Is This A Case Of Age Bias? No!

       Why do you suppose Republican Senators seem to be unwilling to confirm the nomination of Loretta Lynch to Attorney General? Hey, it's been 140 days, the longest wait of any nominee for a cabinet level post in the history of America.  She would be the first black woman to hold that position, but you can be sure it's not because she's unqualified, she certainly is. Even Republicans will tell you so.
       The reason that Mitch McConnell claims her vote is being held up is that a vote on another, unrelated issue, must come first. Of course that's his decision to make, it's neither a rule nor a custom that votes on bills and nominations must be taken in order. In fact, usually, nominations for important positions come first.
       So why do you suppose there is this delay? Now that's an easy one to answer. Majority leader McConnell wants to use it as leverage to force Democrats to vote for his special interest bill.  So why don't Democrats just go ahead and allow the vote on the special bill? Because A, it includes a clause Democrats refuse to accept and, B, it would set a precedent that they can be forced to capitulate any time the Republicans want. Ask the Republicans if they were willing to do that when they were in the minority or if they would in any future that found them in the minority.
       Well, if Ms. Lynch's confirmation isn't being held up for those reasons, then why in the world hasn't she been confirmed? A few Senators have said they won't vote to confirm because they don't like her thoughts on the President's Presidential Actions on immigration and others? But if she didn't agree with the President, she would never have been nominated in the first place. That reasoning by those Senators is disingenuous at best.
       There's got to be a more convincing and honest reason. It would be nice to hear those Senators state exactly why they're against the nomination of the first female black person to that office. Ya don't suppose it's because she's too old, do ya?

How Do You Cut Your Budget?

       How do you go about cutting spending by over $500 billion a year plus increase spending on the military by up to $58 billion per year? How do you do this without cutting some extremely important programs? Programs like, I'm sure, food stamps (a favorite whipping post for Republicans), and very many necessary programs and departments. Departments like Education, Environmental Protection, oversight of Wall Street and banking, the CDC, food and drug safety, and the big one, Obamacare.
       They definitely want to defund this one. They hate it so much they can't sleep at night. They hate it even though the Insurance industry likes it, hospitals love it, even most doctors approve of it. Nowadays even consumers are approving of it. In fact even some of those who hate it the most are quietly taking part. Folks like Tim Huelskamp, Tea Party exec from Kansas and others.
        So how do you make this draconian butchering of the government and it's duty to it's citizens sound like a good thing? Easy. All you have to do is go back to the idea that Trickle-Down actually does work. That and convince the public that banks and manufacturers are good decent people who will happily police themselves and protect the public from any and all harm. After all, the very idea that these fine upstanding profiteers are in business to protect humanity, not make profits is completely truthful.
       In fact, it's so true that there has been some talk of eliminating corporate lawyers and actuaries. Because after all, if these fine upstanding corporations and banks don't really need oversight, then they won't need lawyers to steer them or accountant mathematicians to tell them which are the most cost affective choices. That's because they always side on the safety first choice.
       That only leaves the poor among us who will suffer. But then a little pain and suffering is good for the body and soul. So if this plan is followed, the poor who have been unable to get a job that pays a living wage, or two or three jobs to make ends meet will now get even less help. That'll teach em not to be poor.
       And the cutting back will do a couple things. It will cause the public to spend more to invigorate the economy, and will eliminate $5.1 trillion from the debt, because if the government owes less on debt, we should spend more, right? Which will surely encourage each of us the spend even if we don't have any money ourselves. Because the government owes less. If this makes sense to you, we're in deep doodoo.

What It Takes To Be A Citizen President.

       Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, by way of Canada, has announced his candidacy for President. He is the son of an Hispanic, non citizen father and an American mother. That makes him a natural born American. He is courting the most conservative of conservatives. You know, the folks who argues that Obama is not a citizen because he was born in Africa, even though he has a birth certificate that says he was born in Hawaii to an American mother and an African non-citizen father.
       So here's the question as I see it. Will the con-cons question his citizenship like they did Obama's, even though he actually was born in a foreign country, or will the con-cons overlook that fact because, after all, he's not black? Or will he lose their support and wind up with no support?
       Now I realize that his citizenship is unquestionable, just as Obama's citizenship is. But I believe this could be a conundrum for those purists, who are questionable in my mind anyway. Are they truly concerned with a man's pedigree or is it his level of citizenship as they profess? I put this question, because these con-cons claim to have no racism in their protestations against Obama.
       Now I think it's important to state my acceptance of Cruz's citizenship, because Donald Trump has questioned his citizenship. And if Trump questions anything, it convinces me the opposite is absolutely true.
       At any rate, the only reason to discuss Cruz's eligibility for the Presidency is that he's the first person to officially announce his candidacy for the 2016 elections. It's his moment in the sun so to speak. He's a born "also ran" if ever there was one. He fits comfortably into the Palin/Trump/Santorum category as someone who should never be taken seriously, except in Texas where nobody should be taken seriously but seem to be.
       It is my fervent hope that someone is nominated by the Republicans who is actually suited to the office of the President of the United States. Most potential contenders are not. The sad thing is that all contenders are forced to move so far to the right by the con-cons that they would have little chance to be elected by the voters in a general election. Money aside.

Only In America.

       Have you ever stopped to think that children are punished for what politicians are rewarded for? Your mom told you not to say anything about someone if you can't say anything nice about them, but politicians tell their campaign staffs to spread mean and untrue rumors about their opponents.
       More money was spent on the last campaign per voter than in any previous campaign. And fewer people voted than any other campaign. Republicans won overwhelmingly in the last election in part because of such a low turnout. Their voters listened to the winning approach used by Republican politicians. Namely that jobs are more important than social issues. Democrats bet on social issues and got their clocks cleaned.
       But now, more Republican state legislatures are acting on more social issues than on jobs, while Democratic state legislatures are acting more on jobs than social issues. It would appear Republicans forgot what gave them the win, and Democrats still can't agree about who's on first.
       A U.S. Senator with two months experience on the job has talked 46 other Senators into throwing a monkey-wrench into negotiations for a peaceful solution to the Iran nuclear problem. The Republicans are being drawn further to the right while Democrats are being drawn further to the left and they seem to be leaving more and more room for a third, centrist, party not in existence at all.
       Meanwhile, the rest of the world is scratching their collective heads, wondering just what the devil America is doing. More and more states are against science, climate change and evolution than ever before. Education is being thrown out with the bathwater and our infrastructure is left to fend for itself. It's 2015 and America seems destined to enter the eighteenth century any day now.
       Our only hope for the future seems to lie in the arms of a handful of mega-rich individuals and corporations who's only interest seems to be their own personal and corporate interests. And why shouldn't it be so? After all, politicians all flock to them for approval. They write all the laws and then tell the legislators how to vote.

Since When Did The Senate Take Over Foreign Deplomacy?

       Forty seven members of the Senate of the United States have asked to declare war on Iran. These Senators appear ready to send combat troops into Iran, boots on the ground. Of course they won't admit to that, but this open letter to the leaders of Iran basically says there is no possible way to avoid war unless Iran capitulates completely to America's demands.
       So, exactly how would you expect Iran to respond to such a statement as this letter suggests, which is basically that our President has no power to negotiate any agreement with them that can last more than two years. How would you respond to such a letter? Suppose your neighbor tells you not to park your car in front of your own house because he is friends with the city council and they'll back him. And then he plants a sign in front of your house making that statement, for all to see.
       Would you just do as he says or would you defy him? Even if he asks the city council to  ticket any car you park in front of your house or tow it away? Would you fight him even if he has all that political pull? Why? It would be easier for you to just agree to keep your cars in your driveway. Of course it would be a bit of an embarrassment for people to know you caved in.
       Well, how do you think any proud nation would respond to such a letter? America certainly wouldn't capitulate, would it? Do you really think Iran will just say, "Oh dear me, we must do exactly as these 47 men tell us to do or they might make things harder for us. Then again they represent a minority of the Senate. Perhaps they don't carry all the weight they think they do."
       The middle-eastern mindset places a great deal on perceived slight. If you try to embarrass them, you're apt to get a punch in the nose, no matter how big and strong you are. They're just too proud to take a slap in the face and then turn the other cheek.
       These 47 Senators don't want any peaceful solution. They back Netanyahu and are willing to go to war. Hey, they won't have to do the actual fighting. They think they can bully Iran into a complete surrender of their rights. Now maybe it'll all work out.  But I can tell you it wouldn't work with Israel, we wouldn't allow it. How can we be so sure it'll work with Iran? Think about the opportunity this would give China or Russia.
    

Yer Either Fer It Or Agin It.

       Do you know any police officers personally? Ask them if they like the idea of armor piercing ammunition being available to anyone who wants to buy them? What Armor Piercing means is that if the cop puts on body armor, think bullet proof vests, to protect his life while he's trying to protect yours, but the bad guys have armor piercing bullets, the cop might as well have been running around in his bathing suit.
       Still, the gun lobby wants any legislation designed to limit such ammunition defeated. Joining the gun lobby in arguing against any laws forbidding armor piercing bullets is the criminal element, ammunition manufacturers, some underground militias, and anybody who has a desire to shoot people and the NRA.
       Those in favor of outlawing the sale of armor piercing bullets includes all policemen, normal Americans who aren't convinced the NRA has the best interests of the American people at heart, and anybody who'd rather not get shot. I'll bet every one of you fits into that category. Of course, not having armor piercing bullets available is no guarantee you won't get shot, but then every little bit helps.
       Now let's try to fathom why anybody might have need of such powerful killer ammunition. The Army. The military needs it for combat so they can shoot through enemy fortifications. Police, they need armor piercing bullets against terrorists and the like. And I include the FBI and other agencies assigned to protect the public. But who else? Murders don't. They might want it, but they shouldn't get it. Underground militias? They're the ones who want to overthrow our government, and they don't seem to care who's in charge. I think we'd all be better off if they don't have armor piercing capabilities.
       Then if nobody needs these bullets but the military and police, why do the gun lobbyists and the NRA want them readably available? Oh wait. I'll bet I know. I'll bet they want the ammunition manufacturers to make more money. After all, the makers of bullets are mostly makers of guns too. And the NRA wants gun makers to make more money.  Because then the NRA makes more money. Ya see, it has nothing to do with gun rights, it has everything to do with profits rights.

Running A Country Like Ours Is No Walk In The Park.

       Just how hard is it to run a country like America anyway? It's plenty hard and it's even harder for a bunch of Congressmen and Senators who belong to one or the other of two parties. For instance, up until January, Democrats held a majority in the Senate while the Republicans held a majority in the House of Representatives. Neither party could get anything done. So a small portion of the electorate (the people) decided to vote last November, and it was decided that the Republicans should have the opportunity to hold a majority in both houses.
       That should surely have provided the ability for the Republicans to lead. Unfortunately they continued to use the same strategy of voting to defund and abolish anything the other party had accomplished, even though there was no possibility of success. Meanwhile the Democrats have taken to the tactics of the previously minority party, the Republicans, by blocking any legislation the, now majority party, the Republicans attempt.
       So you can see how hard it is to run a country with two parties. Last year Senate Democrats complained about the unreasonable Republicans, now the Senate Republicans complain about the unreasonable Democrats. Last year the Republicans complained that even though they were in the minority in the Senate, they were elected to stop Obama's initiatives. This year the Senate Democrats point out that they were elected to be thorns in the sides of the Republicans.
       So ya see how hard it is to run a country like America. Well, you're wrong. Its easy to run America. All ya have to do is be a group of corporate CEOs and a few hugely wealthy guys willing to spend some big time dollars to convince members of both parties to disagree on everything except a few minor tax breaks for themselves and their companies. That and relax some regulations. In return for these minor adjustments to tax and regulatory rules, members of both parties can accept campaign donations sufficient to keep them in office until they're too old to get out of bed. So ya see, it's a snap to run things if ya know how.

Why Tax The Rich?

       It's funny what you can learn if you do a little research. Like for instance inequality of wealth. Did you know, because I didn't, that on October 28, 1785, James Madison received a letter from Thomas Jefferson that said "another means of lessoning the inequality of property is to exempt all below a certain point, and to tax the higher portion of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
       In other words, only tax the rich and the more they have the higher they're taxed. That's what our founding fathers thought. But we've pretty much stood that idea on it's head. We tax the middle class and give better tax breaks to the rich. As for the poor, they don't have anything to tax. Ya see, they understood "the disproportionate political influence the rich could buy with 'their' money."
       Then back  in 1811 Jefferson wrote to Thaddeus Kosciusko saying that, because the only tax was on imports, that "The rich alone employ imported articles, and on these alone, the whole taxes of the General government are levied." Again, it was obvious that the need to tax the rich was necessary to keep a fair balance`and not allow the rich to unduly influence the government, something the Supreme Court has allowed to happen in it's Citizen's United decision.
       Another point the author of the article made, in Daily Kos, is the biblical point that we should render unto Caesar that which is his. The rich didn't print that money. It isn't really theirs, just as it isn't mine. You, and I, get to keep what the government says we can keep. Keeping the government small is a fine idea, but we do want a big enough government to make sure that we're all safe and all treated fairly. I think we all want that. That is, unless you've got a ton of money and want to buy some of the government. Then I suppose you want to keep more of what you earn so you can make those purchases.
       And let me say, again, Trickle Down policies don't work. Rich folks are more interested in fixing the leaks in their moneybags than allowing any of that wealth to trickle down. They like it if you think it's gonna work, but you have a better chance of winning the big lottery. In fact you have a better chance of winning that lottery without even buying a ticket then having anything trickle down to you.