencies in order to receive military aid funds?

□ Yes            □ No

We need to work better with Pakistan and smarter and not forget, they are a nuclear power and doing this stupidly would have catastrophic implications for the region.

14) Do you want our elected leaders to make stopping illegal immigration a top national priority?

□ Yes            □ No

I’m game if the GOP are. Problem is they see it as an issue of race catering to the racist elements of their extreme right wind fringe. If they want to talk serious immigration reform with everything on the table, then we should. If not, then they should just continue to whine as they have for the past 30 years.

15) Do you believe Obama’s strategy of treating all countries as equals to the United States has strengthened our security and weakened the resolve of our enemies?

□ Yes            □ No

What a dumb-ass question based on another false premise. Diplomacy involves treating all participants as adults recognizing that everyone has issues important to them. To work from a position that only you matter, you accomplish nothing. We always have had and will continue to have enemies. However, to treat the World as if it’s our way or the highway despite how it impacts other human beings only serves to isolate us from the entire world and then having no one to come to our aid when needed. This is how a mature diplomatic mission works.

16) Do you believe that the United   States has done enough to ensure that Chinese markets are open and fair for imports from our nation?

□ Yes            □ No

No but this is due to Congress sitting on legislation that would address much of this. However the current set up has been very beneficial to Mitt Romney and his cronies, many of whom fund the GOP in their efforts.

SECTION V-Health Care Issues

17) Do you support immediate and total repeal of the ObamaCare health care legislation and its massive new taxes?

□ Yes            □ No

Not only am I opposed to that, it must be pointed out that ACA is not a new massive tax. In fact, the government has no control, no mechanism to even collect the “taxes” implied by the legislation and it is estimated to only impact less than 4% of the people who chose not to get healthcare and are of the means to purchase it. Another question based on a false premise.

18) Have the government and news media provided information to ensure that citizens have a good understanding of the composition, impact and costs of the Democrat-passed ObamaCare health care legislations?

□ Yes            □ No

Well, FOX has been good at feeding out misinformation about the legislation at the behest of the GOP while the mainstream media hasn’t done much to correct the record. But word is getting out that this is good for the American people and economy despite the whines from the right. By the way guys, its “Democratic-passed” not “Democrat-passed”, that just childish on your part.

19) Are you concerned that Barack Obama and the Democrats intend for their ObamaCare legislation to eventually lead to the creation of “single-payer” government run health insurance and health care system?

□ Yes            □ No

Concerned? I’m counting on it. It’s about time we join the rest of the industrialized world and get better outcomes for less money than we do under the current system. By the way, this is for funding and accessibility of health care, not health care itself.

20) Do you believe you can receive the same quality of health care and accessibility to quality care through a federal government run health care system?

□ Yes            □ No

The rest of the industrialized world does, I believe we can to.

SECTION VI-Values Issues

21) Do you support the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe vs. Wade to allow states to regulate/restrict abortion as they see fit?

□ Yes            □ No

Considering the needless deaths and poor outcomes across the country prior to Roe v Wade, absolutely not. Women deserve to make that choice, to say otherwise is not Pro-Life, it’s Pro-Slavery.

22) Do you believe we should keep a strong pro-life plank in our platform?

□ Yes            □ No

Your platform isn’t pro-life at all if it allows for people of limited means to not have affordable healthcare, education, jobs, opportunities and still supports illegal and pointless wars and executions for people who end up being innocent. Come up with a Pro-Life Plank and then we can discuss it.

23) Should federal funds be provided to non-profit organizations whose primary function is conducting abortions?

□ Yes            □ No

I don’t believe there are any. If you’re referring to Planned Parenthood, only 3% of their operations are geared towards providing women the choice of an abortion.

24) Do you support allowing parents to use government vouchers to send their children to the school of their choice be it public, parochial or private?

□ Yes            □ No

No school voucher system does that. It only diverts public tax money to the wealthiest who can already send their children to parochial and private schools thus saving them money. Those of limited means are left with only underfunded public schools. Vouchers are a con to the tax-payers.

SECTION VII-The 2012 Campaign

25) Are Republicans in your area enthusiastic and committed to voting for our Republican slate of candidates this November?

□ Yes            □ No

If they are, they’re totally misinformed and aren’t interested in theirs or our country’s best interests.

26) Do you support voter ID laws that require individuals to show a government issued picture ID when the go to the polls to vote?

□ Yes            □ No

Only if they are easily provided to all Americans free of charge with no strings attached. Kind of like what Bill Clinton was advocating when he was president and the Republicans balked at such an idea.

27) Do you believe the Republican Party needs to do a better job exposing the Obama record and his radical liberal agenda?

□ Yes            □ No

No, the GOP needs to actually start telling the truth that the agenda isn’t radical or liberal; it’s centrist with many traditional GOP planks in it. Stop the misinformation to the American people.

28) Are you committed to helping ensure that in 2012, the Obama-era of radical liberalism, reckless spending and embarrassing foreign policy comes to an end?

□ Yes            □ No

The last question and yet again based on a false premise and with a mix of projection on the GOP’s part. To put it succinctly, No fucking way losers!

Now if this was just a survey, that would be it. But it wasn’t, it’s primarily a request for contributions. Following the last question was the hit for money. You have three options to pick from:

□ Yes, I will give money to help elect Mitt Romney… etc, starting at $35.00.

□ No, I don’t want to participate but will return the questionnaire with a contribution to “help build the Republican Party’s national campaign to defeat Barack Obama and elect Republicans to all levels of government in 2012.” Starting at $35.00.

□ No. I do not wish to participate, but I am returning this Document with a sponsoring contribution of $15 to help cover tabulating my Survey. I found this last option of the only three absolutely insulting.

There was a final Section after the contribution part for additional comments. I would simply add, fire Reince Priebus and bring some adults back to run the party.

The purpose of this “survey” was so transparent. It started off harmless enough with basic and safe questions of opinion. However, as you will note, as you moved through the survey, the questions were more geared towards the fringed radical right extremists of the GOP. The tone of each question spoke more to the opinions of those who wrote the question and asking for confirmation from those they hope agree with them. As a result, the Right Wing Nut Job who actually completes the survey is so angry at the end, they will contribute money.

Now the fact of the matter is, the GOP has lost sight of the fact that the extremists in their party have driven many Republicans away in the past two years. They have become Democrats or Independents. However, many do still remain in the party but lay low. There is an organization out there:

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

who represent the last few sane members of the party. This survey would most likely cause them to leave also.

From 2008:

And from this year, Republican Women for Obama:

Anyhow Reince Preibus, I’m not returning this survey to you with a contribution. But you have mine and I believe the answers of rational people to your “survey.” Tabulate it at your own cost, not mine.

Remember ACORN? It was during and after the 2008 election cycle when things weren’t looking good for the McCain ticket, and the right-wing were convinced that ACORN, (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), were a subversive group with deep ties to the Obama organization for years. They alleged that there was wide-spread election fraud from ACORN operatives along with other scandals.

Timothy McVeigh look-alike James O’Keefe pulled his infamous and as it turned out in later Court cases, edited “under-cover” taped investigation of the organization trying to link them to fraud and prostitution. Of course it was later determined that not only were the O’Keefe tapes were an edited fraud, no criminal or ethical malfeasance was ever found and the people who were conned were all cleared of any wrongdoing. However, the backlash of this witch-hunt to shut down an organization whose sole purpose was to get eligible voters registered and active, so as to be involved in matters that affected them (can’t have that in a democracy) was so effective, the organization lost money and support and ended up shutting down. To date no criminal charges against the agency were ever proven.

These were the allegations against ACORN that were soundly debunked:

(From 2008)

Despite John McCain’s claim that the group is “on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history … maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” Nothing of the sort ever came to the light of reality. It turned out to be a desperate red herring from a desperate campaign.

As the clip above shows, there were never any ties of Obama with ACORN prior to or during the campaign, other than him being one of several attorneys, working with the U.S. Department of Justice in a successful 1995 lawsuit against the state of Illinois that made it easier for people to register at driver’s license offices.

There were never any indications of voter fraud or election fraud committed by the ACORN agency itself. Although they had filed registration forms for obviously false applicants, it turned out that ACORN was required by law to submit all registration applications. Further, when turning these forms in, ACORN advised that they were likely fraudulent.

Canvassers hired by ACORN at $8.00 an hour to collect registrations, actually perpetrated fraud against ACORN itself and were identified and terminated. Some of those canvassers were prosecuted with the assistance of ACORN.

None of the “fraudulent” voter registration applicants made it to the polls due to the diligence of ACORN themselves. They identified the fraudulent voter registration forms, turned them in as required by law and the voting jurisdictions took appropriate action. No fraudulent votes for any candidate were cast as a result. As noted, voter fraud in this country is next to zero, literally.

So now let us fast forward to today and what has been revealed in Florida. I bring this up because recently I had a RWNJ on Twitter boasting that the Republicans have been registering more people than the Democrats. Of course, Florida came to mind. The man may be correct, but here is the reason why.

The company at the heart of this is Strategic Allied Consulting. This is shaping up to be true voter registration fraud. Unlike ACORN, there appears to have been a true orchestrated effort from people at the top to commit the fraud. Further, there is a direct link between the GOP and Strategic Allied Consulting along with links to the GOP nominee, Mitt Romney. Strategic Allied Consulting is run by long-time GOP operative Nathan Sproul.

Keep in mind, the Democratic Party was never linked to ACORN. The DNC never hired ACORN to do anything or paid them anything. How do we know there is a connection between the GOP and Strategic Allied Consulting? Well for one thing, the GOP just fired them after the allegations of voter registration fraud came to light. They had been hired in five swing states (Florida, Nevada, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia) to register Republicans. Florida is where the problems came to light and are being investigated for criminal wrong-doing. Further, there are allegations coming to the surface in the other states involved.

Florida is interesting. The efforts of the Rick Scott administration to make voter registration nearly impossible and to purge voters who lean left, are legendary and beyond doubt. So much so that a recent study showed nearly no new Democratic Registrations in Florida compared to GOP. In Clay County alone, only 67 new Democrats were registered compared to 4,008 Republicans compared to 2,204 Democrats and 3,733 Republicans during the previous presidential election cycle. Strategic Allied Consulting was involved.

According to electoral watchdog Brad Friedman, “A massive GOP voter registration scheme, which appears to involve the upper-echelons of the national party, [has begun] to emerge.” At the center of the controversy is Mr. Sproul, whose firm has faced allegations of questionable tactics in the past, including changing or throwing out registration form filled out by Democrats. ACORN was never accused of changing or throwing out any registration forms.

Mr. Sproul has worked for a number of GOP presidential campaigns including Mitt Romney’s, who hired him last year as a consultant, despite his interstate record of alleged voter registration fraud. In 2004, his group was found to have been tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans and shredding Democratic registration forms. Despite this history, his company was given a $1.3 million from the GOP to register voters in Florida and additional money for the other states. There are currently allegations of missing social security numbers, fake addresses, and dates of births that did not match up. As mentioned earlier, as the evidence comes in, it has been so convincing, that even the GOP has fired Mr. Sproul’s firm with several days to go in these five states to register voters prior to the November election. It’s appears to be far more convincing and real than any of the allegations against ACORN.

As with ACORN, law requires all completed voter registration forms to be turned in. The difference between ACORN and Strategic Allied Consulting has been that:

Strategic Allied Consulting did not alert officials to problems with the registrations being turned in.

They are accused of throwing out non-GOP registrations instead of filing them (something ACORN was never accused of).

The allegations of ACORN were only directed to those hired to fill daily quotas.

There are reports that the canvassers for Strategic Allied Consulting were doing this at the instructions of the upper echelons of the company to included GOP operative Mr. Sproul.

ACORN was never linked directly with the Democratic Party, they were community based.

Elections can be stolen. But they can only be stolen if the race is close. To keep the race close you need to suppress votes, either by caging, purging or hiring people to only get your people registered, not the ones likely to vote for your opponent. And of course enacting voter ID laws that disproportionately affect your opponent’s likely voters is also a good way. The GOP is trying everything this year. Thankfully due to Mitt Romney’s poor campaigning, the race isn’t as close as it needs to be. However, you need to still register, make sure you are registered, then get out and vote no matter what. Oh, and make sure everyone else does to. This cannot be close.

UPDATE: This young woman was working for Stategic Allied Consulting in Colorado following their script and instructions. Now that this clip has been released, she was fired for doing what she was told to do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rdk55dLsFhc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This group doesn’t want the majority of people voting in this country because that is the only way the Republicans can win.

As he was running for President, the country had been under Republican rule for years. The economy was in shambles. Little had been done to effectively deal with the financial crisis that was resulting in continuous job losses with no end in sight. He ran on a platform of changing things in Washington and work with the Republicans. He had a contested primary for the Presidential Nomination. The feeling of the nation was turning against what the Republicans had created after years of deregulation and poor oversight of economic issues. People were complaining about the huge deficits being run up by the federal government. He won the presidency with a vast coalition of labor, blacks and other minorities. Prior to taking office he was the target of assassination plots from extremists who feared what he would bring to the White House.

During his first term, he had a full agenda of things he wanted to accomplish to make the country a more stable and better place for all. The economic collapse that begun under and due to Republicans that preceded him made his work difficult. Of course, the economic downturn was also world-wide. He wanted to govern under the principles of “relief, recovery and reform.” He regularly spoke to the American people and was ridiculed for it by the other side. They felt he was giving himself too much air time to feed his own vanity. He saw that Americans weren’t spending, placing money in the economy so he pushed for economic stimulus from the federal government to get things moving again. Initially Congress assisted, but later complained about how these government programs were increasing the national debt. Though there were signs of early success, things were not improving fast enough and the Republicans ran against him on a lackluster recovery in the following mid-terms. They also ran against him for the social programs and bank regulation programs he instituted with the help of the Democrats in Congress over the almost universal objections of the Republicans. Trying to work with the Republicans, he scaled back some of his stimulus requests in order to cut federal spending. As a result, some small gains were actually lost. However, recovery came back, but again at a slower pace than the country wanted to see. As he entered the end of his term, the Republicans felt they had him and ran against him on his “failed record” and increased deficit spending as it related to GDP.

The Republicans nominated a man who was a former Governor and who by all accounts was a “moderate” but to get the nomination presented himself as a conservative. He railed against the president about how his policies were hostile to business and a waste of tax payer dollars. The President was called a Socialist. The pundits all said it would be a close race. The country wasn’t satisfied with the President and what he failed to deliver from his first race.

I am of course talking about Franklin Delano Roosevelt who took office during the GOP depression created and perpetuated by policies of Herbert Hoover and his second run for the Presidency against Alf Landon. Despite the problems FDR faced and the “learned” opinion of the media of the time saying it would be a very close race and FDR could lose, Roosevelt ended up winning in one of the largest landslide in popular votes, states won and Electoral College votes. FDR took every state with the exception of Maine and Vermont. Further, there was a landslide of new Democrats being elected to Congress giving FDR a larger advantage than he had before in Congress.

After the election, it was determined that FDR, though seen as a socialist was still very popular in the country, especially over his opponent, Alf Landon. Further, Social Security was taking shape and hold and the people liked it and didn’t appreciate calls from the Republicans to repeal it. People saw that though the rate of recovery was slow, it was still a recovery and recognize that many of the problems in its success was obstruction from the GOP in Congress as well as the Supreme Court at the time. The American people were more aware than the media gave them credit for. FDR won in 1936. He won again in 1940 becoming the first President to win three terms. And he won in 1944. His economic policies, his handling of the War, his likability and populace leanings made him unbeatable. The country did so well under Democratic Rule; the GOP successfully changed the Constitution limiting a President to only two terms. Since FDR’s death, they continued to work to overturn or privatize Social Security. Though FDR was unable to get healthcare passed, his understudy in Congress Lyndon Johnson was able to get Medicare passed when he became President and the GOP has been working to eliminate that program too. When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan say they want to strengthen both programs, you have to ask why they would want to do that when it’s been the policy of the Republican Party to this very day to repeal those programs.

ObamaCare is starting to take effect in much the same way Social Security took effect in 1936 and more and more people are seeing the benefits of it. Many insiders in the GOP are now acknowledging that it will not go away. Its popularity continues to increase as people learn more from it and experience its merits personally. What’s more, people are now seeing the open and unabashed obstructionism of the GOP in Congress. Not only is it likely President Obama will win re-election, he may be bringing back a Democratic House and a much more Democratic Senate as the centrists/independents of the country realize we cannot go back to the Republican policies that placed us in this mess in the first place.

Of course the key has been, and always will be voter turnout. People must register, ensure that they are registered, make sure they have the proper ID to thwart suppression efforts, and most important of all Vote. The higher the turn out, the more likely Obama and other Democratic Candidates will win. The GOP knows this and knows this is the only way they can hold on to any power in Washington. Don’t let them. Make sure you get your family and friends to also register, confirm, and get ID and vote. Give them all the assistance you can. What’s at stake?

Social Security

Medicare

Medicaid

ObamaCare (ACA)

Direction of the Supreme Court (populace centered or corporate centered?)

Economic Recovery

If you are for corporate control of Government and you, then do nothing. Otherwise get active and vote.

Here’s a gem floating around on YouTube right now. Give it a listen and wonder which Mitt Romney will debate President Obama next week.

This is why his Secret Service Code name is “Weather Vane”