Are 'Stand Your Growd' Laws a License to Kill and Go Free?

This graphic from Politicususa. com truly brings home what happened in Sanford, FL, and could happen in any State with 'Stand Your Ground' legislation.  I have been asking for a couple of days how George Zimmerman could have used 'Stand Your Ground' originally to get off with no charges when he was told to stay in his car and not follow the teenager.  He disobeyed a police order which right there should have thrown out the cops even considering 'Stand Your Ground' as a defense for shooting an unarmed teenager.

From Criminal Find Law comes the data there are more states then just Florida who have passed the actual 'Stand Your Ground' law:

Many states have enacted “stand your ground” laws that remove the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense.  The following is a list of states with stand your ground laws on the books.  This list is limited to those states whose legislatures have gone through the process of enacting laws that specifically affirm an individual’s right to stand their ground when defending themselves against a threat.  Other states may have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws, but those states are not included in this list. 

• Alabama 

• Arizona

• Florida

• Georgia

• Indiana

• Kentucky

• Louisiana

• Mississippi

• Montana

• Nevada

• New Hampshire

• Oklahoma

• Pennsylvania

• Tennessee

• Texas

• Utah

Almost all the states that have passed 'Stand Your Ground' laws voted for Romney in 2012 with the exception of Florida, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania who elected GOP Governors with GOP Legislatures.  Hopefully the 2012 election where they voted for Obama starts the turnaround in those states.  We are witnessing what happens when a State goes to the hard right and ALEC takes over writing the laws.  Are are hard right conservatives incapable of writing their own laws that they have to have Koch Bros sponsored ALEC do the writing for them?  Without 'Stand Your Ground' in Florida, Zimmerman probably wouldn't be walking free today waiting for his gun to be returned.

What got me was that Zimmerman or his family showed no remorse.  Then you read over 40 calls to the dispatcher from Zimmerman and instead of a neighborhood watch person he sounds like a vigilante.  What was he doing with a gun since his record was not clean.  Excuse me, I forgot, we don't have background checks if you buy from a private seller thanks to the GOP and the NRA who has bought and paid for them.

Still cannot believe this all happened and have to agree with some of the athletes if this kid had bashed Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk there would have been a lot more injuries.  In fact there is no way this kid got the jump on him when he was following Trayvon.  There was no Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon so how does Zimmerman explain the blood from his faced when initial pictures showed no blood.  Surely from the doctored (IMHO) pictures we saw, there would have been Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon but none was found.

One of my shocks following the verdict was some obvious red neck telling an athlete to 'shut up and play football' like an athlete doesn't have a right to their own opinion.  What did he mean that blacks are okay for his entertainment as long as they don't have an opinion?  Talk about narrow minded thinking - there it is right there and most likely the guy is from my adopted state of Oklahoma.  Another person stopped following a guy from a website I belong because he had an opinion.  Is the first amendment only for whites and black athletes are to not say a word.  I went through the roof at what I saw was a total racist attitude.

See quite a few athletes here in Norman and remember thinking the first I went to the grocery after we moved here from the anti-women State of Texas how nice it was to have someone open the door for me.  It has happened over and over again here from athletes of all races who are some of the most polite young people I have seen.  Remember after first moving to my neighborhood, my arch conservative neighbor asked me what I would do if a black bought the house for sale on our street and I told him 'celebrate' as we was getting rid of a redneck neighbor.  He didn't like that answer and sure enough you can guess what moved in on our street to his delight - another arch conservative who has since moved.

When the jerk Geraldo weighed in that Trayvon was "dressed in thug wear," all I could do was shake my head in disbelief.  Does that mean we have to throw away our hooded OU sweatshirts because it would be too dangerous to walk with our hood up at night when you have trouble telling who it is?  Geraldo has made dumb comments in the past - remember the Al Capone safe or when he drew a map in the sand to show where are our troops were at in Iraq? This time he has hit the jackpot for stupidity and a new low for comments.

The Department of Justice is going to be reviewing the case to see if it is a civil right's violation.  No doubt in a lot of minds that Trayvon was shot because he was a black teenager when you hear the filth coming out of the Zimmerman's mouth as he followed him.   As I just read the 911 call from Zimmerman about Trayvon and the other 46 911 calls Zimmerman made about the neighborhood including someone with an open garage door, he sounds more like a vigilante then a neighborhood watch person.

Along with the audio recordings of six calls to Sanford police that George Zimmerman made in the weeks before the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department has posted reports of 46 911 and nonemergency calls it says Zimmerman made between August 2004 and Martin’s shooting.

The bottom line is that a 17-year old young man was shot and killed under 'Stand Your Ground' because he was black.  There is no doubt at all that Zimmerman didn't want blacks in his neighborhood from all his 911 calls.   This is the perfect example of why neighborhood watches can attract some men who think they are superior toting a gun to protect their land.  Sick if you ask me.

Hope the Trayvon Martin Family sues Zimmerman for every last thing he has as he had no right to take their son's life and personally don't care what the jury of six women said because the prosecution did a horrible job but worst then that the Sanford Police Department did the worst job of collecting evidence because they believed Zimmerman that he had a right to 'Stand His Ground' and didn't file charges in the beginning.

The miscarriage of justice started with the Koch supported ALEC 'Stand Your Ground' laws passed by the GOP and aided by the Sanford Police Department ineptness along with the inept State Attorney Angela Corey and her assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda (R).  Corey was the prosecutor behind an abused black woman getting 20 years for standing her Ground against an abuser by firing a warning shot into the air but in the Martin case a young man died, she lost the case and Zimmerman goes free.   Corey seemed almost happy she lost at the press conference which I thought was odd.  Today it came out that Corey fired someone in her office who leaked information that she withheld evidence from the defense.  All in all, she sounds like someone who should be investigated for prosecutorial misconduct.  The question now arises if she intentionally threw this trial so if Zimmerman was found guilty, he would get a new trail?  Is that the reason for withholding evidence?

Do not know how the Trayvon Martin Family could sit through that trial and hear the verdict and act with so much class:

When asked about whether Martin’s family would bring a civil suit against Zimmerman, Crump said, “Right now they're just trying to make sense of this all...They're not thinking about that. They are trying to deal with the grief of losing their son and then not having his killer held accountable, and so they're working on their foundation, things they can control, to try to preserve the legacy of Trayvon Benjamin Martin."

Last night President Barack Obama released a statement on the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin, urging Americans to honor the slain teenager by acting to curb gun violence:

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

As peaceful rallies were held last night around the Country much to the chagrin of the hard right, we have to take action as a Nation to get a handle on the extreme amount of gun violence whether the NRA and their bought and paid for GOP like it or not.  Every last person who was upset by this verdict needs to be registered to vote, get the necessary ID, and vote out these Republicans who put the NRA over our families.   We need to send 'Stand Your Ground' in the States down to defeat that allow murderers to walk free and gives them a right to use a gun when they feel threatened no matter if there is a real threat.

Let's start to take the Country back in Nov 2013 when New Jersey and Virginia vote for Governor and other statewide offices and finish the job in November 2014 with ousting Republican State Legislatures.  We can do it with everyone rolling up their sleeves to oust the hard right in 2013/2014 and stay activated for 2016 to make sure today's hard right GOP never is back in control.

American Congress of OB/GYN Doctors Letter on Texas "Insidious" Abortion Legislation

These bills are as much about interfering with the practice of medicine and the relationship a patient has with her physician as they are about restricting women’s access to abortion. The fact is that these bills will not help protect the health of any woman in Texas. Instead, these bills will harm women’s health in very clear ways.  (ACOG 9 July Letter in Austin American Statesman)

As Republicans from the House to State Legislatures pass Draconian anti-abortion bills by whatever means necessary like in North Carolina attaching them to a motorcycle safety law, or in Texas bending the rules, or in WI signing the bill on a Sunday, or in Ohio attaching abortion restrictions to a budget bill, the War against Women by Republicans continues.  Now it looks to be a War that includes OB/GYN doctors as they have weighed in from the medical side on these draconian laws.

For years I tried to fit into the Pro-Life mold of the Republican Party.  I said the right things to stay a member in good standing but one day I reached the conclusion that it was not my place to tell another women what to do with her life.  Realized at that point I had been pro-choice for a long time.  I was a square peg trying to fit in a round hole and it didn't work.  Part of the reason it took me a long time to admit even to myself that I was pro-choice came from my own experience after my son was born over 30 years ago.  I had to be rushed back to the hospital with a severe, life threatening infection because the nurse had not given me the prescribed antibiotics.

In the room I was assigned they brought in a patient who in the middle of the night who was given a 'partial birth abortion.'  Heard the baby cry and then heard the doctor say "kill it" and then silence.   I was hysterical because I was facing a life threatening situation, might never see my son again, and here a doctor was killing a baby in the next bed.  Nurse came in and yelled at me to shut up along with the doctor performing the abortion.  Then the head nurse on the floor came in after I hit the call button numerous times and started screaming - she got me out of the room into a private room, called my OB doctor who arrived in about 20 minutes who gave me something to calm me down so I could sleep.  Next morning a minister showed up to talk to me about what had happened and shortly thereafter my daughter and my newborn son were brought to see me against the rules of the hospital, but my wonderful doctor was not taking NO for an answer.

Finally after my children's visit, the antibiotics started working, I started feeling better, and the danger of a rupture passed.  The nurse that had yelled at me to shut up came in my room, and I yelled at her to get out.  She started to say something just as my doctor walked in and he threw her out.  He went to the board to get her fired and the doctor suspended from privileges at the hospital.  My doctor took him to the County Medical Board to get his license suspended for a year.

It was a high risk facility and my doctor's office was in the hospital.  They were both part of the faculty of the Medical College for high risk pregnancy.  Before it was all finished the hospital fired four nurses and suspended one doctor, while permanently removing the privileges of doctor that had performed the 'partial birth' abortion from practicing at their hospital.   County Medical Board suspended his license for year.   Since this was done in a semi-private room, it did not meet the requirements of the hospital that all abortions be performed in an operating room.

Could have sued but I wasn't emotionally willing to go through the trauma of a lawsuit at the time.  The hospital awarded some damages and paid for my entire medical bill so the insurance company was extremely happy.  That is my personal reason for not supporting 'partial birth abortion' which is abhorrent to most people.  It affected my thinking for years about abortion, but then one day I realized what I had experienced was very rare and against the rules of the hospital.  That's the day I finally came to the conclusion that I actually am pro-choice because I don't walk in another women's shoes and while I might disagree with the choice, it is not up to me.  Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion as the hard right likes to say but it is about giving women the option in a safe environment to make her own decision.

Personally believe the choice to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks is between a woman and her doctor not politicians.  Believe that 99.99% of doctors abide by their oath and would not terminate a pregnancy at over 20 weeks without a sound medical reason.  Doctors will do everything they can to save the life of the mother and the child but in rare instances they have to choose because of severe complications.  A doctor should have that right along with the mother without worrying about facing legal problems as long as all rules are followed to make the procedure safe.

Wholeheartedly agree that it is time these hard right politicians stayed out of the examining room and take their opinions on what is best for women and shove it.  I am sick and tired of the lectures and their belief they know what is best for women when they don't have a clue.  As far as I am concerned a vaginal probe required before a woman gets an abortion is the same as rape by mechanical object.

Today's hard right Neanderthal Republicans voting for these new rules which will take clinics away from women are the same ones who don't want to take care of children after they are born.  They want to take money away from prenatal care which is mandatory IMO and not provide medical care for the mother and the baby after the baby is born.  If the Mother is poor they want to cut the SNAP program drastically.   Planned Parenthood provides many services including cancer screening, birth control, and other women's services.  That is totally missed by the hard right social conservatives who run today's Republican Party.

Thanks to Politicususa for publishing the following American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) statement published as an advocacy ad in the July 9, 2013, print and online subscription editions of the Austin American Statesman:

All eyes are on Texas again this week as the fate of a far-reaching measure to restrict abortions and close many abortion facilities faces its last days of debate. Unlike almost any other issue, abortion generates strong feelings on all sides. This is true within our own organization, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and we respect that our 58,000 members have deeply held personal beliefs on this topic. 

While we can agree to disagree about abortion on ideological grounds, we must draw a hard line against insidious legislation that threatens women’s health like Texas HB2 (House Bill 2) and SB1 (Senate Bill 1). That’s why we’re speaking to the false and misleading underlying assumptions of this and other legislation like it: These bills are as much about interfering with the practice of medicine and the relationship a patient has with her physician as they are about restricting women’s access to abortion. The fact is that these bills will not help protect the health of any woman in Texas. Instead, these bills will harm women’s health in very clear ways. 

We’re setting the record straight, loudly and unequivocally, with these simple messages to all politicians: 

Get Out of Our Exam Rooms
Physicians from all specialties insist that there must be only two people in our exam rooms: the patient and the doctor. The sanctity of the patient-physician relationship is central to good medicine, a critical tenet embraced by ACOG and other medical societies such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians. These organizations recently wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine: 

“Legislators, regrettably, often propose new laws or regulations for political or other reasons unrelated to the scientific evidence and counter to the health care needs of patients. Legislative mandates to the practice of medicine do not allow for the infinite array of exceptions where the mandate may be unnecessary, inappropriate, or even harmful to an individual patient. …Lawmakers would also do well to remember that patient autonomy as well as individual needs, values, and preferences must be respected.”1 

Facts Are Important  
Facts are very important, especially when discussing the health of women and the American public. And a lot of “facts” are being asserted in this debate. Truth be told, the scientific underpinnings of this legislation are unsound. First, there’s the 20-week ban, which is based on the argument that a fetus can feel pain. Recent and rigorous scientific reviews have concluded that there is no evidence of fetal perception of pain until 29 weeks at the earliest2 (third trimester is 28-40 weeks).

These bills would also impose a number of requirements for abortion facilities that are touted as necessary to ensure the health of the woman, but are, in fact, unnecessary and unsupported by scientific evidence. These proposed requirements, concerning door width and other irrelevant issues, would only make it extremely difficult or impossible for most clinics, including clinics that primarily provide important non-abortion well-woman health care services such as mammograms and prenatal care to low-income women, to stay open. For example, the bills would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and allow abortions only in clinics that meet surgical clinic standards, imposing government regulations on abortion care that are much stricter than for colonoscopy and other similar low-risk procedures. The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with minimal—less than 0.5%—risk of major complications that might need hospital care. 

Women Can Make Their Own Medical Decisions Without State Interference
Texas women are renowned for their strength, courage, and smarts. Women across this nation are completely capable of making their own medical decisions with their physicians, as they make many other important decisions every day for themselves, their families, and their businesses. Women do not need—or want—any government to make medical decisions for them. 

Women must have access to all needed health care—from mammograms to prenatal visits to reproductive care—based on scientific facts, not political ideology. ACOG opposes Texas HB2 and SB1, which jeopardize women’s health care and interfere with medical practice and the patient-physician relationship. Politicians are not elected to, nor should they, legislate the practice of medicine or step foot into our exam rooms.  

Sincerely, 

Jeanne A. Conry, MD, PhD President The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Lisa M. Hollier, MD, MPH Chair, District XI (Texas) The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Will Majority Leader Reid Trigger the Nuclear Option for Pres Obama's Nomiinees with GOP Threatening a Shutdown?

Constitution of the United States does not require a 60 vote margin to pass bills or to approve Presidential nominees.  Two-thirds of Senate votes (66) are required for treaties, impeachment, and to override a Presidential veto. 

The filibuster was never part of the Constitution.  Seems it all started with Aaron Burr in 1805 telling the Senate that the rule book was too messy:

When Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.

Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.

Will Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) actually to forward with the nuclear option threat on appointees?  There are some Democrats who do not favor the nuclear option because of what might happen in the future if they are in the minority.  One thing is for sure in that Republicans have taken full advantage of Reid by not allowing President Obama to have all his people in place.  Can guarantee if the Democrats had done that to President Bush, we would never have heard the end of it on the various media outlets. Since it is Republicans doing it to Obama, the mainsteream media doesn't seem to mind.  Many of them have about the same ethics as Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) which are nil to non-existent.

Threatening to shut down Government over President Obama's nominees shows how little Republicans of today care about the Country.  Senator Everett Dirkson (R-IL) fought for what he believed but he would never have been a party to the underhanded tactics of today's Republicans.  Dirkson was the face of the loyal opposition for a decade during the Civil Rights debate of the 60's:

As Senate Minority Leader for a decade, he played a highly visible and key role in the politics of the 1960s, including helping to write and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Open Housing Act of 1968, both landmarks of civil rights legislation. He was also one of the Senate's strongest supporters of the Vietnam War and was known as "The Wizard of Ooze" for his oratorical style.

Today you could put Dirkson alongside Presidents Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln for Republicans who would be scorned by today's Republicans for their stances on Civil Rights.  Roosevelt supported the minimum wage for both men and women.  He was an early supporter of the Civil Rights movement and today he would be labeled a Progressive along with Lincoln, Ike, and Dirkson.  

It seems today's Republicans are nothing but obstructionists carrying out the orders of their major donors like the Koch Bros and Wall Street at the expensive of the American people.  They couldn't hold a candle to the early Civil Rights supporters in the Republican Party who had so much integrity and believed that "All Men are Created Equal" unlike the racism we are seeing out of a lot of Republicans today.

Now the Senate Republicans are threatening a shutdown?  Despicable, dishonorable, and dishonest sum up most of today's Senate Republicans.  Hope Senator Reid pulls the trigger to get President Obama his nominees approved.

Reid flirts with nuke option despite GOP shutdown threatsBy Alexander Bolton - 07/11/13 03:04 PM ET 

Democrats moved closer Thursday to triggering the nuclear option to change the Senate’s rules after holding a lengthy meeting to discuss President Obama’s stalled nominees. 

Democratic leaders on Thursday afternoon spoke out in favor of changing the rules and urged their colleagues to support them, according to senators who attended the meeting. 

The decision on whether to proceed with the controversial tactic depends on how votes on stalled nominees play out next week. If Republicans allow several of them to proceed with up-or-down votes, Democrats might have less rhetorical ammo to force a rules change. 

Liberal Democrats pushing for a rules change to restrict Republicans from filibustering Obama’s nominees say they are very close to having the 50 votes they need. 

Only Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his deputies know the whip count, and they have kept it secret. 

Excerpt:  Read more at The Hill

Sarah Binder from Brookings Institute testified to the Senate on April 22, 2010 on the Filibuster going back to its origins:

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Sarah Binder counters a number of conventionally held notions about the origins and history of the Senate filibuster. Chairman Schumer, Ranking Member Bennett, and members of the Committee. My name is Sarah Binder. I am a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor of political science at George Washington University. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the history of the filibuster.

1. Origins of the filibuster 

We have many received wisdoms about the filibuster. However, most of them are not true. The most persistent myth is that the filibuster was part of the founding fathers’ constitutional vision for the Senate: It is said that the upper chamber was designed to be a slow-moving, deliberative body that cherished minority rights. In this version of history, the filibuster was a critical part of the framers’ Senate.

However, when we dig into the history of Congress, it seems that the filibuster was created by mistake. Let me explain.

The House and Senate rulebooks in 1789 were nearly identical. Both rulebooks included what is known as the “previous question” motion. The House kept their motion, and today it empowers a simple majority to cut off debate. The Senate no longer has that rule on its books.

What happened to the Senate’s rule? In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was presiding over the Senate (freshly indicted for the murder of Alexander Hamilton), and he offered this advice. He said something like this. You are a great deliberative body. But a truly great Senate would have a cleaner rule book. Yours is a mess. You have lots of rules that do the same thing. And he singles out the previous question motion. Now, today, we know that a simple majority in the House can use the rule to cut off debate. But in 1805, neither chamber used the rule that way. Majorities were still experimenting with it. And so when Aaron Burr said, get rid of the previous question motion, the Senate didn’t think twice. When they met in 1806, they dropped the motion from the Senate rule book.

Why? Not because senators in 1806 sought to protect minority rights and extended debate. They got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to.

Once the rule was gone, senators still did not filibuster. Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in 1837.

2. The Not-So-Golden Age of the Senate 

Conventional treatments of the Senate glorify the 19th century as the “golden age” of the Senate: We say that filibusters were reserved for the great issues of the day and that all senators cherished extended debate. That view misreads history in two ways.

First, there were very few filibusters before the Civil War. Why so few filibusters? First, the Senate operated by majority rule; senators expected matters would be brought to a vote. Second, the Senate did not have a lot of work to do in those years, so there was plenty of time to wait out the opposition. Third, voting coalitions in the early Senate were not nearly as polarized as they would later become.

All that changed by mid-century. The Senate grew larger and more polarized along party lines, it had more work to do, and people started paying attention to it. By the 1880s, almost every Congress began to experience at least one bout of obstructionism: for instance, over civil rights, election law, nominations, even appointment of Senate officers—only some of these “the great issues of the day.”

There is a second reason that this was not a golden age: When filibusters did occur, leaders tried to ban them. Senate leaders tried and failed repeatedly over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries to reinstate the previous question motion. More often than not, senators gave up their quest for reform when they saw that opponents would kill it by filibuster—putting the majority’s other priorities at risk. Unable to reform Senate rules, leaders developed other innovations such as unanimous consent agreements. These seem to have been a fallback option for managing a chamber prone to filibusters.

3. The adoption of cloture 

Why was reform possible in 1917 when it had eluded leaders for decades? And why did the Senate choose supermajority cloture rather than simple majority cloture?
  
First, the conditions for reform. After several unsuccessful efforts to create a cloture rule in the early 1900s, we saw a perfect storm in March of 1917: a pivotal issue, a president at his bully pulpit, an attentive press, and a public engaged in the fight for reform. At the outset of World War I, Republican senators successfully filibustered President Wilson’s proposal to arm merchant ships—leading Wilson in March of 1917 to famously brand the obstructionists as a “little group of willful men.” He demanded the Senate create a cloture rule, the press dubbed the rule a “war measure,” and the public burned senators in effigy around the country.

Adoption of Rule 22 occurred because Wilson and the Democrats framed the rule as a matter of national security. They fused procedure with policy, and used the bully pulpit to shame senators into reform.

Second, why did senators select a supermajority rule? A bipartisan committee was formed to negotiate the form of the rule. Five of the six Democrats supported a simple majority rule; one Republican supported a supermajority rule, and one Republican preferred no rule. Negotiators cut a deal: Cloture would require two-thirds of senators voting. Opponents promised not to block or weaken the proposal; supporters promised to drop their own proposal for simple majority cloture—a proposal supported by at least 40 senators. The cloture rule was then adopted, 76-3.

4. Conclusions 

We can draw at least three lessons from this history:

First, the history of extended debate in the Senate belies the received wisdom that the filibuster was an original, constitutional feature of the Senate. The filibuster is more accurately viewed as the unanticipated consequence of an early change to Senate rules.

Second, reform of Senate rules is possible. There are conditions that can lead a bipartisan supermajority to agree to change Senate rules. The minority has often held the upper hand in these contests, however, given the high barrier to reform imposed by inherited Senate rules.

Third, and finally, the Senate adopted a supermajority rule not because senators were uniformly committed to the filibuster. Senators chose a two-thirds rule because a minority blocked more radical reform. Short-term, pragmatic considerations almost always shape contests over reform of Senate rules.

From the Carl Albert Center on the University of Oklahoma comes this excerpt of the book, The Rise of the 60-Vote Senate, by Gregory Koger, University of Miami:

After major civil rights legislation passed in 1964 and 1965, however, senators still attempted to change the rules in 1967, 1969, 1971, and 1975 using a complex strategy to obtain a simple majority vote on rules changes.  In 1975 they finally won a key procedural vote on their strategy and, aided by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller presiding over the Senate, seemed capable of making significant reforms in the cloture rule. Instead, the reformers traded their advantage for a slight reduction in the cloture threshold from two-thirds of those voting (the 1959 rule) to three-fifths of the entire Senate. The 1975 rule essentially ended the long contest over the cloture threshold; subsequent reforms in 1979 and 1986 limited overall debate and limited dilatory amendments after cloture is in- voked, but did not alter the three-fifths threshold. A proposal by Tom Harkin (D–Iowa) to allow majority cloture was defeated by wide margins in 1995 and 2011; it appears that the 60-vote Senate is here to stay. 

In 1975 the number of votes required for cloture to end a filibuster went from 2/3's (66) to 3/5's (60).  The article by Dr. Koger gives the history and what led up to the 60-Vote Senate.  Well worth reading in order to understand what the taxpayers are facing with the obstructionist minority Republicans in the Senate who have brought the Senate to a standstill on so many issues.  Personally I would like to see the Democrats get to 60 votes in 2014 to shut up Republicans like Inhofe (R-OK) who is long passed his prime and seems pretty vindictive today, McCain (R-AZ), who falls in the Inhofe category along with many other Republicans whose sole positions today seems to be to obstruct anything that President Obama has put forward even if it is something they supported in the past.

Also learned from reading Dr. Koger's overview from his book that the Senate 3-day work week was dubbed,"Tuesday-to-Thursday Club," back in the 1940's.  

The trend accelerates in the 1940s so that by the year 2000 about 80 percent of all votes occur in the middle of the week.

The Senate holds their votes in mid-week so that Monday and Friday are travel days - maybe back in the 40's that made sense as it wasn't as easy to travel but with today's airlines there is no need for working only three days a week and allowing a full day for travel to and from the Capitol every week.  How many people get to work a 3-day work week?  The sad part is this group of Republicans hold the fate of so many in their hands with all the obstructionist tactics with little recourse after Reid capitulated to McConnell in January and found out as Majority Leader he made a deal with someone who has the integrity of a gnat.  After the deal McConnell started laughing.  Now Reid wants to finally change the rules to a majority for appointees not a super majority.  Will Reid carry through with the nuclear option on appointees or will McConnell and the obstructionist Republicans blink?

Stay tuned and pass the popcorn as this could get very interesting in the days ahead.

 

 

Senate Student Loan Bill Fails Due to 60 Vote Margin Required

How many students with new Stafford Loans with double the interest are going to vote for Republicans in 2014 after they voted not to end closture which means the bill was not passed?

The Senate did their usual requiring 60 votes to pass a bill that should be a simple majority.  What I think of Sen Reid (D-NV) and his agreement with Sen McConnell (R-KY) on filibuster is not much.  In fact, he should have known better then trust the snake McConnell who has had trouble with the truth for years.  Might as well make a deal with the devil than Republicans today whose word means nothing until they check with their big donors and bankers.  

The Senate voted on a bill to keep interest rates on student loans low today which failed with Reid voting "NO" in order to be able to bring this bill back up according to rules.  Filibuster rules Reid agreed to in January struck again with legislation:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---51 Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Donnelly (D-IN) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) NAYs ---49 Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Chiesa (R-NJ) Coats (R-IN) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX) Enzi (R-WY) Fischer (R-NE) Flake (R-AZ) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (R-WI) King (I-ME) Kirk (R-IL) Lee (R-UT) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Paul (R-KY) Portman (R-OH) Reid (D-NV) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Scott (R-SC) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

As usual the Republican Senators all voted NO which puts them on the side of the businesses wanting interest rates to rise and against students.  Imagine that!  Looks like Students are the next group to be in the target war zone of Republicans along with Women, Minorities, Voting Rights, Gay Marriage for starters.  This rebranding of the GOP is not working out very well.  In fact it is not working at all as the mostly white male GOP is against most things the vast amount of Americans support.  Makes no sense to continually vote against the American people unless they are bought and paid for by their wealthy donors.  They have turned their backs on the American people to pander to the top 2%.  Thought it was just Romney but looks like it is the whole Republican Party.  Yet they wonder why long time Republicans are fed up and want nothing to do with today's Republican Party?  Maybe they should look in the mirror.

These new interest rates are for new borrowers but still it is going to add up fast if your Stafford Loans are unsubsidized.  If they are subsidized the federal government is going to be taking the hit with higher interest rates paid until the student takes over paying them back.  Don't understand why Republicans are allowing interest rates to double unless it is to pay off their big donors in the banking industry who finance these loans.  Are they trying to make it more expensive to get an education so only the wealthy can afford to send their kids to school?  At the same time states are cutting back on funding for higher education which has raised tuition across the Country.

Donate to the University of Oklahoma Foundation each year as my way of giving back for the help my two children got from OU as in-state students with the Sooner Heritage Scholarships.  We didn't qualify for subsidized loans so if this was happening when my two were in college, the amount of payback would be much higher.  OU does everything they can to make college affordable with the various scholarships available.  

From ABC are the basics on those pesky Stafford loan interest rates that are set to spike at the beginning of July in easy-to-read bullet points:

What: Only interest rates on subsidized Stafford Loans will be impacted by the July change. Subsidized Stafford Loans are need-based loans for undergraduate students only. The loans don't accumulate interest while students are in college. Need is determined by the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, which applicants can fill out at no cost. You can find more information about the application and deadlines (they vary by state and college) here. 

When: Interest rates on subsidized Stafford Loans issued after July 1, 2013 are set to double to 6.8 percent. Loans issued before this date will come with 3.4 percent interest, which is locked in for the life of the loan. That means that where a student with a $10,000 subsidized Stafford loan would accrue about $.93 in interest each day at the current rate, that will jump to $1.86 in interest each day when the higher rate takes effect. 

Why: The 6.8 percent rate is actually the old interest rate for these loans. Congress passed a law back in 2007 that gradually lowered interest rates to 3.4 percent over five years, but allowed the rate to rise back to 6.8 percent in 2012. Everyone - President Obama, Republicans, Democrats - wanted to avoid that rebound, but couldn't agree on how to do it. So they passed a stopgap measure that extended the 3.4 percet interest rate for a year. But that year is almost up and we're at a familiar situation: everyone wants to prevent interest rates from rising uniformly to 6.8 percent, but they can't agree on how to get there.
Who: A bunch of political players have proposed possible solutions. Here are a few of the main ones. 

- President Obama: Obama wants student loan interest rates to vary from year to year depending on market conditions. Interest rates for subsidized loans would be tied to the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds (plus .93 percentage points). Basically that means interest rates could initially be even lower than 3.4 percent, but they could rise much higher in coming years. The good part, though, is that while rates would vary by year, they'd be locked in over the life of every loan. 

- Democrats: Some Democrats want to extend the current 3.4 percent interest rate for a year or two to give Congress a chance to reform the law that deals with federal student loans. That law is set to expire at the end of this year. But that plan doesn't appeal to all Democrats. Senator Elizabeth Warren recently proposed that interest rates match the rate the Federal Reserve charges banks: .75 percent. 

- Republicans: Some Republicans have also called for varying interest rates based on the market. House Republicans recently passed such a bill. Like Obama's plan, the interest rates on Stafford loans would be tied to the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds (plus 2.5 percentage points). Unlike Obama's plan, the Republican plan would not offer better rates for subsidized loans than unsubsidized loans. Also unlike the president's proposal, the rate would not be locked in over the life of the loan. It would vary, although it could be fixed after graduation. The Republican plan does cap how high interest rates could go, however, to 8.5 percent for Stafford loans. Senate Republicans have called for a plan that would also vary with the market, but lock in rates over the life of each loan. Like Obama's plan, Senate Republicans also don't offer a cap on rates. 

ABC is 100% correct about FAFSA and how the loans are much better and people easier to deal with.  Have a Parent Plus Loan through FAFSA backed by the Government which has been extremely easy to deal with versus a private lender of my son's who has been nothing but a royal pain in the neck.

We can't say for sure what will happen. But it's still worth filling out the FAFSA form if you haven't already, and looking into your loan options. Regardless of what happens to interest rates, federal subsidized loans typically have much lower rates and far more flexibility in terms of forgiveness and consolidation than loans from private companies.

After dealing with FAFSA loan applications for years, it is well worth it to have them on file even if you don't use the money.  It is not cheap to go to college even with low interest rates.

Shame on Republicans for allowing the interest rates to double for student loans.  Would say to write your Senator but writing Republicans to complain is such a waste today as they could care less about what their constituents are saying.  Received one of the most condescending replies ever in answer to my complaint to Inhofe.   These Republicans are some of the biggest jerks I have ever seen in politics and have seen plenty over the years.  GOP elected officials have taken it to a new low level of contempt for their constituents as they consider themselves experts on everything.  We are there to listen to them as they know best for us which is Bravo Sierra.  Not rich?  GOP doesn't have any use for your suggestions or comments.

Time to send GOP to the Unemployment Line in November 2014 and let them see how the other 98% live.

Republicans are #1 at something: Biggest Do-Nothing Congress Ever who Continues to Lie about the Deficit!

In addition to being the #1 do-nothing Congress,  Republicans have also become polished liars as they claim Obama caused the deficit to rise when in fact it has gone down under Obama which Republicans know full has happened.  

Their dishonesty should disqualify them from holding office but with this bunch of Republicans lying against Obama gets you a badge of honor.  You can throw in the so-called 'liberal' media who have also ignored deficit reduction by Obama instead claiming Obama has raised the deficit.  A lot of the DC/NYC media sound a lot like Fox News today which is anything but a compliment.

When you have a bi-partisan duo declare that the Republican Party is dysfunctional in Congress, then you know that things have gone from bad to worse for the American people.  House Republicans refuse to pass any bill they perceive will help President Obama while holding the Country hostage because IMO they don't want a black President to get any credit.   Same is true by Senate Republicans who filibuster bills right and left along with nominees  Bills they voted for under Bush like raising the debt ceiling, today they threaten the credit rating of the United States because Obama is President.  There is only one conclusion to draw from this group of worthless Republicans and that is they are white men who believe only white males should be President.  The very idea that someone other than a white male is President is more then they can handle.  The way they treat women, they might treat a woman President worse then they do President Obama.

Last year, Thomas Mann of the left-leaning Brookings Institution, and Norm Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, published a Washington Post op-ed saying that the GOP deserves the blame for the dysfunction. 

"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional," they wrote. "In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party." 

In an interview with Washington radio station WAMU aired on Monday, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) bemoaned the productivity of Congress and called on his colleagues to do more. 

"The first six months of this Congress have been among the least productive in American history," Connolly said. "Only 13 bills have been passed into law in the first six months of this year. That's gotta be a record low."

From AdditctingInfo comes this information about the deficit that Republicans don't want you to know:

The GOP, Fox News and AM Hate Radio regularly complain that Obama has raised the deficit. This is a lie. A very VERY big lie. It’s such a big lie and so easy to prove as a big lie that the fact 90% of the country thinks it’s true is one the greatest failures of the “liberal” media since they couldn’t be bothered to vet the Iraq War. The problem is that conservatives don’t want to know, independents can’t be bothered to look and liberals should be deeply ashamed for not knowing.

Step One: Establish the facts of what the deficit is and how it works – the deficit is not the same as the debt. This is super important because the right has gone VERY far out of its way to confuse the two. And for good reason; the debt has never been higher. This is inevitable since we still have a deficit. The debt is a byproduct of the deficit. The only way to pay down the debt is to turn the deficit into a surplus.   The deficit is how much more we spend than we collect in revenue (taxes, etc.). The debt is how much we owe. 

The deficit is the credit card, the debt is the bill. A bill that the right wants to pin completely on Obama as if we didn’t have a penny of debt until he took office instead of having been built by almost a century of deficit spending by both Republican and Democratic presidents (but mostly Republican). 

Step Two: Establish when the budget is passed – This is another deliberate lie the right LOVES to pass around. They would very much like you to believe that the 2009 budget with its record shattering $1.4 Trillion deficit was Obama’s. The reality is that budgets are passed and signed into law at the end of the year before. So the 2000 budget was signed into law by President Clinton and President Bush was stuck with it. In 2017, whoever takes the White House will have a budget signed into law in 2016 by the outgoing President Obama. Therefor, the 2009 budget was not “Obama’s,” it was Bush’s. If you need to prove this definitively, share this link to the CATO Institute. They they clearly state that the 2009 budget does not belong to Obama. 

Step 3: Establish what the 2009 deficit was.  It is a tenet of faith among the right that the 2009 budget was $1.4 Trillion and it was all Obama’s fault. Here’s a link to Fox News.  The relevant part: 

“The federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week, congressional analysts said Wednesday. – Published October 7 2009

The House and the Senate voted to pass the 2009 budget on June 4-5, 2008. President Bush signed off on all of it. Conservatives will try to blame the Democratic held Senate and House for the deficit but they can’t have it both ways. Either the president is responsible for the budget or he’s not. You can’t blame Obama while holding Bush blameless.

Step 4: What is the deficit now? – That’s easy. Go to the CBO’s page and look. the Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan. If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. 

Is $845 Billion more or less than $1.4 Trillion? 

Just so we’re all on the same page here. Obama knocked $555 BILLION off of the deficit. That’s an entire third of the total deficit. That’s more than every president in the history of the country put  together. Republicans have been screeching for deficit cuts like demented harpies for years (except when a Republican is in office). If a Republican president did this, the Tea Party would be holding parades for him. Obama did it and 90% of the country doesn’t even know it. The GOP has them convinced the deficit is still going up.
Ignorance is the GOP’s best weapon. Knowledge is ours.

Excerpt:  Read More at AddictingInfo.Org

Bottom line is the US has a do nothing, lazy bunch of Republicans in the Congress who only work a 3-day work week interspersed with numerous vacations (recesses) while ripping off the US taxpayer with trips and additional expenses to add to their salary.  All this bunch of losers seem intent on doing is launching investigations into President Obama trying to make something stick.  Every time they have ended up with egg on their face.   Even Rush Limbaugh backtracked on his supposed feud with Fox News today after telling a listener not to watch Fox News yesterday - Ailes is busy at work lining everyone up on the same page of lies.

The once proud party of Abraham Lincoln is a shell of its former self and getting worse as the Koch's and other wealthy donors try to turn this Country from a Republic into a Christian theocracy.  Do you want Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee telling you how to think and what to do?  If you don't, then you had better start working TODAY to defeat Republicans at all levels.  They have earned only contempt and votes against them for their reelection with their actions which are against the best interests of the vast majority of American people.  Wanting to cut the deficit on the backs of the seniors and poor tells you all you need to know about these self-serving scumbags.  Don't know what else to call them with all the lies against this President and the damage they are inflicting on the Country by their unwielding stubbornness and lack of compassion for those less fortunate.  How can they look themselves in the mirror?

The Republican war on voting rights, women, minorities, immigrants, veterans, seniors, middle class, and poor have been duly noted.  Waiting for the "White Male Only" sign to go up on the RNC building to match what we are seeing out of today's Republican Party.

  

In Violation of their Oath, Are House Republicans Holding the Debt Celling Hostage for Cong Ryan Budget?

After a week away, some things don't change as the GOP House is still the same bunch of obstructionists now wanting to hold the debt ceiling hostage to pass Paul Ryan's austere budget while cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

House Republicans will hold the national debt ceiling increase hostage until President Obama agrees to mandatory spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the National Journalreports, and will seek to use the leverage of default to force Democrats to enact the policies in Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget. 

Since slashing discretionary spending to historic lows — the discretionary side of the ledger has grown at a slower rate than inflation since 2007 and now makes up a smaller share of the economy than it did before the Great Recession — the GOP has shifted from demanding dollar-for-dollar immediate spending cuts and is now focusing on drafting a range of options to significantly restructure mandatory benefit programs.

What happened to the Oath of Office Republican House members took when they were seated as members of the House?  Looks like in their small minds it was just words that mean nothing to them as they obstruct and hurt the economy following the lead of their wealthy donors:

That Republicans are even considering holding the debt ceiling hostage again is in violation of the oath of office they swore to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So help me God.” The 14^th Amendment of the Constitution that every Republican swore to defend and support against domestic enemies like corporate CEOs and Wall Street executives says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned,” and yet holding the public debt that Republicans created as a hostage to reward the rich, punish the people, and enrich the private insurance industry is questioning the validity of the debt, and by any stretch of the imagination approaches criminal abrogation of their oath of office.

Have this group of House Republicans forgotten what it was like when they took the oath and it meant something? Are they so corrupted by the wealthy donors like the Koch's that they have forgotten what it was like to be proud to be a member of Congress who actually would work for their constituents and the American people.  Now the House GOP has no empathy for those less fortunate and only care about doing what the Koch's and other wealthy donors demand.

The very nerve of them wanting to put the debt on the backs of those who can least afford it, is a 'sin' since they throw the Bible at us like it is their guiding principle which it is not.  Not even close.  Jesus fed the poor -- this group of Republicans wants to make the poor go without food and necessities because they believe they are on a free ride.  The free ride belongs to the House Republicans with their 3-day work week, numerous recesses, and lack of passing anything but social issues.  Heaven forbid if they passed a jobs bill to actually help people.  Not this group who want to cut the SNAP program for families which includes babies.  Those same babies that the GOP in states demand must be born.  The problem is after they are born they want to cut off food and medical care.  Bunch of heartless people are in the GOP Caucus in the House and elected around the Country.

President Obama has stated openly that he will not agree to the cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the heartless Republicans want in exchange for a 'yes' vote on the debt ceiling:

President Obama warned Republicans he is not going to negotiate (read pay a ransom) over raising the debt limit and cautioned Republicans against threatening the credit-worthiness of the United States by “bartering over the borrowing limit.”  Republicans are certain the President will concede defeat and pay whatever ransom criminal Republicans demand, but without an election looming, it is doubtful he is bluffing. Apparently their worst fear is that the President will wait until the last minute and make a bipartisan deal with the Senate and dare House Republicans to accept an unfavorable agreement or take responsibility for a credit default and another downgrade on the U.S. credit rating, but even making a deal is paying a ransom for a constitutionally mandated action Republicans followed without deviation during the Bush administration.

The GOP House wants to make sure that their spending spree from 2001-2008 is paid for on the backs of the elderly and poor while their wealthy donors like the Koch's get to keep their tax breaks and loopholes.

Republicans Expect the Elderly, Poor and Unemployed to Pay Off Their DebtBy: RmuseJul. 8th, 2013
more from Rmuse

Most Americans fail to recall when the elderly, poor, and unemployed Americans blew up the nation’s debt and deficit with two unfunded and unnecessary wars, huge tax cuts for the rich, and Wall Street greed that contributed to crashing the economy, killing millions of Americans’ jobs, and ushering in the Great Recession of 2008. For some curious reason, only Republicans remember that it was the poor, public sector workforce, and retirees who created the country’s economic malaise, and subsequently they are duty-bound to make them pay restitution with Draconian measures to enrich the insurance industry, satisfy Wall Street’s lust for the Social Security Trust, as well as provide the wealthy with a new round of tax cuts. To see their punitive measures through to fruition, Republicans are preparing a laundry list of their most coveted programs to eliminate for President Obama to choose from in exchange for raising the nation’s debt limit to repay the GOP’s debt and deficit they put on the nation’s credit card from 2001-2009 (the 2009 budget was George Bush’s). 

As Republicans anticipate holding the nation’s creditworthiness hostage again in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, they fundamentally picked the most Draconian measures in Paul Ryan’s Heritage Foundation budget and will demand the President choose which demographic is going to suffer the most or force the nation into its first credit default in history. Republicans are big on historical firsts, and it was in 2011 that after 50 years of automatically raising the debt limit that they first demanded offsetting spending cuts for every dollar the debt limit was increased creating America’s first credit downgrade. For historical perspective, and to demonstrate the GOP’s criminal, and unconstitutional, economic hostage taking, Republicans raised the debt limit for George W. Bush seven times without slashing one penny from the budget. They did, however, specifically raise the debt limit in May 2003 to pay for $350 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, and it is that type of debt Republicans are now insisting the elderly, poor, and infirm repay through loss of benefits they paid for during their working lives.

Read More about America Held Hostage by the GOP House at Politicususa.com 

You realize how much the House Republicans have sold out to wealthy donors and Wall Street when you see the percentage of Americans who oppose the cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and yet the GOP House is still pushing forward with the cuts.  Being bought and paid for by wealthy donors screams out  In fact more then 50% think the retirement income from Social Security is too low when you retire at 62.

In a survey by the National Academy of Social Insurance: 

• 82% believe it is critical to preserve Social Security regardless it means increasing Social Security taxes 
• 87% insist that Social Security is preserved for future generations even if it means raising taxes paid by the rich 
• 84% believe current Social Security benefits do not provide enough income for retirees 
• 89% said Social Security benefits are more important than ever
• 75% said increase benefits so Americans can retire at age 62 and not be poor.

How much money have wealthy donors spent on these House Republicans that is not reported for them to continue down this path?  How many houses have been paid for or money put in the bank by the likes of the Koch Bros, wealthy donors, CEOs, and Wall Street to sell out the elderly and poor?   There is something very wrong here as you can smell the odor of corruption from today's GOP office holders.  They have taken their oaths and turned them upside down in order to follow the whims of the wealthy by signing pledges like from the Koch's anti-climate pledge agreeing to obstruct any new action.  It is out in the open they are bought and paid for and could care less about the Country and all of us who are not part of the Top 2%.

Seems to me that when a member of Congress who has taken an oath signs a pledge to obstruct they are breaking their oath and should be removed from office.  As we have witnessed since the GOP took over the House in 2011, their word to the American people is worth zero, zip, nada but their word to their wealthy donors like the Koch's is golden.  The Republicans are attempting to sell the American Middle Class and poor down the river so that the wealthy can control everything we do.  We must follow the lead of State Senator Wendy Davis of Texas who was willing to stand up to the Texas GOP thugs in the Senate, Lt Governor, and Governor's office who put their agenda over the health of the women of Texas.  Another case of where they want to pass a draconian abortion bill while already having cut health benefits for the poor.

Time for action is now - roll up the sleeves to go register new voters and make sure that every voter has the ID required to vote.  Start now rounding up monitors for elections and have lawyers standing by to challenge voter suppression since the SCOTUS said no need for the Voting Rights Act.  Would say in a normal world that it is time for Congress to act on ensuring that all Americans have equal access to vote but that would mean the House Republicans would have to get on board and that's not happening.

GOP already gerrymandered districts to keep their seats but what they didn't count on were Republican rank and file getting so mad at them for playing to the hard right 'new' base of the party who only care about social issues that we would support Democrats in elections.  The GOP office holders and social conservatives are a perfect match with telling everyone else how to live to meet their version of  'Christian' standards which is playing up to the 'money changers' and ignoring those less fortunate.  Maybe they should start following the New Testament before preaching at the rest of us.

Happy 4th of July Week!

This 4th of July week, the President is in Africa and the Congress is on another recess while the GOP is still attacking women, minorities, gays, and immigration.  In other words, business as usual out of the GOP.

Will not be doing regular blog posts this week with 4th of July.  Unlike Rick Perry who called a special section to start today on passing the abortion bill, I grew up with my Dad always having the 4th of July off and doing activities as a family.  Our small town always had a 4th of July celebration at the Park where little league baseball went on all day.  High School band held a concert in late afternoon with patriotic mustic in summer uniforms so we didn't roast.  There was plenty of food followd by fireworks that could be seen for miles.  Growing up on the 4th of July meant it was time for BBQ chicken, beans, potato salad, and mac and cheese along with fresh squeezed lemonade and a watermelon for dessert.

After years of being encouraged to go the Apple route, I have finally became an IMAC user and couldn't be happier.  A week ago today, my son installed the Apple IMAC in my home office.  First few days I was wondering what I had gotten myself into but today couldn't be happier.  The adjustment was relatively painless and now so happy to have the IMAC.  Makes doing this blog even easier.  Could say it is my way of celebrating for the 4th to have a speedy computer to take full advantage of U-Verse wireless that is here in the House.

Have decided that the Republican Party male dominated party has gone nuts with their attacks on women's rights and that the do over of the GOP is dead.  Their comments in many instances are an insult to our intelligence.  Governor Kasich of OH signed a really bad bill against women yesterday in front of all white males.  Why are these neanderthal Republican men so focused on what a woman does with her body?  Maybe they should take a little less Viagra and their life wouldn't be dominated by the female body.  Only explanation that a lot of us can come up with their bizarre behavior.

Time to celebrate our great Nation and pledge to make sure that we continue to welcome immigrants to our shores as we have for over 200 years.  Have a terrific 4th of July weekend!  Stay safe!