Mitt Romney Can Relate to Black People

Old story, but I just found out about it.  I think this is sad and funny at the same time.  Looks like the Southern Strategy is alive and well, blow the dog whistle for racist, conservative, white voters.  They'll come to your side every time.

While addressing a crowd in Alabama during the primary there, he made the following comments.

I understand how difficult it can be for an African-American in today’s society. In fact, I can relate to black people very well indeed. My ancestors once owned slaves, and it is in my lineage to work closely with the black community. However, just because they were freed over a century ago doesn’t mean they can now be freeloaders. They need to be told to work hard, and the incentives just aren’t there for them anymore. When I’m president I plan to work closely with the black community to bring a sense of pride and work ethic back into view for them. 

Don't let anybody tell you this is a "Romney" moment or that this happened on accident.  This was on purpose. Its a strategy meant to woo old school, racist white voters.  To anybody else with any sensibility, the comments are asinine, absurd, and racist as hell.

PEACE

Mitt Romney - Pathological Liar

I don't know exactly how to pinpoint it.

Is it his nervous laughter?
His body language?
His stuttering speech?
The tone of his voice?

Or is it all the documented evidence of his constant lies and flip flops?

Hmmmm....

PEACE


p.s.  :I don't know if I want American cars to rule the world.  I think I would prefer a sentient, intelligent being to do that.  *snark*

Why Voting Matters #1

For those of you who are thinking of abstaining from voting this year out of frustration, here is one reason why voting matters:

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Access to gay marriage will remain on hold pending appeals to the decision.

What does any of this have to do with voting for President?  It is the president who appoints the judges of the circuit court of appeals.  Do you want a president who appoints judges that supports the rights of all Americans?

Or...

Do you want a president who appoints judges who supports open discrimination of minorities?

There is some history here to support this.  Obama has repealed DADT and "the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to discriminate against same-sex couples."


Romney?  Here is what he said about today's ruling from the courts:

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

Rights are not political.  Right's are not something to be debated or chosen.  Rights are universal and human, and everybody should receive them.  And we don't need a president who will pick judges who will support policy that openly discriminates against a group of people and takes away their rights.

PEACE

Policy, Values, and the People Affected

Politics = values.  Enacted policies affect people.  Everyday.

Every single decision a politician or political representative makes is representative of a value they hold true.  If they don't state it, it must be remembered that still their policy is reflective of their values.

We can't forget that.  Voters can't forget it, especially when deciding between two very different candidates (i.e. President).

So when Mitt Romney supports a policy of keeping the Bush tax cuts and scrap the medicare tax, what values are he promoting?  When he simultaneously supports a policy of slashing medicare, medicaid, and social security, what values are he promoting?  Who does it affect, and how?

Mitt Romney’s economic plan is of, by, and for the wealthiest 1 Percent of Americans. Millionaire Mitt Romney would give himself a $4 MILLION tax cut, while raising taxes on the middle class and cutting the programs tens of millions of Americans depend on each day.

So we know who his policies affect, but what values are he promoting?  That one is tougher to see.  I think...

(1)  Taxes, the funds that are needed to support the government, are unnecessarily high.  Wealthy people are paying too much and middle and lower class aren't paying their share.  Because...

(2)  The middle class and poor are getting too much help from the government without paying their fair share of taxes.  And...

(3)  The government should not be in the business of helping out the American people and providing for the common good.

(4)  "I [Mitt Romney] don't have enough money.  I should pay less taxes so that I can be richer."

I don't think he'll ever come out and say it explicitly (although he did slip up recently).  But do you want a candidate who thinks the government shouldn't provide for the common good?  That the wealthy should pay a lower share than the rest?  That the super wealthy should get even more wealthy at the expense of the rest?

Do you believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?  One that provides for the general welfare of its people?

Or do you believe in a government which values the wealthy over the rest?

VALUES are important.

It's how we should vote, and what we should think of every time we hear some policy from these candidates.

Remember...

Mitt Romney’s economic plan is of, by, and for the wealthiest 1 Percent of Americans.

PEACE


p.s.  Bonus points if you can name what famous document the phrase "general welfare" appears in without clicking on the link.

This Blog's Purpose

In the last couple of days, and especially after watching last night's presidential State of the Union address, the purpose of this blog has been made clearer to me.  And I think this will also make blogging easier and more enjoyable.

It is two parts:

(1)  Continue the Occupy discussion - While Occupy may not be making much news anymore, and while people may not be hearing about what they are still doing, the movement is still alive and thriving, although winter is setting it back some.  The corporate owned media does not want you to know about the Occupy movement, because it challenges the status quo of the rich getting richer off the backs of everyone else.  And in a time when people are struggling beyond their comprehension, their actions must be challenged and real change must be demanded.  In the same vein, that leads me to the second purpose of my blog.

(2)  Ensure that Barack Obama gets elected - After watching last night's state of the union, its clear where each presidential candidate falls.  It is also clear which candidate's rhetoric and actions side with the people versus siding with the cruelty of the 1% or even the .1%.  As Occupy continues, and the division between the two sides has been made clearer to me, it seems imperative that the candidate becomes president who will support policies that will benefit the most people of this country rather than the fewest at the top.  I will embrace the candidacy of Barack Obama for reelection, even as he has disappointed me in many ways since he took office in 2009.  Voting Republican, not voting, or voting for a third party candidate out of frustration with Obama will be destructive to this country.  I will debate and challenge anybody who disagrees with me on this blog, respectfully of course.

Ultimately, what it really comes down to is this front page article from Arizona.

TAMPA, Fla. — GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney isn’t just in the top 1 percent of Americans with income — he’s in at least the top 0.006 percent, tax returns he released Tuesday show.

The 2010 adjusted gross income of Romney and his wife, Ann, totaled $21.7 million, according to their tax return. That means they ranked high even among the top 8,274 tax returns.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and private-equity executive, made more than half of his income from capital gains and dividends. They are taxed at a top rate of 15 percent, rather than the top rate of 35 percent for ordinary income.

Mr. "Corporations-are-people"?  Freddie Mac "historian"?  Or community organizer?

PEACE

When Mitt Romney Came to Town

If you want to see what your Republican nominee will do to the future of our economy, watch the following video on his history with Bain Capital; the jobs he destroyed, the communities he sank, and the people's lives he ruined.

http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/

This is the "Capitalism" that Mitt Romney and Republicans equate with Americanism, Democracy, and Patriotism.  Lives ruined in the name of greed and profit.

Who will you vote for in 2012?

The 1%?

OR...

The community organizer?

These are 28 minutes of your life you wont regret.  I promise you.  If you disagree after watching this, sorry.

PEACE


note:  I realize that "Winning our Future" is Newt Gingrich's PAC.  In no way am I saying go vote for Newt as he is just as destructive as Mitt.  HOWEVER, the point of this video and blog post is to show Mitt Romney's stance clearly.  He is the inevitable nominee for president of the Republican party.  And his background as part of the 1% needs to be viewed.  If you object to it coming from Newt, I understand.