Monthly Archives: January 2012

At Last, GOP Admits They Want Slavery

Source:  Huffington Post

I’m not quite sure who at Huff Post didn’t manage to catch this the first time around.

From the above cited article:

The politicians pushing drug testing disagree. In South Carolina, where the unemployment rate is 9.9 percent, well above the national average of 8.5 percent, Republicans want the nation’s toughest requirements: blanket drug testing of every applicant for unemployment benefits and compulsory volunteer work for the long-term jobless.

Now, I don’t know if I need to give you the definition of the word “volunteer”, but I’ll give you the link.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/volunteer

Of course, the issue here is that Republicans want to mandate “compulsory volunteer work” for those on unemployment insurance.  Well, if, to volunteer, you must be actively willing to do whatever it is, then how exactly is the oxymoronic phrase “compulsory volunteer work”, presumably where, since the work would be compulsory (so you would not actually be volunteering, but would be mandated to work, and to work at no pay at that), how is it not an exact description of slavery?

With slavery, it is mandated that people perform work without pay, and with “compulsory volunteer work”, it would be mandated that people perform work without pay.  Ergo, “compulsory volunteer work” is just a euphemism for slavery.

Finally, the Republicans admit what everyone has been thinking.

The GOP wants to go back to the “good ole days”, um, where slavery was legal?  Really?  But there it is, in black and white, for all to see.  The GOP wants us all to be slaves.  I knew it.

Wait one minute.  If the GOP wants to go back and make us all “volunteer” slaves, could they perhaps get a few non-profits together that had people picking cotton and tobacco, and maybe even vegetables in the fields?  That way, the GOP could kill the DREAM Act, have their border fences, and not have to pay for any housecleaning and gardening labor.  They could still prevent any economic recovery, since all of us who were out of work would have to volunteer for the already rich, who, after all could pay for these jobs, but if they have slaves, then why bother?

This all has to do with the notion that the GOP thinks that anyone who is poor is on drugs, and that those people receiving any form of public assistance must be poor, and therefore on drugs.  I don’t know, but if I were to work for those assholes, I would need to be on drugs.

First of all, those people who get unemployment insurance (UI) are able to do so because they were just recently employed, and through no fault of their own, they were laid off, downsized, outsourced, or what have you, generally by an already rich Republican.  The money which pays for UI does not come from the individual taxpayer in the first place.  It comes from a tax on corporations which would never be given back to the corporation if left unpaid to the UI recipient, and generally comes out of the allocated employee salary funds from that former employer, so it really is the UI recipient’s money to begin with.

I know for a fact that there are quite a few Republicans who are employed and who use drugs (Rush Limbaugh to name one).  If there are individuals who are employed and who use drugs with the money they earn, it is their business (beyond the scope of not getting busted with the drugs, should they be illegal).  So if someone on UI wants to spend a portion of that retained earned income on drugs, it should be no one else’s business but the UI recipient’s.

The GOP nationwide in the states’ legislatures and in US Congress has been pushing for enactment of legislation which would remove welfare, TANF, SNAP, and UI recipients from having the ability to receive their checks unless they are able to pass a mandated random drug test.  Oh, and by the way, the recipient has to pay for the test.  I thought the GOP was against individual mandates, or perhaps that is just when it suits them.  One law in Florida mandating these measures was struck down because it clearly violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure.

This all caught my eye because there is some pushback from the Democrats who are essentially saying that if you are going to test people who get public money (still not sure why they include UI), then we ought to be testing everyone who gets public money, including state and federal representatives.  Maybe not oddly, but at least effectively, this move made some of the GOP sponsors of the bills withdraw them, in what seems to be a direct admission of hypocrisy by the GOP.

Yes, once the Democrats pushed back by amending the bills so that the GOP bill sponsors would also have to get tested, those Republicans decided that the measure was not such a good idea after all.

I think that if we were going to institute this policy, it would be a good idea to make sure that ALL public money, like corporate banking bailouts for instance, will only go to people who have tested negative for illegal drug use, particularly cocaine, MDMA, and maybe ketamine in their case.  Oh, and how about all those oil subsidies?  No drugs for them.  No more partying with the regulators for you, Big Oil!  Imagine how much money this would save.  Do you really think the oil and banking barons would give up their drugs for public money?  I doubt it.

And the next time you see some sort of whacked-out SOPA/PIPA/NDAA/EEA type of legislation come out of Congress, well, test them too.

Vote Legalization!  Vote Green!  Vote Oatman!

Comments Off on At Last, GOP Admits They Want Slavery

Filed under Bailouts, Banking, Corporate, Government Intrusion, Green Party, Jobs, Mandatory Drug Testing, Poverty, Reform, Unemployment Insurance

Thoughts on SOTU Address and Responses

Fortunately, I listen to NPR (National Public Radio), so unlike CNN viewers, I was not subject to having to view the GOP ad which aired immediately prior to the address, although I missed out on the video and what I’m sure were quite a few looks from some members of Congress.  I did get to hear the full text of the address, and I figured I would share some of my thoughts on what was said.

Obama opened with thanks to Armed Forces members, which was nice, but I was appalled by his statement that he thinks war makes us safer and more respected around the world.  We know for a fact that it does not.  Our supposed “war on terrorism” (you cannot make war on a tactic) is known to be used as a recruiting tool to enlist more members in Al-Qaeda, and only creates more resentment worldwide.  Claiming otherwise, at first pass which might seem naive, is not so, but is simply a move to create more taxpayer-funded business for the defense industry, and to extend our false imperialism in a battle with China for oil and other energy resources.

Speaking of energy and by extension jobs and the economy, we were asked by Obama to imagine our situation having a more positive outlook.  This is essentially the method employed by Family Guy’s Brian Griffin’s fictitious book, “Wish It, Want It, Do It” and is completely ridiculous.  I can imagine it, but why won’t Obama address the situation in any meaningful ways?  Programs can be instituted in various departments which will help things and which do not require congressional approval, but it seems to be more politically expedient to do nothing and blame the other party for lack of progress.  No wonder approval ratings for both parties are at an all-time low.

We could bring more manufacturing back if there were limits (taxes, tariffs and other fees) imposed on corporations which practice outsourcing to other nations, rather than having us all just wait for the Chinese wage to go up.  With corporate taxes, we need more sticks and fewer carrots.  We already have the biggest corporations paying next to nothing on record annual profits.  These loopholes need to be closed immediately.  Job training needs to work in conjunction with a reduction of military manufacturing and conversion of those defense industry plants and technologies to green energy production and sources.

I do agree that we should offer states something like a 3 to 1 match on state university and college funding increases, and incentivize universities to reduce or not increase tuition.  We also need to increase Pell Grants to twice higher than 2000 levels, and use the Treasury and not banking institutions to handle Student Loan repayments.

Some other thoughts on energy production:

  • We cannot afford more oil production, furthermore, we will need to keep the oil we have, and keep it in the ground.  We need to use only carbon-negative or -neutral energy sources.
  • We cannot afford to ruin all the water and create hundreds or thousands of earthquakes by further developing hydrologic fracturing (fracking).
  • We cannot afford to susidize oil production any longer.  We need to tax it, along with fracking, completely out of existence.
  • We can afford to develop wave energy generation, where strings of hinged booms and buoys float on ocean waves and where the hinges turn generators based on the wave movement.
  • We can afford to harness underwater tidal forces which can turn propellers like wind turning a windmill as the tides go in and out.
  • We can afford to make wind energy more efficient and more plentiful, including offshore.  Paint them to blend in if you are so concerned with your scenic view of the offshore oil rigs.
  • We can afford to make solar more efficient and more varied, and use the massive acreage located within the Nevada DOE site to make enough solar energy for all the homes in the US.
  • We can afford to place solar and wind installations on all manufacturing plants, with all new homes getting active and passive solar on the rooftops.
  • We can afford to make better batteries, so I agree with Obama on that one.
  • We can even develop (it has been done) GM bacteria which take greenhouse gases out of the air, and then which use the sequestered molecules to thrive and excrete oil which we can use.  I suspect the same method could be used to create natural gas.

Any idea to help alleviate the mortgage crisis is a good one.  What about getting peoples’ foreclosed and unpurchased houses back to them?

How about getting mercury out of vaccines?  Well, getting it out of the water is great also.  Strengthening the FDA and preventing mercury, dioxins and arsenic from entering fish and other seafood chains via stream runoff is wonderful.

Here’s a better idea, we can increase the taxes on corporate gains, etc. (Romney’s and Buffet’s incomes) and let the added 10-20% increase be earmarked by those taxpayers individually toward their choice of investments for R&D to colleges, universities and green energy businesses.

As for fixing the tax code, there are various numbers which could be used, but we should employ a progressive taxation system similar to the following, where individual incomes of:

  • >$1M should pay 40% on amounts at or above $1M,
  • >$500K should pay 25% on amounts between $500K and $1M,
  • <$50K should pay zero, and
  • incomes between $50K and $500K should pay 15% on amounts between $50K and $500K.

In addition, FICA & Medicare (at whatever percents, usually 2%-6% each depending on the national mood) are taxed on all incomes over $50K, with no upper limit.  There should be a 50% estate tax for liquidity over $1M, though not for real estate and investments.  The total tax levied on all corporate gains and investment incomes should be about 30%, and would be excluded from the calculation of the individual incomes above.  Married couples filing jointly would double the income requirements above, and dependants claimed would allow for a $25K deduction per dependant.  All income amounts would be COLA adjusted for successive years.  Therefore, if your household consisted of a married couple with two children filing jointly, and your combined annual income did not exceed $150K with no investment income, you would pay no taxes.  If you were single making $100K/yr, with $50K in investment income, you would pay $22.5K plus FICA & Medicare on $50K (somewhere around $2K to $6K), for an effective tax rate of about 18%.  This would increase current revenues compared to the current tax code (it would generate somewhere around $2.5T in income taxes, plus perhaps $2T in capital gains / investment taxes), and would create massive spending from the middle class, which would in turn create the largest economic expansion since the 1950s and 1990s, thereby generating even more tax revenue, particularly for states and localities.  Taxing corporations at a reasonable rate (20-25%) on incomes exceeding $500K with no loopholes would generate another $2T or so.  We would have a $2T surplus and the debt would be paid off in a record 8 years.  It only takes political will or better members of congress to accomplish this.

You can feel cynical about nothing getting done, but you could also just institute massive political reform.  Mandate shortened campaign seasons to a couple or a few months.  Ban all stock and commodities trading by congress people.  Limit lobbyists to genuinely interested parties, with no payouts.  Limit campaign contributions to individuals only.  Have no more filibusters in the Senate unless you actually take the floor and read something into the congressional record which pertains to the topic at hand.  Limit supermajorities in normal voting where a 50% majority is required.  End the Bush Cycle between lobbyists, regulators, other oversight positions, congress, and other federal positions.  Once someone takes one position within an industry, they cannot switch (from private to public sectors or vice versa) until having not been employed in that industry for at least five years.  The SEC needs more teeth.

The way you end the source of attacks against US is to get our bases out of Mecca & Medina, stop state funding Israel & Pakistan, get out of Afghanistan, and end the “war on terrorism”.

Finally, we can give better, free, jobs training to veterans, and really to everyone, and not just incentives for companies who hire them.

That would be my response to the 2012 SOTU address, but it was not the response given by Mitch Daniels, the GOP Governor of Indiana.

Instead, Daniels simply regurgitated the same old talking points from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.  How does such an uncaring racist blowhard drug addict (Rush) get to be the non-titular head of the Republican Party anyway?  Perhaps that was too rhetorical.

Daniels talked about there being roughly a 20% unemployment rate, which was really odd, since Republicans never count those not actively job seeking as being unemployed, I suppose unless it suits them.

Republicans do not even want more employment.  Rather, they want higher profits for their corporate donors.  How exactly do you suppose we got into this mess in the first place?

Neither do Republicans want equality.  They want rich white land-owning males to have everything and for everyone else to be slaves, leave or die.

If a Republican cannot route a pipeline through a poor neighborhood, he (and not she) will route it through a wetland.  Daniels said that the XL pipeline deal is, and I quote, “pro-poverty”.  Now, I do not know if Daniels knows yes from no, good from bad, left from right, for from against, but he obviously does not know pro- from con-.  XL is pro-poverty alright.  It is also pro-environmental-destruction.  Tar sands are about the most inefficient and carbon-positive producers of oil known on the planet, and routing a pipeline through an aquifer, particularly the largest in the Midwest, is about as dumb an idea as not using hardened cement on a blowout preventer.  Between XL, drill-baby-drilling in the oceans, fracking, and trying to end the Clean Water Act and EPA, one would guess by their actions alone, that Republicans wanted all the potable water in the country to simply disappear.

Why do Republicans constantly state that raising their tax rates on largely investment earnings will somehow hurt jobs?  It will not.  People will continue to invest (unless the tax on investment earnings was 100%), and the higher the tax levied, the less risky the investments will be.  Graphically plotting gross tax revenue versus tax rate levied looks like a bell curve, and we are way down on the left side low end.

If Daniels wants growth, then his Senate and House compatriots ought to approve the jobs bills introduced this year.  If Daniels wants Obama to fail just like Rush and McConnell stated, he will not want growth.

If Republicans like saving money, they will use the goddamn energy saving light bulbs.  What a ruse!  I replaced 100% of the light bulbs in my apartment (even in the fridge and under the range hood) with the new energy saving kind (for a total cost of $25), and my monthly electric bill dropped by $20 overnight.  I’ll save $215 in the first year of using them.  They even now come encased in a coated glass bulb which acts to diffuse the light, so they shine light just like a normal incandescent, and they warm up to full brightness in about a minute.  You no longer need to get blinded by the compact fluorescent coil.  What a deal!  Buy them in packs of 5 or 10 to save money.

And finally, contrary to what Daniels said, to have national bankruptcy, our GDP (FY2011 was $15.0T — T is trillion) needs to be smaller than our annual interest on the federal debt ($15.23T total, and $0.457T of that is interest).  We are not even close, well, yet.  Our annual federal budget is about one quarter of our GDP, and is over seven times the annual interest on the debt.  If Daniels is concerned that the debt as a percentage of GDP is just over 100%, he should feel better to know that following WWII, the debt was just over 120% of GDP and in 35 years, under Jimmy Carter, we managed to get that percent down to just over 30%.  Reagan/Bush proceeded to bring that figure back up to nearly 70%.  Clinton brought it down to about 55%, and Dubya brought it back to 70%.  Obama did the rest.  However, the debt needs to be $500T (over 30 times the current amount) to get to where interest payments (at 3% interest) exceed the GDP, at which point the US would become insolvent.  Even if we run a $2T defecit every year (the largest defecit ever in 2009 was $1.9T), it would still take 242 years to reach that point (the United States will be 236 years old on 4 July 2012).  Now, we absolutely do need to pay down the debt, but we do not need to make such draconian austerity measures like the EU is doing, and by doing so, shoot ourselves in the foot by preventing our economic recovery.  Apparently Daniels does not know how to use a calculator, either.

So, that response got four Pinocchios.  Neither Republicans nor Democrats know what they are doing, and if they do, then they know that all they do is make the already rich richer, and be damned with the rest of the populace.  Here’s not quite a joke: What’s the difference between a neo-conservative (Republican) and a globalist (Democrat)?  Well, the neo-conservative wants the corporation which controls everything to come from this country, while the globalist cares not from which country that corporation comes.  Or, alternatively, the Democrat charges too much for the meal, but the Republican leaves the restaurant before the check arrives and sticks you with the bill.

So what’s the better way?  It is to not elect either to office again.

Vote Green!!!  Vote Oatman!!!

Comments Off on Thoughts on SOTU Address and Responses

Filed under Corporate, Debt & Defecit, Education, Energy, Environment, Green Party, International, Jobs, Mortgage Crisis, Reform, State Of The Union, Tax Code

The Republicans Are In Disarray, The Democrats, About As Much (so Vote Green!)

After watching the State Of The Union speech last night, I would like to make a few brief comments on the state of things regarding the presidential election cycle this year prior to publishing my rebuttal here.

I thought the speech itself was well delivered and polished (minus the spilt milk joke of a joke), but lacking in the intensity of programs which were proposed to solve the jobs crisis.  Obama was just trotting out the same old lines which had previously gone nowhere with the GOP and which would have little actual impact on the situation regarding the placement of the US in the new economic model of sustainability, and in actual job creation and retraining.

I was thinking how this speech was in no way going to help him against his GOP rivals, and that his chances of reelection were waning.

But then I thought about his GOP rivals.

So maybe all hope is not lost for Obama, but why do we always have to settle for the lesser of two evils?

I was, of course, thinking of the Republican disarray which is the progression of the nominating process so far in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

After Newt won in The Palmetto State, following on the heels of a GOP certified Santorum win in Iowa, and Romney winning New Hampshire, with Ron Paul close on his heels, you get the distinct conclusion that there will not be for some time in the GOP primary, any distinct conclusion.  Even the comedian Stephen Colbert, made a last minute pseudo-run in South Carolina, his home state, instructing his followers to pick “Cain” on the ballot as a vote for Colbert, and he actually placed a solid fifth place, ahead of Rick Perry, who placed sixth.

There has got to be a better way.

Even the Republican’s SOTU response, delivered by Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, was bland, lacking, regurgitated, hating-Obama-for-no-reason-other-than-that-Rush-told-me-to, outright distortions, which should earn it four noses on the Pinocchio scale.  What was that bit about “pro-poverty” and why do you hate those light bulbs so much?

If Obama drops the ball and the GOP cannot come along and pick it up and run with it, then it is truly time to give up on both sides of that fence.

One thing that truly did matter happened this morning.  Gabrielle “Gabby” Giffords officially retired from the floor of the House.  In a tearful speech delivered by her friend, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic National Committee chairman, Giffords announced that she was retiring to work on her recovery, and that she would return eventually to public service.  It was so moving that even John Boehner was in tears, or perhaps that is too low of a bar.  In a final tribute to Gabby, 408 House members voted unanimously (!!!) to approve a border security bill she had sponsored.  Gabby was the one good thing Southern Arizona had going on in the US House, and unless Steve Leal wants to take her place, we are headed for a wasteland with the Democrats, as equally as with the Republicans.

But there is another option.  We all have until next Monday 30 January 2012 to renew our voter registrations and turn them in to the Recorder’s Office (on the north side of the courtyard in the Pink Dome Building in downtown Tucson), but this time, we need to register for the Green Party!

With the Green Party there will be no more partisan blockades, and there will be an actual genuine putsch to actually improve things!  You will get jobs, actual manufacturing base, no stupid fake wars, and no reliance on foreign oil!

Plus, I’m running as a Green Party candidate, so you can …

Vote Green!  Vote Oatman!

Comments Off on The Republicans Are In Disarray, The Democrats, About As Much (so Vote Green!)

Filed under Education, Energy, Environment, Green Party, Jobs, Reform, State Of The Union

Michael Oatman Announces Green Party Presidential Candidacy (press release)

Hello, please circulate widely, thank you!

Contact: Michael Oatman
Oatman for President 2012
Tel: (202) 642-4785 (D.C. Offices)
Tel: (520) 302-5465 (Tucson Offices)
Fax: (206) 202-2194
Email: 2012@MichaelOatman.co.cc
Website: http://2012.MichaelOatman.co.cc/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Michael Oatman Announces Green Party Presidential Candidacy

Description:  Michael Oatman is seeking the Green Party nomination for United States President in 2012, and is on the ballot in the 2012 Arizona Presidential Preference Election to be held statewide on Tuesday 28 February 2012.

TUCSON, AZ, 23 January 2012 — Green Party presidential candidate Michael Oatman today formally and publicly announced his candidacy from his Tucson offices, by stating his intention to seek the nomination by the Arizona Green Party for the office of United States President.

Mr. Oatman, a native of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has lived in Tucson for the past twelve years.  He works as a computer and internet services consultant in the Tucson area, and has owned and operated several businesses in the Tucson downtown area.  He is also the host and producer of the Access Tucson televised call-in talk show entitled “Illegal Knowledge”.

“I’m all for creating jobs in the green energy sector, including here in Tucson and Southern Arizona, where they are certainly needed,” says Oatman.  He believes the United States needs to derive most of its energy sources from technologies employing exclusively solar, wind, wave and tidal forces.  “I’d say my platform is about being fiscally conservative and socially progressive.  We desperately need massive political reform.  I would spend much more on education, less on defense, more on research for developing new technologies which can bring us energy independence, and we can re-tool our manufacturing industries to that end.”  The website 2012.MichaelOatman.co.cc contains more information about his candidacy and regarding what Oatman would bring to the nation’s highest office.

This is not the first time Oatman has run for the office of US President, although it is the first time he has run as a Green Party candidate.  In 2008, registered as a Democrat, he received 17 votes, all from early balloting, which he says is remarkable “considering there was absolutely no budget whatsoever to work with, and that the campaign was exclusively word-of-mouth.”

This year, Oatman hopes to receive the endorsement of the Tucson Weekly newspaper, working with what Weekly writer Jim Nintzel calls “an exercise in reality journalism” known as Project White House.  The project pits candidates whose names are on the ballot for the 2012 Arizona Presidential Preference Election against one another to compete for the Weekly’s endorsement of a candidate from each of the Republican and Green parties.  The Democratic Party elected to not participate in this year’s Presidential Preference Election in Arizona, and no Democrats will be listed on this year’s ballot.

                                                                          #   #   #

Michael Oatman is currently accepting invitations for interviews from all news and media outlets.  Please contact Mr. Oatman using any of the contact methods provided in the header of this release.  Thank You for Your Interest!

Vote Green!  Vote Oatman!

Michael Oatman For President of
These United States of America!
Email: 2012@MichaelOatman.co.cc
Website: http://2012.MichaelOatman.co.cc/

With Love, We Can Take the Power Back!

Comments Off on Michael Oatman Announces Green Party Presidential Candidacy (press release)

Filed under Education, Energy, Energy & Jobs, Press Releases, Reform, Tucson Weekly

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

From Project White House.

Saturday 14 January 2012

Jim Nintzel
Senior Writer
Tucson Weekly

Thank you Jim!  Here are my responses.

Name: Michael Oatman

Contact/Email:2012@MichaelOatman.co.cc

Website: 2012.MichaelOatman.co.cc

Social media —
Facebook: facebook.MichaelOatman.co.cc
Twitter: @MichaelOatman

Occupation: Webmaster
Website: HeyComputerMan.co.cc

Birth Town: Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Residing in: Tucson, Arizona

Pets: Fish

Favorite food: Baked Ziti, or pizza, both of which I make.

99% or 1%?

  • There will always be a 99% and a 1%.  The issue is the difference of incomes and standards of living between the two.  Eventually, the differences will become less, but it is only now a question of whether that difference reduction is accomplished via social, economic and political reforms or via revolution.
  • I prefer reforms, but I will always assist in the revolution, should reforms fail.

How many houses do you own? None, I rent.

General Questions

Who is your first choice for a running mate? Cynthia Ann McKinney

Make us a campaign promise: “I Do Solemnly Swear To Read The Tucson Weekly, Weekly!”

Spaceships appear above every major US city: How would you handle it?

  • 1) Find out whether they are ours and whether this is an exercise or a coup d’etat.  If it is an exercise, deny it.
  • 2) If they are ours (and not an exercise), quash the coup and hang the treasonous bastards.  If they are not ours, well, fucking negotiate.
  • 3) If they (not ours) refuse to negotiate, and it is understood what they want, and that is our annihilation, then nuke them.  Cooperate to our mutual benefit otherwise.  Let’s get on board!

Name two people you would bring together in a beer summit.

  • Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, just to test them.
  • Other than those two, neither of whom would likely have a beer, an effective beer summit might include myself and the leaders of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Brazil, EU people, Palestine, and Israel.  One can only imagine the tremendous range of topics to be hammered out.  We would need absinthe, not beer, for this one.

Priority Evaluation

Please order the following threats in terms of biggest priority to least priority (1-6):

First of all, I’d like to explain my numbering scheme.  I have these listed in order 1-6, and also in percent importance priority, 0%-100%.  The latter percent is where the issue falls in relative importance overall.  I will use this percent importance scale in further posts.

Order  Pct. Importance  Issue
-----  ---------------  -------
1.     92%              Climate Change
2.     90%              Iran
3.     85%              Unemployment
4.     60%              Food recalls
5.     25%              Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen
6.     0.00002%         Piranhas

FYI, I would place the possibility of Asian Carp invading the Great Lakes at number 4.5 with a percent of 30%.  Additionally, I would give 100% to overall political reform of elections involving the federal government.

Issues (stated):

Abortion – Safe, Legal, and Rare.  Birth control should be freely and widely available so that abortion effectively exists only to protect the life and well-being of the mother.

Guns – For the Second Amendment, and for the argument that a background check (instantaneous) does not impinge on it.  I also support free public gun training, particularly for those who wish to carry concealed.

Death penalty – Only for the offense of Treason.

Marijuana – For decriminalization, for removal from Schedule I, and for treatment like and taxation beyond Alcohol and Tobacco.

Israel or Palestine or is it complicated? I support a One-State solution, where everyone’s votes are equal under a united government.

Justin Bieber – I’m for kids with talent.  This excludes Bieber.  I’m morally against mommies trying to relive their youth by entering their daughters into beauty pageants, but there should be no law.

Waterboarding – For the Geneva Conventions for all nations.

Gays in the military – Are we seriously still talking about this?  It has been resolved correctly, finally.

Bigger threat to the institution of marriage: Sinead O’Connor;  Las Vegas?

Obamacare – I support (and have since 2007) a single payer, possibly multi-tiered system.  Please see the website for details.

Boehner’s tears – As fake as his tan.  Where In The World Is Jon Boehner?

Border fence – For a reasonable guest worker program, some version of the Dream Act, drug legalization (except meth and heroin), the cessation of state funding for Israel and Pakistan (our businesses can still sell them weapons), and the removal of our bases from Mecca and Medina.  The fence was historically used simply to mark the national boundary.  Oh, and no Canadian fences.  If we remove the reasons for which people want to come here illegally and/or attack us, we need no fences.

English as the U.S. official language – Je parle Francais aussi.

Amnesty for undocumented immigrants – Yes for the kids; Guest Worker for the adults.

Koch brothers – BANG, ZOOM!  Straight to the moon!

Net Neutrality – 1000% FOR!  100% against SOPA/PIPA!  100% FOR COPPA!  Let corporations make their own limited internet, parallel to the real one.  Let’s see which one people want to use.

Increased defense spending – As if we really have the money to spend — but if we just print it, could we at least print 3 times that much for education, please?

Should text message abbreviations be taught in schools? AFAIK ABVS RNT GRMR.  If you could understand that, then maybe we *should* teach people how to communicate with you, or perhaps better vice versa.

Childhood vaccinations – I’m against mercury in particular and any other toxins in vaccines.  Yes, mercury is still in there.  You should really read the packaging ingredients on everything.  The underlying principle of vaccination is fine, medically speaking.

Disclosure

Please list all:
love-children: none
sexual harassment allegations: none
illegal immigrant house help: no house, no help; I rent
criminal convictions: public record
draft dodges: none
bribery scandals: none
other ethics challenges: I’m NOT for bestiality, incest, rape, the Bohemian Grove, Sharia Law, Vulture Capitalism, or closed minds.

  • God Is Everything And Everything Else.  God does not require religion, but the opposite is not true.

Please remember to register with the GREEN PARTY on or before Monday 30 January 2012!

Please Vote for Michael Oatman on Tuesday 28 February 2012!!!

Thank You ALL For Your Amazing Support!

Comments Off on PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE

Filed under Corporate, Education, Energy, Environment, General, Government Intrusion, International, Jobs, Reform, Tucson Weekly

A Call to Investigate the Causes of the Great Recession

From: http://action.workingamerica.org/c/575/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=3380

Foreclosures and the abuses of the Big Banks are crippling our economy.  In neighborhoods like mine and across the state, we’ve seen people underwater on their mortgages and even losing their homes.  Even worse, in many cases the Big Banks broke rules, falsified paperwork or defrauded homebuyers—and gambled with our homes to enrich themselves.  They have yet to be held responsible.

Families like mine are depending on you to stand up for us and put our needs ahead of protecting the banks.  We can’t just let banks get bailed out and escape consequences for their irresponsibility and greed.

I urge you to fight for a strong settlement with the banks that really will hold them accountable for their misconduct and the damage done to the economy.  Any settlement must reflect the harm done to homeowners and provide large-scale relief for underwater homeowners.  And before you agree to any settlement, there must be a full investigation into misconduct and fraud by the banks.

Comments Off on A Call to Investigate the Causes of the Great Recession

Filed under Bailouts, Banking, Corporate, Jobs, Mortgage Crisis

What is Necessary For National Defense, And For Exactly Whose Defense

On 31 December 2011, President Obama silently signed an act into law.

This act was named the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.

There was much furor over this act becoming law, for a number of reasons, which I will write about here, and about the implications of those governing sections of this act.

Let me first state that the NDAA for 2012, unlike other Defense Spending Acts passed in years prior, which were used to simply supply the military of the United States with the funds needed to operate, the current NDAA has been written to be much more far-reaching, to include executive branch limitations on where and how to combat terrorism, conditions on Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and detentions of individuals from within the United States, and the fundings for these entities and practices.

The original version which passed the House of Representatives was written to bind the executive branch from moving Guantanamo by removing all funding for doing so. The detainees there would be left there indefinitely. The Senate version was no better.

Now, President Obama did not like having his executive powers limited (see Title XII) and he threatened a veto of the bill, but the reconciled version, struck in committee, did allow more powers to the executive regarding these things.

Obama was then agreeable to passing the act one the powers of the executive were not so restrained.

Regardless, it was written (see Sec. 1021 and Sec. 1022) that individuals can be held indefinitely (or until the “War On Terrorism” has ended, which according to Senator John McCain, will be “never”).

Now, we suppose that all of this has nothing to do with you and me, correct?

That assumption is very unfortunately dead wrong.

Both versions, and the committee version which was passed by Obama, which is the actual law, allow for indefinite detentions or military tribunals of ANYONE.

Let me make that perfectly clear. ANYONE. Any individual.

This includes United States Citizens, living in the United States, since this country is a front of the War On Terrorism.

The remedy is indefinite detention.

This a completely arbitrary and includes classes of individuals which, according to the law, are now described as “any person who has committed a belligerent act” (see Sec. 1021(b)2).

So, if I am walking down the street, say quickly, and pushing through a crowd, am I being “belligerent”?

If I write this, am I being “belligerent”?

If I am, I can now be held indefinitely, without trial or Habeas Corpus, in a military prison or even in Guantanamo Bay.

This is certainly NOT what the Founding Fathers intended.

Furthermore, the law allows for the executive branch to assert a power to identify any particular individual and hold them indefinitely (see Sec. 1022(a)4).

You can be kidnapped by the military off the streets and be held and never heard from again. No trial. No jury. No Habeas Corpus.

If you are lucky, you might get a military trial. You might even get a regular trial.

It is not up to you. You might get deported to face trial in your home country, or maybe not (see Sec. 1022(a)3). This is the way the NDAA has been written. Please read it.

Do that here http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf or here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

Thank you.

Now, I would like to restate that Obama only had a problem that the powers of the executive branch were limited, and one those powers were given, Obama figured the NDAA was a good thing that he wished to sign in secret on 31 December 2011.

No ceremony, no 15 pens given out, no press.

I have an idea on how to define “belligerency”.

I think that it was a clear act of belligerency against the United States that any act, such as the NDAA, has been passed, and I do hold as “belligerents” those who had any part in passing the NDAA for 2012.

If they make their bed, they must lie in it.

Yes, the fact of the passage of the 2012 NDAA is, in itself, an act of belligerency against the United States, and any individual who took part in its passage and enactment into law should be subject to its terms.

This would include the 93 Senators, the 322 members of the House Of Representatives and President Obama.

Their punishment for this act of belligerency shall be indefinite detention within the confines of the US base in Cuba, named Guantanamo Bay, D-4.

Once they are gone, We The People should set about to be repealing this indescribable repugnancy of an act which should never have seen the light of day.

There are simply too many of us, even for the FEMA camps.

More importantly, this is construed as an act for “National Defense”.

The question really is “whose defense, from whom and against whom exactly?”. I think that this act smacks of being an enactment of defense of the US Government from its own people.

We The People should not allow this, and if necessary, take up arms to resist the obvious coming of the Federal Police State, enacted under our noses, by “law”, in our own nation.

Let us now join together and take the ownership back for ourselves from those who falsely govern out of fear.

With Love, We Will Be Our Own Sovereigns!

Comments Off on What is Necessary For National Defense, And For Exactly Whose Defense

Filed under General, Government Intrusion