Congressional field trip

"We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion Flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government. "

~ James Madison
(emphasis mine)



Therefore, iwe are NOT a Christian nation. Certainly not one at the behest of the government.

The House's Heavy Schedule - be careful not to break a nail!

So, the House has released its schedule for 2012. And wow, I sure hope they don't tax themselves too much. (Didja catch that clever little double entendre? Huh? Didja?)

Apparently that isn't going to be a problem in either case. Well, the obvious being that they're rich, so of course they won't tax themselves! But really, where I was going with this is that they are working less than 30% of the year.

Huh. It brings up a few issues for me.

1. The House has a crapton of work to do, given that they are so busy restricting women's rights and not creating jobs and all.
2. Also, the House is dying to remove all those pesky labor laws that keep businesses from paying their workers a living wage and not working children into the ground and not having a 7 day work week.
3. The House members (and you know who you are!) accuse the working middle class and poor in the US of being lazy. Hmmm....

OK then. When pressed on the issue, Eric Cantor's comeback was that since 1990, the House has averaged only 112 days per year. Like that makes it all ok. Forget that we were in an economic boom for that decade (thank you, President Clinton) and that, well, when the Dems ruled the House, they only worked 108 days. HA! Oh, and forget that three wrongs don't make a right.

Can you imagine a world where the workers got together and decided their working conditions? Oh, wait. The unions are unconstitutional, too.

OK, backtrack. Can you imagine a world where the workers got together and told their boss that they were only going to work less than 1/3 of the year? I'll try if you will, too! Yeah, I thought not.

But hello! There's a ton of work to be done. I get it that the GOP is planning to do absolutely nothing in order to stall the economy and make the President look bad come election day. And really, I TOTES sympathize. But if they had to actually, you know, answer to their boss (that would be, uh, US) the way that we have to be accountable to our bosses, then we might get better than the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Oh, wait. We do have that. It's called elections.

Please. VOTE.

The immigration/food supply/public assistance problem

So... apparently, Alabama, like Georgia before it, is realizing that their farm crops are going to go bad, and as a result, the consumer price for produce are skyrocketing, especially when combined with the effects of nonexistent global warming and climate change.

Why, oh why is this happening?

Oh, that's right. It's a crime to be a hard working immigrant, even if you didn't cross into the USA legally.

Unfortunately, these people aren't taking jobs away from hardworking Americans (read: prisoners), because apparently hardworking Americans don't want those jobs. They're just too hard.

Stephen Colbert, as usual ... nailed it!

I hope that the GOP in these states and in Congress is willing to deal with the economic and political consequences/fallout of food that's priced too high for so many Americans to pay for it. And then, as a result, many farmers that will have to go out of business in their states, potentially placing more and more folks on the public assistance rolls. And we all know that public assistance is taboo. Because needing help in times of strife is a huge sign of weakness. Vicious little cycle, isn't it?

Congressional field trip

to the founding fathers...

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.

~~ Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777

Congressional field trip number 355

In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.

~~ John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797

Voter ID laws, anyone?

Alan Grayson (former Rep D-FL) explains #OWS movement perfectly

For all those who really wonder what people are so upset about? It's this.



Well said.

Nuff said.

(via SmartBitches)

Quote Unquote

Phil Mitsch (State Senate candidate R-NJ) is quite the ladies man, apparently. He has the secret to success for women and he's not afraid to share it. And share it, he did.

"Women, you increase your odds of keeping your men by being faithful, a lady in the living room and a whore in the bedroom #quote Mitsch"

I'm constantly amazed at what we will accept in political leaders. Because, of course, while men cheat on their wives and that is just fine, a woman should be faithful to her husband at all costs. And if only you were a whore, maybe I wouldn't have to visit whores all the time instead of being faithful and a gentleman.

Men, you increase your odds of keeping your women by not being a douche.

NJ women, Oh, how I urge you be nuns in the bedroom until this election is over.

Congressional field trip number 972

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men

~~ John Adams, 1776

Just sayin.

And in today's war on women... the internet

It never seems to end, does it?

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) injected an amendment into the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act that would prohibit women and doctors from discussing abortion over the internet.

The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a woman's health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care. Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors.

What the everloving fuck?!

Yes, he injected this into a freaking agriculture bill. And yes, he had the balls to actually suggest this.

The House has had more votes on anti-choice measures just this year, making it the most ever since 2000.

Tell me again how the GOPs in Congress are only trying to push jobs. I dare you.

Rick Santorum wants you to have children until your uterus falls out

Rick Santorum would like to not only defund all abortion coverage, but all contraception coverage as well. Because, you see, we should only "do eeeet" when we're married and only to have children. And, oh yeah, if you happen to get a little pleasure out of it, well goody for you. But really, pleasure isn't what it's all about.

Opening doors up again for marital rape, because if she doesn't want it and she doesn't get pleasure out of it, well then, if hubby wants kids, then shut up and take it.


(move forward to 17:50 for the discussion)

Someone might have forgotten to tell the cavemen, and the ancient peoples, and the medieval peoples, and, well, freaking every civilization that ever walked the face of the earth, because people have been having sex for pleasure (and outside marriage) for as long as there have been people.

Dooood, wake up and smell the crazy! You are an ass.

Religion...

Religion is like a penis.
It's fine to have one.
It's fine to be proud of it.
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around.
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my children's throats.

Taken from Keith Olbermann's page on Facebook. Original source unknown.

It's really not Santorum's fault. Really.

Poor misunderstood Rick Santorum. He knows that the woes in this country are really the fault of all the single mothers out there. If only they would stop getting help from the government (like they ALL do!) and if only they would stop voting, or at least find a man to boss them around fix their lives for them, all of our lives would be that much better. Why, oh, why can't the rest of us understand that?

"Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: it is single mothers who run a household. Why? Because it's so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they’re going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government."

Like Rick says, a two parent family should be encouraged and nurtured by government and leaders. Hmm... maybe we should make it illegal to divorce your wife while she's recovering from a horrible car accident. Or while she's dying of cancer in the hospital. Or when she's diagnosed with a chronic illness. Unless you're doing it for America.

Oh, wait maybe it's not the women's fault. Maybe it's the gay's fault. I know, he's such a devoted American. And gays are the biggest problem - but he can fix it. Just like a modern day Abraham Lincoln. Phew. We've been waiting for Lincoln to fix our gay problem.

"I have been a long-time advocate for states' rights. However, I believe as Abraham Lincoln did — that states don't have the rights to legalize moral wrongs."

And if that weren't enough for poor Rick to handle, those meanies over at Saturday Night Live are making fun of him!! And bullying him! *GASP*



See?!




Here are some words of advice for Santorum.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Or grow a thicker skin. Or whatever 'suck it up, pull up your big boy undies and act like a man' analogy you want to make.

Presidents are mocked on every late night show before, during, and after their presidency. If you're going to whine like a little baby every time someone makes fun of you, then perhaps this isn't the job for you.

(Oh, are you listening Rick & Anita Perry? Perhaps this isn't the job for you, either.)

Children see what adults can't

What an amazing speech. It should shame everyone at that UN conference that there were that many empty seats.

And please note: this was 20 years ago. 1992.

Congressional field trip: Dear #FoxNews

"A printer publishes a lie: for which he ought to stand in the pillory, for the people believe in and act upon it."

~~ George Clymer of Pennsylvania, one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

He's talking to you, Fox News...

I know you are, but what am I?

I am so disheartened, disillusioned, angered, and frustrated by our government that if one of them approached me to ask my opinion right this minute, all I could likely get out would be, "You're a f*cking asshole."

I guess I know where I stand... the Let Women Die Act

Congress actually made me cry last night, and I'm sure that they are crowing in unholy glee at that fact.

I am 45 years old. I live in California. I have voted in every local, state, and federal election since I was 18, with the exception of the years that I was in Colorado for college. In all those years, I have gotten angry, I have applauded, I have been saddened by Congressional action. Never before has a Congressional bill actually made me cry. Except last night, I cried on my husband's shoulder. Honestly, I did.

I am peri-menopausal (yes, I can even admit that!), and my husband has had a vasectomy. We have two teenaged sons. I've had my children and am not looking to have more. Being pregnant at this stage of my life would not only be undesirable, but would put me in a very high risk group. But the only way that I am likely to get pregnant is - god-forbid - a rape.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 358, the "Protect Life Act", which is total bullshit because it doesn't protect anything. It's been dubbed the "Let Women Die" Act, because it allows any entity to refuse to perform an abortion on any woman, including one necessary to save the life of the mother. To put it bluntly, a hospital, physician, or other licensed medical professional person or service can watch a woman die on the floor rather than perform an abortion to save her life.

Of course the irony here is that if the mother dies, so does the unborn fetus they are trying so hard to protect. Also, this does nothing to protect life. The 'pro-life' party once again shows that it is the anti-choice party; not in the slightest bit pro-life. Someone please explain to me how intentionally letting a woman die on your emergency room gurney is pro-life. You'd better try really hard, because I don't think you can possibly justify that.

Unless, you're Rick Santorum. We should make an exception for Rick Santorum's wife. Because she, above all others, is needed as a mother for her other children who might have been left behind. Not another woman in this country would have that same situation. She's special.

I feel terrible for her, honestly I do. She had a much wanted (I assume) pregnancy, and a problem with the fetus left her with a life-threatening infection. In her 20th week of pregnancy, labor was artificially induced in order to expel the fetus and save her life.

I approve. It was their choice to do this. They were given the options, and made their decision. As it should be.

Now, other women will no longer have that choice, and with Rick Santorum's full blessing. According to him, doctors who perform life-saving abortion procedures should be criminally charged, and the rape victim would just undergo another "trauma" should she choose to abort a pregnancy resulting from said rape (poor thing, we should make her decision for her, she's so traumatized). According to him, we need to preserve the sanctity and dignity of every human life. Except any woman who is not his wife.

From Keith Olbermann's Facebook
fan page. Original source unknown.

Once again, the party of jobs, jobs, jobs has shown that we can set aside the jobs agenda to stick the long arm of the government that should be getting out of our personal lives up inside my uterus. They have shown once again that, in their esteemed opinions, women are the lowest life form on the planet.

H.R. 358 was co-sponsored by 9 women, one of them a presidential candidate (and it kills me to call her that). 16 women voted AYE. 5 women did not vote, including Michele Bachmann (a co-sponsor) and Gabrielle Giffords, who IMO, is the only one with a possible excuse not to be there. 15 Democrats (all men) voted AYE.  The vote in the House was 251-172.

This bill will likely not affect me personally, and by that I mean my personal body, but I have a sister and 2 sisters-in-law. I have 3 nieces. I have many female cousins who are of childbearing age and who are not yet of childbearing age. I will someday have 2 daughters-in-law. I have 2 nephews who will eventually marry women who will have children. I have a multitude of female friends, many of whom have daughters, and if they don't, they have nieces, sisters, mothers, or daughters-in-law or future daughters-in-law. As I'm sure all those members of the House who voted yesterday do.

I'm not an intentionally cruel person, and I truly don't wish this horrid event on anyone. But all I can say is that if somehow this bill gets past the Senate and the White House, after I move to another country, I hope that the funeral I'm attending for the woman who died while medical staff sat and did nothing is not for one of my loved ones, but a loved one of someone who voted Aye.

Quote Unquote

Saw this floating around Facebook and felt the need to share it. (am happy to share the source, but it's a private person and I doubt he'd want his name plastered on the interwebz)

I can't verify its authenticity until I catch up on all my DVR'd episodes of The Colbert Report, but it's certainly appropriate.

The war on women continues...

What the ever-loving fuck?

Comparing abortion to the Holocaust is outrageous for so many reasons I can't even begin to enumerate them. And, I believe they are so obvious that I don't need to. Everyone knows why this isn't the case. But let me point out a not so obvious reason that this isn't true.

The Holocaust significantly targeted Jews, as well as other minority groups, both ethnic and social. But focusing on Jews for the moment, since they were the primary target... uh, Jewish law commands that abortion be performed in order to save the life of the mother. The Mishnah states: "If a woman has [life-threatening] difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her, limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over its life."

Additionally, Jewish law does not establish that the fetus is a viable person. In fact, just the opposite. From the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards, Adopted on November 21, 1983

Jewish tradition ... sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Bible (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage. The Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother.

So, my question is this. If you are going to compare a mastermind of mass-murder of an entire race, religion or social group to a medical procedure, don't you think the main group to whom you are making the analogy should agree with your ideology?

And in other news, the Congress takes up HR 358; the "Let Her Die" bill, allowing hospitals that receive federal funds to refuse to perform lifesaving pregnancy termination for any reason they choose, including in order to save the life of the mother.

And last for today, but certainly not least...

The city of Topeka, Kansas has repealed in a 7-3 vote, the law against domestic violence. Seven to three! It wasn't even close. Their reason? Yeah, it was expensive to prosecute all these cases, so we'd rather just let men beat up their wives. It makes life a whole lot easier on the budget.

Although domestic battery remains illegal in the State of Kansas, the city council has made it clear symbolically that they couldn't care less if a dude wants to beat the shit out of his partner.

"We opted out of the state statue [sic] last night which says municipalities should prosecute these crimes," said Mayor Bunten. "That was done so that it couldn't be thrown into our laps." (emphasis mine)

Could they make it any clearer that they want nothing to do with taking care of their citizens? OK, let me rephrase... their women and children (since they are typically the victims of domestic violence).

I don't know about you, but I'm damn scared to be a woman in the US today. Seriously scared.

I am, indeed, the 99%

As the GOP tries to justify its desire to decrease or remove altogether corporate and millionaire tax rates, the rest of the country is desperately trying to make ends meet.

Both my husband and I are fully employed. We are incredibly fortunate. However, that does not give the government the right to take advantage of us.

 In the past 3 years, my husband, a *gasp* teacher and a *bigger gasp* member of his local and California teacher's union, has seen his insurance deductible triple. Among other cutbacks, his insurance contribution per month tripled this year and benefits decreased, and the addition of furlough days has essentially cut his salary.

Over the past several years, we've seen our tax responsibility go up at both the state and federal level. We consider ourselves to be good citizens. We give to charity. When we can't donate cash, we donate goods - clothing, supplies, etc, and we donate to our local food bank to help those less fortunate than us. We've tried to instill these same values in our children.

Now, in order to help millionaires keep even more of their money, the GOP would like to see us pay even more, while at the same time trying to claim that Americans should take care of each other, rather than rely on the government. Let's be honest. The GOP is claiming that the actual dollar amount that the uber-upper class will have to pay is greater than the dollar amount the rest of us will have to pay, and in that, yes - they are likely correct. But we're talking percentages of income here, not actual dollar amounts. Because our tax code is all about percentages. And the average wealthy American (and corporation) pays a far lower percentage of their income than does a non-wealthy American. The government's responsibility is to take care of the people over which it governs. It even says so in the Constitution of the United States.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

If, as the GOP proposes, the government increases taxes on the majority of the citizens of the country, that means that we have less income not only to spend, but to care for those less fortunate. I know Ron Paul suggests that the churches will take this on, but where does he think the churches receive their money? How does the GOP propose we manage both of those items at the same time? Just curious. Because I'm guessing that they don't expect the wealthy to bankroll their local charities, especially when they don't really get anything out of it (except of course, another tax break). (Help those less fortunate?! Blasphemy!)

Also, the hypocrisy of the GOP who fully supported the Tea Party movement as patriotic is now calling the OWS movement un-American, unpatriotic mobs, and morons. Nice to see how they support the democratic process and our constitutional right to assemble. And to see how, once again, if it supports their ideology they love it and it's patriotic, but if it doesn't jive with their politics, it's unconstitutional, unpatriotic, and mob behavior. Uh-huh.

Prime example:

Buying beer, tobacco, and unneeded gadgets while on public assistance is an argument that has been made by many a GOP politician, which is why Minnesota State House Republicans introduced HF 171 and other bills to limit poor people's access to cash. And yes, I think we all agree, that there are abusers of the system. But they are the severe exception, not the rule. And of course, we all know that everyone on welfare or public assistance must be drug abusers, too. However, the vast, overwhelming majority of people on public assistance are simply trying to keep their heads above water while they look for employment or better employment. Also, I'm saying it again - the party of Christians is once again rearing its incredibly un-Christian head.

We also have the duty to educate our people. Many presidents have made this a priority (though none have done a good job of it, IMO). However, according to Glenn Beck, these protesters should just stop whining about the fact that the a) can't afford college and b) can't get a job after college. Now that's just lovely, considering NCLB and RTTP pretty much ensure everyone is on a college track just in order to graduate high school. We now expect every child to go to college, force them to be college ready, have taken away almost all vocational tracks in schools, and have raised the price of college tuition such that it is out of the range of many Americans. We've increased the difficulty to graduate high school on this college track we've forced, thus making many students scrape by with a C average, yet the average GPA to get into college has increased, as have the SAT or ACT minimums. So how do we propose to college-educate all these students that we've forced to get onto the college track, who can now not afford nor actually get into college, and can't get a job without a college degree?

I don't have the right to not pay taxes because I don't agree with the way they are being spent. I also don't have the right to not follow laws that I don't agree with, darn it. Oh, how I wish that were so! However, these are exactly what Newt Gingrich proposed in an interview - that he wouldn't follow the federal court's rulings on cases he didn't agree with. Hello - impeachable offense, anyone? And it's also exactly what Rep Bobby Franklin said that Georgia should do in referencing Roe v Wade in HB 1. In addition to being a blatant disregard for the constitution they all claim to love so much, this is exactly what the checks and balances system is for. Wait. Is checks and balances a constitutional principle? Naaaaaah. Couldn't be.

When we begin electing officials who publicly voice their plans to directly violate the law and the constitution and do not hold them accountable, what are we teaching our children? When we impose standards on our citizens that are impossible to meet, what are we doing? What does that say about us as a society? Or the future of our country?

If I could take the time off of work, I would be protesting along with everyone else. As it is, I must do it from the pulpit of my blog.

I am the 99%, and I support those sitting in protest 100%.

Those rich white male landowners strike again

Holy crap!!!

I know, let's return America to the time when only rich white male landowners were allowed to vote. It's Steve King's (R-IA) wildest and most cherished dream.

Because those people who don't pay taxes have no stake, no "skin in the game". Uh, perhaps the people who are unemployed or who don't work for money (like, say, housewives) or college students or even those lowlife socialist freeloaders who don't make enough money to meet the tax burden (IOW, enough to freaking live on - which BTW will be a lot more folks once you all repeal the minimum wage law like you want) might have some thoughts on that.

Just one question for the Congressman from Iowa.

Just how big an elitist asshole are you really? 

Yeah, what.ever.

SCOTUS and the 1st amendment

I've tried to chill out, really. But when the Supreme Court is in such disarray and so partisan, how can we stay silent?

Antonin Scalia has noted that religion is more important than law. Isn't this the point in time when you say, "Gee, my religious beliefs are so strong, I can no longer be an impartial judge of law"?

Apparently not.

“Our educational establishment these days, while so tolerant of and even insistent upon diversity in all other aspects of life, seems bent on eliminating diversity of moral judgment – particularly moral judgment based on religious views,” Scalia noted in a speech at Duquesne University.

“I hope this place will not yield – as some Catholic institutions have – to this politically correct insistence upon suppression of moral judgment, to this distorted view of what diversity in America means.”

Really, Mr. Supreme Court Justice? What does diversity in America mean? Equal rights for all citizens? The right to an education for all citizens? Religious freedom for all? Or is it that as long as the folks appearing before the Supreme Court believe the same as you, then they're diverse enough?

Never, to my knowledge, has the Supreme Court been so partisan and so obviously biased. And, gee, it was also my understanding, if I recall my elementary school education correctly, that the SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. Given that, you know, they're deciding law for generations to come.

Also showing suspect behavior is Clarence Thomas, who refuses to disclose or claim the six-figures a year earned by his wife at the hands of the Tea Party organization that she founded, or the gifts and donations he's received by companies and lobbyists with a direct interest in the outcome of cases before the court.

While it's lovely and all that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, if they don't live up to the strict ethical standards required, there should be a mechanism for forcing their withdrawal from the court.

What's that you say? There is? Oh. Yes. Didn't we impeach that Clinton guy for getting a blow job? Imagine if he'd also actually done something, you know, illegal.

Scalia and Thomas should be forced to resign from the SCOTUS or be impeached.