texshelters

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Tex Shelters Endorses Money for President

In Current Events, Election Politics on April 22, 2012 at 20:27

fist full of hundreds from farm4.static.flickr.com

I am tired of losing elections by voting my conscience. Last time, I supported Huckabee for his moral fortitude standing up against gay sex by comparing it to pedophilia and bestiality. Standing up for God is why the liberal media hated him so much. During this campaign season, I supported Bachmann for being courageous enough to stand against her own raped gender on abortion issues. But no more. I am going to vote for the money.

About 90% of campaigns with the most money win congressional seats, so why not vote for the richest campaign? Also, the media will be reporting incessantly about campaign money, so why fight it? Who needs policy anyway, and who can trust what a politician says? Money doesn’t lie.

Money should be the determining factor in who runs this nation. First, Congress will have to know how to work with their masters: the Kochs, Big Pharma, Monsanto, GE and the war industry, among others, to keep this nation running smoothly for them. Moreover, by requiring candidates to have millions of dollars to get media attention for their campaigns, you can ensure that power will be held at the top of the economic rung and not trickle down to the people who don’t deserve nor know what to do with this power.

This paragraph from a New York Times article called “How Much Does It Cost to Run for President?” shows how money can determine how a campaign is perceived.

“The answer to that question is remarkably complicated. It depends in large part on how much a candidate is able to raise. And it can vary wildly, from the candidate who operates on a shoestring budget to the gold-plated, multistate operations of the most serious contenders.” (Observation: Journalists will often tell us that something is “remarkably complicated” when it’s not in order to justify their jobs).

Note the words, “gold-plated, multistate operations of the most serious contenders.” The implication is that if you don’t have lots of money for your campaign, you aren’t a serious contender. Thank you New York Times for helping winnow out those loser candidates with ideas but no money.

Money not only determines the coverage you can buy, but it in large part it determines the coverage you get. The candidates with the largest bank roll often get the most free media attention because money means you are more deserving. “In terms of visibility, however, they mean everything. In primary politics name recognition equals money, money equals coverage, coverage equals name recognition, and name recognition equals–you guessed it–more money.”  It’s the law of money conservation; money gets conserved in the campaign with the most money.  Romney was twice as visible as Santorum in February despite Santorum’s three consecutive wins.  So instead of trying to hide his money and his tax statements, Mitt Romney should wave a wad of hundreds in front of him at every campaign stop to get attention like a woman might push up her chest or a man might thrust his bulge forward for the world to see. It shows his worthiness.

One positive thing I can say about Santorum is that he had the billionaire Foster Friess to back up his campaign. I like Friess for being brave enough to say what many of Santorum’s patriotic backers were afraid to say in public, that he hopes Obama’s “‘Teleprompters Are Bulletproof.’”  Only great Americans, billionaires, can say whatever they want about the president without getting into a big hassle over free speech. And luckily, Friess has billions in free speech dollars. Let’s hope he starts spending them on Romney.

Newt Gingrich also has his great benefactor billionaire, the third richest man in the U.S., Sheldon Adelson. “Mr. Adelson, by some estimates worth as much as $22 billion, presides over a global empire of casinos, hotels and convention centers whose centerpiece is the Venetian in Las Vegas, an exuberant monument to excess…”  Excess is just not on display enough in political campaigns, so I am glad Adelson is putting his cash where his mouth, Newt Gingrich, is. However, one billionaire can’t beat all of Wall Street.

And that is when I, Tex Shelters, started supporting Romney. Romney’s campaign is back stopped with Wall Street money and has cruised to victory over Santorum and Gingrich. It had nothing to do with Santorum and Gingrich just being more nutty than Romney. It had to do with all of Romney’s deserved campaign cash. Frankly, we don’t care what Romney’s positions are on social issues like abortion as long as he can give Obama a run for his money.

But then I learned that Obama gets much of his campaign money from the same donors as Romney: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, UBS AG, and others. While most of the individual donations to Obama come from people giving $200 or less, most of his money comes form large donors. So perhaps Obama is not such a bad guy or socialist after all if he accepts all those donations from billionaires and millionaires as well.

Sorry kids, Granddad lied to you; it’s not about who you are, what morals you have, it’s about getting money at whatever the cost.  And that is why I would support Mitt Romney. Except, Obama has more money, so I will have to vote for him.  And besides, the candidate with the most money wins 90% of presidential elections. As long as Obama doesn’t challenge the basic assumptions of our economy that allows billionaires to hoard money while poverty increases, we’re fine with that. Unless, of course, Romney catches and passes Obama in the donation department.  Whoever wins, it’s a win-win for the billionaire class.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Report on Obama’s AIPAC Hate Speech by Tex Shelters of Dominion Gospel Reports

In Current Events, Humor, War, World Affairs on March 8, 2012 at 16:34

bomb-iran1 from truthjihad.blogspot.com

Reporting from Dominionist Union Miracle Blessing (D.U.M.B.) studios in downtown Mesa, AZ, I’m Tex Shelters, and this is the Dominion Gospels.

The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had their recent meetings in Washington, DC from March 4-6, and President Obama, like he inevitably does any chance he gets, inveigled himself into the proceedings to grab attention for himself and his socialist agenda of Israel hating.

Incredibly, like this show and Fox News predicted, Obama’s speech to AIPAC was not aggressive enough toward Iran. Obama is apparently unwilling and unable to invent the kind of facts the American people need in order to attack a Middle Eastern nation, Iran, without provocation. That puts the United States in grave danger. If we aren’t willing to attack nations just because we disagree with them, we might as well study the Quran for the eventual Islamic takeover of our nation. But you know this American won’t do it and I hope that all of you out there have bought your guns for the coming apocalypse if Mr. Obama gets re-elected.

Liberals wait for an actual attack before going to war. The socialist President Franklin Roosevelt needed Pearl Harbor before declaring war on the heathen Japanese. And Jimmy Carter didn’t do nearly enough to take away the rights of Central Americans and we needed our savior, Republican Ronald Reagan, to do what God deemed necessary to fight the communists and kill peasant farmers all over the Western Hemisphere.

When push came to shove, George W. Bush was willing to take it on faith, like true Christians do, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that we needed to invade the nation. And it was going well until President O’commie took over and decided we needed to take our troops out of Iraq. Leave it to a Democrat to turn a mission accomplished  into a defeat.

Our one hope is that our friends at AIPAC can convince their brothers and sisters of the faith in Israel to bomb Iran and engage with ground troops so the U.S. will have to get involved. Then a Christian president, a Republican, can make America safe for Democracy once more. Thousands, perhaps millions, of lives is a low cost for Republicans to take back the White House. It worked to get Bush re-elected in 2004, and it will work now. After all, sacrifice is a Christian thing. So I am calling on all you Christians to pray for a war with Iran. Let God know you want to spread his love to Iran. Let God know that you are willing to make the supreme sacrifice to make Iran a safe place for his messengers, Halliburton, Raytheon, Exxon, BP, Shell and other democratic American institutions.

Yours,
Tex Shelters

An anti-Christian site to NOT read about AIPAC–a mouth piece and friend of right-wing ideologues
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/05-1

Republican Candidates are President Obama’s Best Campaign Aides

In Current Events, Election Politics on January 28, 2012 at 16:25

mitt_and_newt from media.salon.com

In the fierce battle between Next Gingrich and Mitt Romney for second place in this year’s presidential campaign, the two top Republicans have become the president’s best aides for his reelection. By attacking each others’ weaknesses, they damaged their image in the eyes of potential voters and provided an invaluable script for how to bring down the eventual Republican nominee.

The most useful attacks (for President Obama) have involved the giant mortgage lenders Fannie Mae (The Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Mortgage Corporation). Many people, especially anti-government Republicans, falsely believe that Fannie and Freddie were the causes of the mortgage meltdown. Until the Republican nominating campaign, these two lenders, who controlled 90% of the secondary mortgage market in 2003, have been viewed as a Democratic problem. However, Republican accusations over the lenders during their campaign for the nomination show that Republicans are complicit in the mortgage meltdown and both parties have been involved with these controversial lenders.

First, Mitt Romney pointed out that Gingrich earned $1.6 million lobbying for Freddie Mac and thus by association is partially responsible for the mortgage meltdown. This ad by the Romney campaign could just have well been produced by a Democratic media consultant.

The ad also accuses Gingrich of being a beltway insider, something he has been running from since the campaign began. If Gingrich wins the nomination, this ad will make it harder for him to project the “outsider” image that he is trying to cultivate.

For his part, Gingrich has accused Romney of profiting from Fannie and Freddie, Ironically, apparently his tax return indicates he owns stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…”  Gingrich wants to hide his role in Freddie Mac by making Fannie and Freddie an issue of the elite rich guy, Romney, making money off the mortgage brokers. Newt has been labeled a corrupt insider and Romney an elite opportunist, “I think someone who owns stock in a place that forecloses on Floridians has a lot of gall to start raising the issue,” he told reporters.” All this plays well for the President and his campaign who will use these labels to discredit whoever wins the Republican nomination.

Then there were the attacks on Romney from Rick Perry along with Gingrich for his involvement in vulture capitalism. Editor of the Nation, Katrina Van De Heuvel puts it well,

With their eyes set on Bain’s bane and Mitt Romney’s career, Perry and Gingrich have been astonishingly and appropriately brutal. “There’s a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism,” Perry told Fox and Friends last week. “I don’t believe that capitalism is making a buck under any circumstances.” Couldn’t have said it better myself. 

She continues,

Gingrich sharpened that point further on Bloomberg: “…Show me somebody who has consistently made money while losing money for workers and I’ll show you someone who has undermined capitalism.” Sing it, Brother Gingrich.

Gingrich further challenged Romney by releasing his tax returns early before the South Carolina Republican debate. This pushed Romney into releasing his own tax returns that show he paid less than 15% in taxes (half of what Gingrich reported). Obama gained yet another talking point that has resonance with the American people, the 99% versus the 1%. If Romney gets the Republican nomination, Obama can use the framing of the people versus the corporate elite represented by Romney to defeat the former CEO of Bain Capital. So much for Romney’s business acumen being an asset in the general election.

Romney counters by attacking Gingrich and his time as speaker of the House, “…Members of his own congressional team after four years of his leadership, they voted to replace him,” Romney said of Gingrich’s time as House speaker from 1995 to 1999. “This was the first time in American history that a speaker of the House has resigned.”

And Romney and other Republicans have criticized Gingrich on his appearance with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a climate change ad. There is no worse sin for Republicans than cavorting with the enemy, and Pelosi is enemy number two, right after President Obama. This might not hurt him with Democrats who will never vote for Gingrich, but Republicans may turn away from him in the general election for this sin.

The longer the Republican nominating process continues, the longer Gingrich holds on and convinces Republican voters he is the true conservative left with a chance, the better it will be for President Obama come November. And the more Romney has to spend attacking Gingrich, the less money he will have to go after Obama in the fall.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Newt Gingrich and the Republicans are Ruining Traditional Marriage

In Current Events, Election Politics on January 22, 2012 at 18:58

from underthemountainbunker.com

Newt Gingrich has cheapened the institution of marriage through his behavior, and the people who support Gingrich and allow him to get away with his womanizing, divorces and multiple marriages are damaging the institution even further.
The vows of marriage say “til death do us part”, but that was too long to wait for Newt.

Newt Gingrich admits that he sinned and his first marriage failed because, “all humans sin”.  So, when it comes to marriage, Mr. Gingrich is an admitted sinner. Adultery is a sin, and the Republicans who accept Newt and his sin should understand that adultery leads to man on dog sex, sex between gerbils and cats and other unholy matrimonies.

Moreover, while Gingrich cheapened his own marriage with non-wife blow jobs, he was working in the House to impeach President Clinton for his non-wife blow jobs.

Newt’s second wife recently accused him of wanting an open marriage. But that’s okay with Republicans in South Carolina, where Gingrich won the latest primary. If you don’t see the hypocrisy yet, imagine if Secretary of State Clinton had said, “Bill wanted an open marriage”? Republicans would have been on this like crap on shit. Open marriages and the Republican acceptance of them are ruining the sanctity of marriage like vampire on human sex.

And how did Republicans, those willing to vote for an adulterer, sinner, and divorcee, feel about the Weiner bulge of 2011. No, the Weiner bulge wasn’t a German Panzer attack in WWII, it was the photo that Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner sent of the outline of his penis in underwear to a female college student he had met online. It became a massive issue for Republicans wanting to rid themselves of this brash liberal Representative. So a few sexual innuendoes and attacks later (even Democrats asked Weiner to resign) he resigned for doing less than Newt has done to ruin the sanctity of marriage. As far as we know, Weiner kept his penis in his shorts, Gingrich did not.

By mixing faith, redemption and adultery, Mr. Gingrich has created a new form of politics where sinning is okay. “Newt is apparently trying to create a new hybrid form, Christian adultery.”

And Republicans defend him by stating that his three marriages prove that Gingrich is qualified to be president. One example of this is from Dr. Keith Ablow  (yes, his name really is Ablow).

So, here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married. 

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible. 

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.”

I have another conclusion to make from the idea that sexual encounters qualify you for president. Why not vote for Wilt Chamberlain for president, who claims to have had 20,000 sexual encounters with women? Now that’s qualification!

Let’s look at Newt’s own excuse for his affairs. He says that he felt so passionately about the United States that it caused him to leave his cancer riddled wife and later, “while he was leading a party that was making the case that a U.S. President shouldn’t be having on-the-job sexual encounters with interns, using his staff and appointees to cover it up, and lying about it under oath in court, to commence a second extra-marital affair of his own.” 

And now when the media asks about his marriages, (after helping Republicans attack Clinton in the drawn out impeachment hearings) Newt is incensed,

“I think the destructive, viscous, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to government this country, harder to attract decent people to run this country and I am appalled that you would being a presidential debate on a topic like that.” 

And Republicans in Congress have spent Obama’s whole term using destructive, viscous and negative attacks against the President, thus making it hard for him to govern.

Newt continues, “Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things, to take an ex-wife, and make it (an issue) two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign, is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.”

I am so glad the media and the Republicans didn’t treat Clinton or Weiner so despicably.

So Newt Gingrich and South Carolina’s Republicans support the adulterer while blocking marriage for homosexuals who might “ruin the sanctity” of the institution. In the meantime, I will be passing around my “Wilt for President” petition.

This post is not condone extramarital affairs nor does it care if candidates have them. I am more concerned with liars and hypocrites running for office and those that would keep rights from others because of their religious bigotry.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Why I envy Mitt Romney and the 1%

In Current Events, Economics, Election Politics on January 18, 2012 at 20:19

Congress for sale from truenewsfromchangenyc.blogspot.com

Mitt Romney, in his finite wisdom, pointed out that Obama is using the politics of envy. “It’s a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.”  So, if you want corporations and the 1% to pay their share of taxes, and you’re in favor of job’s bills and regulating “too big to fail” banks, you are doing so because you are envious of Romney and the 1%. I am envious as well.

1. I am envious of the 1% because I too want to buy companies and send jobs overseas.

2. I am envious of Romney because I also want to lie and change my mind whenever it’s politically expedient.

3. Ignorance is bliss, and I am not nearly as blissful as Mitt Romney, whom I envy.

4.  I envy Romney because I too would like to be able to say one day, “Then, I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much,” in reference to earning $374,327.62 in speaking fees from February 2010 to February 2011.

5. I am envious because I would also like to be able to joke like Romney about “fearing a pink slip” while knowing I had millions in the bank and daddy’s millions to back me up.

6. I am also envious because I am not ruthless and uncaring enough to run for president in a political party that would just as well see people die than raise a finger to care for the them.

7. I am envious of the 1% because I wish I could buy elected officials and write legislation for Congress.

8. I envy the Koch brothers because I wish I could fund a political movement like the Tea Party and get candidates elected under that banner to cut social programs while keeping my taxes low.

9. I envy BP, Exxon and other massive polluters who can make hundreds of billions off of energy and then only pay a couple of billion dollars in fines when our projects destroy a coastline.

10. I envy the mega corporations that have had the joy of laying off thousands of workers (like Romney has, that lucky dog!) and sending the jobs overseas under the aegis of free market capitalism.

12. I envy the 1% who have skillfully gotten their lackeys into Congress who in turn blame the 99% for being poor and unemployed.

13. I envy the 1% because when they screw up, somebody else pays.

Romney is right; it’s envy that motivates people to criticize the 1%, not justice, equality, common sense, humanism and compassion.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Wall Street Wins the 2012 Iowa Caucuses

In Current Events, Economics, Election Politics on January 5, 2012 at 00:07

Buying the Election from Salon.com

Romney had 8 more votes next to his name in the Iowa caucuses, and that means everyone else lost. Romney has the lead in New Hampshire, the next Republican primary, and he has the lead in money. Only Barack Obama has more campaign cash on hand than Mitt Romney. Without a crushing defeat in Iowa, Romney’s path to the nomination is clear. No amount of evangelical enthusiasm for Santorum, or youth and independent excitement for Ron Paul, will make a difference. Unless hit by a huge scandal, Wall Street’s man won’t lose now.

The Political Action Committee, PAC, Restore our Future spent $3 million in attack ads against Newt Gingrich after Gingrich had taken a lead in the polls about a month ago. A look at their website makes it clear that they are a pro-Romney, anti-Gingrich PAC. Because they operate as a PAC, Restore our Future received well over the $2500 individual contribution limit from individuals, i.e. millionaires. In fact, the four top donors gave $1 million each. And even though this PAC clearly supports the candidacy of Mitt Romney, they don’t face the same scrutiny as individual donors do. By giving to a PAC, donors can donate as much as they want. In essence, political influence in D.C. is sold to the highest bidders.

When money wins a political campaign, Wall Street wins. And so it was in Iowa on Tuesday. Occupy Wall Street and other occupy movements all over our nation have been working for four months to end the influence Wall Street has on politics. Wall Street has been buying influence in the nations capital through a combination of lobbying, donating to campaigns, PACs, making back room deals, and giving largess through cushy jobs after Congress members end their public work for 220 years in the United States, since 1792. So don’t expect the Occupy Wall Street movement to change Wall Street’s influence in national politics overnight.

Wall Street has a lot invested in the Presidency, having already contributed $16,835,938 to the various presidential campaigns, more than any other sector. Almost half of that total has gone to Mitt Romney ($7,801,006) with about a quarter going to President Obama ($4,187,924).  That means that 75% of the money donated by Wall Street and financial institutions has gone to the front runners in the two major parties. The Presidential race is a win-win for them regardless of what party comes out on top, although Romney is clearly their number-one choice.

Why does Romney win though he has low favorability ratings within his own party? Money, Romney’s low unfavorable ratings, and the desire to have a chance to beat Barack Obama will propel Romney to the nomination despite being a former moderate Republican on many issues. “Some financiers, like Schwarzman, are Republicans who may have chosen Romney because they think he’s the candidate most likely to beat Obama.”

Only 10% of Romney’s donations are from small donors, and that is 10% more than Wall Street wants. That makes Romney the clear choice of the 1%. And because money largely determines the winners of national and statewide elections, Romney is in a good position to win the Republican nomination.

Mark Green, Author of Selling Out: How Big Corporate Money Buys Elections, Rams Through Legislation, and Betrays Our Democracy, writes clearly about how money is the determining factor in the election of politicians in America. Even in 1904, the influence money had on the Presidential race was dramatic, “Fearing defeat, Roosevelt rejected pleas by Progressives to rely on small individual contributions and turned instead for financial support to the very bankers and industrialists who had only recently supported Hanna as the most acceptable Republican candidate….Some of the country’s richest men-Cornelius Bliss, J. P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie among them-contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars, and once it was known that the President was accepting corporate money, other financiers flooded the campaign with contributions, many of which were never publicized. Roosevelt won the presidency by a landslide.”

Here is a list of the top donors to Romney’s campaign this election cycle. Note that these are almost all financial institutions; Romney is clearly in the pockets of those largely responsible helping bring about the recession.

Goldman Sachs $367,200
Credit Suisse Group $203,750
Morgan Stanley $199,800
HIG Capital $186,500
Barclays $157,750
Kirkland & Ellis $132,100
Bank of America $126,500
PriceWaterhouseCoopers $118,250
EMC Corp $117,300
JPMorgan Chase & Co $ 112,250
The Villages $97,500
Vivint Inc $80,750
Marriott International $79,837
Sullivan & Cromwell $79,250
Bain Capital $74,500
UBS AG $73,750
Wells Fargo $61,500
Blackstone Group $59,800
Citigroup Inc $57,050
Bain & Co $52,500
Total: $2,437,837

Bain Capital is Romney’s old firm. They made millions buying troubled companies and their assets, gutting them, sending any remaining jobs overseas, and then reselling the assets at a profit. Romney’s experience gutting companies and making millions for Wall Street is what the financial institutions look for in a candidate. They are unconcerned with social issues that preoccupy some religious conservatives, unless those issues can be used to divide the people amongst themselves and not against the plutocrats.

Romney also has more large donors than any candidate. More than 8,000 donors have given Romney the maximum of $2,500, compared to less than 6,000 maximum donors for Obama…Romney’s big individual donors hail from major financial institutions. His top five companies are all banks or financial service firms: Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, HIG Capital and Barclay’s. Bank of America and PricewaterhouseCoopers help round out his top ten.”

Romney wants no limits on Wall Street donations. The more Wall Street can donate, the more the 1% wins at the expense of the rest of us, the 99%. With those donations, he will be able to outspend his Republican opponents and win the nomination for his Wall Street cronies. Mitt Romney might feel the satisfaction of garnering the most votes next to his name, but the victory is not his to celebrate. Clearly, Wall Street won the Iowa caucus.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Tex Shelter’s Best of 2011

In Current Events, Economics, Education, Election Politics, Humor on December 30, 2011 at 20:33

Flaming Peace from growabrain.typepad.com

Need a reading list for 2012? Well, here you are.

These articles have been chosen among the best of 2011 based on originality, quality of writing, and importance of the topic. I chose some because they are funny or at least they gave me a laugh. They are not ranked, they are chosen chronologically and are only numbered for ease of reading.

1. Stop the Race to National Standards and Race to the Top
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/stop-the-race-to-national-standards-and-race-to-the-top/

This is one of a few articles where I go after high stakes testing as a failed policy (No Child Left Behind) from the Bush administration, given a white wash, and renamed Race to the Top.

Reasons to read: It’s an amalgam of various criticisms of Race to the Top, criticisms that need to be understood before we let corporations ruin our schools beyond repair.

Excerpt: So, teachers’ pay has to be based on how well little John or Sally or Juan or Chin or Liliana does on a standardized test that is only valid if you don’t considered the cultural and economic variations of all students everywhere. And, RTTT gives extra points for creating more charter schools.

2. Michelle Rhee, Wisconsin, and the Attack on Teachers
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/michelle-rhee-wisonsin-and-the-attack-on-teachers/

Why this is worth a read: In this article, I discredit the super-hero of education “reform”, Michelle Rhee. I understand people such as Rhee and Secretary of Education Duncan are symptoms of a greater problem, but like a viral infection, it helps to remove as much of the disease as possible. I also criticize merit based pay that is centered on high stakes testing.

Excerpt: Can you imagine someone going into a hospital, looking at a few charts and then firing half the doctors because they weren’t performing to a set of medical testing data? Most members of Congress would lose their jobs if they had to perform to criteria many of them want to impose on teachers, and they would not put up with it.

3. The Senate is the most Democratic legislative body in the World
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/the-senate-is-the-most-democratic-legislative-body-in-the-world-update-for-linking/

I wrote this article because I was sick and tired of the Senate blocking useful reform and I wanted to explain how undemocrat the Senate is.

Reason to read this: People need to learn facts about the Senate you might not have known. Note the sardonic tone of the piece used to deride this anti-democratic institution.

Excerpt: The latest example of the Senate’s love and support of democracy, though there are so many, is health care reform. By its very nature, the Senators in the finance committee are democratic. They represent a small part of the country, and they can stop health care for everyone.

4. Other Official State Items We Need in Arizona
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/other-official-state-items-we-need-in-arizona/

I wrote this after the Arizona state legislature, in its finite wisdom, decided we needed an official state gun. Arizona is a microcosm of politics in the United States. It’s an example of how a few crazy people can ruin a good state for the rest of us.

Reasons to read: You might laugh and cry and groan all at the same time.

Excerpt: The official state border crossing; changes weekly.

5. Accepted Assumptions that are Wrong: A Healthy Stock Market Means a Healthy Economy
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/accepted-assumptions-that-are-wrong-a-healthy-stock-market-means-a-healthy-economy/

Reason to read: It goes to the very core of misguided economic news, the stock market. It is also one of my best pieces on this myth and a good read, and if I were to give an award for best written, this piece gets the Golden Texy.

Excerpt: Americans outside the brokerage and banking industries, outside of the Forbes 500 and their cronies in D.C, are suffering. The stock market doesn’t gage if average people are doing well, it is a gage of what speculators think they can make from betting on, or against, a certain stock. It is a false indicator of prosperity, unless you look at the holders and manipulators of large stock portfolios.

6. Where is the Proof that Obama is even Human?
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/where-the-proof-that-obama-is-even-human/

Reason to read: In this article, I mock the birthers and those that would take political advantage of birthers by taking it one step further, questioning Obama’s species credentials. If he were a dog, I would want to see his papers.

Excerpt: First, I want to see a copy of Obama’s physical examinations to prove that he is human. The Constitution clearly states that you must be a human to be president, and I have yet to see proof that Obama is. Why won’t any of Obama’s supposed doctors come forward? Perhaps he’s not really a human?

Why hasn’t Michelle Obama come forward with proof Obama is really a man. How do we know that Obama didn’t have a sex change and was really a woman? What proof do we really have? Until I see a photo of Obama’s penis, I can’t believe Obama’s a man. Why won’t Obama come forward with his penis?

Best Line: Why won’t Obama come forward with his penis?

7. How Republicans “Win” Elections or Support the “Voter Shooter Law”
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/how-republicans-win-elections/

Reason to read: A very important article for the year 2012 and the elections. It’s a run-down of the voter suppression and election tactics that make it possible for Republicans to win elections. Then I add a list of suggestions of how to suppress the vote further, as seen in the excerpt below.

Excerpt: 3. Charge neighborhoods with the hiring of employees, the buying of voting machines, and rent in order to have polling places in their neighborhood. That should keep voting down to only those that contribute enough to society to deserve a vote. However, we will not have a poll tax,  for that is un-American.

Memorable line: Voters are easily manipulated by nationalistic symbolism and the Republicans count on it to win elections.

8. How to Promote High Stakes Testing: Lie
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/how-to-promote-high-stakes-testing-lie/

Reason to Read: This article features examples of teachers, schools, superindendents and school districts so desperate for funding that they lied about their test results. This story is important and not enough people know about it.

Excerpt: In the movie Waiting for Superman, charter schools based on the KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) model are touted as out performing public schools. However, this model leaves children behind and thus their stats are gamed,

“Taxpayer-funded KIPP schools, praised in the film ‘Waiting for Superman,’ succeed in sending poor graduates to college because the lowest-performing students drop out or don’t enroll at all, a study found.”

Important line: So, the high stakes testing regimen faced by schools all over this nation was based on a lie, and that lie has produced millions in sales for CTB/McGraw-Hill, makers of testing materials and friends to President Bush.

9. Obama Shows his Hatred of Israel by Admitting Palestinians are Human
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/obama-shows-his-hatred-of-israel-by-admitting-palestinians-are-human/

Reasons to Read: The article directly discredits the big lie that “Obama hates Israel” in an alternating serious and sardonic style. I wrote it after a well educated Jew I know asked me, “Why does Obama hate Israel?”, and then she refused to debate me on it because instead of using her analytic, scientific brain (she is studying medicine), she told me that she was “too emotional” to talk about it. Well yea.

Look at the facts and learn that Obama wants peace, and that includes for Palestinians too. Sorry, but Obama thinks Palestinians are also human. Some paranoid Jews and Republicans who want to attack Obama don’t even bother to look at Obama’s complete speech and stick to the big lie about Obama’s hatred of Israel that Republicans have pushed since Obama ran for president. Also, look at the map and the borders. The 1967 border is almost exactly the same as the current borders.

Excerpt: Clearly, Netanyahu wants no peace. And there are Arab governments, namely Iran, that don’t want to see a peace between Israelis and Palestinians either. If nothing else, pissing off Iran and other Muslim nationalists in the region should move Israel to peace talks. Furthermore, I am sure there are multinational arms dealers selling weapons to Israel and Muslim jihadists that will suffer greatly if peace breaks out in Israel and Palestine.

Memorable line: How Dare Obama hate Israel by stating their need to be secure!

10. Stop the Socialist FEMA Takeover of the Midwest
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/stop-the-socialist-fema-takeover-of-the-midwest/

Reason to Read: Republicans hate the government, until they need it. This article mocks the tendency of hypocritical Republicans to take government money when it helps them but cut funding when it might help someone else.

Excerpt/Memorable Line: Yes, the state legislature refuses aid for the unemployed caught under the dual tornado of joblessness and state cuts, and they should stick to their guns, and pull them out of their holsters, to refuse socialist FEMA funds to help those affected by the recent tornadoes.

11. Every Day, I’m More Gay
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/i’m-more-gay-every-day/

Reasons to read: Sometimes the only thing you can do to fight homophobia is to amuse those that realize most homophobes are scared and ignorant, and laugh at them. I write like a confused homophobe, and exaggerate the fears these people must be feeling to humorous effect. There are too many good lines to quote here, so read it.

Excerpt: Then another shocking revelation came my way when I learned that Freddy Mercury was a gay man the whole time I was listening to his music and watching his videos, on MTV! Imagine a band named “Queen” having homosexual members in it. Who would have known?

Memorable Line: Yes, I know Broadway is not just for gays any more, but it’s the gayt way drug to homosexuality.

12. Defending the Power Elite in America Against the Interests of the People: The Case of the United States Government
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/defending-the-power-elite-in-america-against-the-interests-of-the-people-the-case-of-the-united-states-government/

Reason to read: This article illuminates the undemocratic structures in our government and questions the firmly held beliefs of our elected officials and much of the population that we are a highly evolved democracy. And, it’s not a bad read.

Excerpt:  The form of our government in the United States is one that is not conducive to change and radicalism. It is set up to prevent big sweeping changes and thus promotes the interests of those in power, the moneyed and political elite. Elections for political office do little to change the underlying body politic, changing one face for another, and are only cosmetic in nature.

Line to Remember: As long as we have a two party system in the United States run by money and limited choice, we will never have a government by the people and for the people.

13. Facts about Class, Poverty and Downward Mobility
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/facts-about-class-poverty-and-downward-mobility/

Reason to read: This article is a well written exposé about class in the United States and the lies the right-wing and political and economic elite use to defend their economic dominance, greed and the plutocracy.

Excerpt: If it was just a matter of working hard, why is poverty rising and wealth more concentrated at the top than ever before? Is it that 80% of Americans are lazy? There is a given amount of wealth in a nation and thus when more wealth is concentrated at the top, there will be more poverty at the bottom.

Memorable Line: The idea of the American dream is one of the most successful pieces of propaganda ever perpetuated.

14. Endangered Billionaire Job Creators

Video of the year by Tex Shelters done in the style of an endangered species ad. If you gag every time you hear the term “job creators” about mega corporations who are actually job cutters, this video is for you.

15. My Dream Christmas Letter From Obama to the Republican National Committee
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/my-dream-christmas-letter-from-obama-to-the-republican-national-committee/

Reason to Read: The article is a letter I would love to see Obama send Republicans and it explains why he will win in 2012. It also highlights the faulty Republican candidates and how they are not qualified for the campaign trail let alone the office of the presidency. Moreover, it’s funny.

Excerpt: And Michelle Bachmann, what can I say? She thinks black families had it better during slavery than they do now. Thank you for that Representative Bachmann. Have you asked Herman Cain about that?

Memorable line: You know how to make a guy feel welcome, to four more years in the White House.

So there you have it, some of my choices for articles that deserve an addition read and issues that deserve further consideration.

Peace, and happy New Year,
Tex Shelters

Tex Shelters’s Pet Peeves of the 2011

In Current Events, Economics, History, Humor, Occupy Movement on December 28, 2011 at 19:36

 

from petliferadio.com

I ordered these for editorial reasons; they are not ranked. The list is not all inclusive, but they are issues I have experience with and might amuse you. So on with the winners!

Google
Google has slowly crept into almost every aspect of the blogosphere and internet. Soon, you will have to log-in to Google to take a shit in your own home.

The use of the term “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”
People who use the term pro-life to define themselves are usually just pro-fetus. Many of them don’t care if a woman dies as long as the fetus is protected and are the same people who support cuts to education, school lunch programs, immunizations, pell grants, ADFC, and other programs that aid children. And, the forced-birth crowd is often for the death penalty and against health care. So much for “pro-life”. Moreover, nobody is “pro-abortion.” No one is lining up to have an abortion as if they were lining up for Jay-Z tickets. The idea that anyone is pro-abortion is just a lie that ignores the reality of choice in the United States.

Certainly, this could be a pet peeve any year, but the forced-birthers are endangering the lives of half the population to a higher degree than ever by challenging legal and safe medical procedures.  And, the way the argument is framed is part of the reason they get away with it.

Congress
Congress ignores the needs of the people to pander to the 1%. Republicans in Congress spent much of 2010 talking about the deficit and trying to find ways to cut social spending, thus increase unemployment during a recession. In the first half of this year, Republicans spent much of the year still focused on cuts until Occupy Wall Street gathered steam and media attention and helped change the debate from deficits to equity, jobs, and bank criminality. As Republicans took charge of the agenda after winning a majority in the House, Democrats either cheerfully joined in or passively sat by. Let’s hope Congress listens to the people and their needs in 2012.

People who write about the Occupy Movement but have never been to a camp or read the literature provided by various movements
Would you trust a movie reviewer who never saw the movie they are writing about? Then why trust “journalists” who write about the Occupy Movement but have never visited a camp? These critics talk about something they haven’t even experienced, first or secondhand. This also goes for many members of the general public as well who buy into the lies about the movement. One of the most misguided comments I heard was “people only go to Occupy Wall Street to hook up.” Yes, that’s where I would go for a date too, cause all that talk about a widening income gap, buying on margin, and increasing poverty and homelessness gets the ladies and gentlemen hot!

Obampologists 
Anyone who refuses to look at conservative decisions and policies made by President Obama and then turns around and blames those who criticize Obama for his decisions are Obampoligists™. They criitcize anyone who disagrees with Obama on one policy area or another as misguided fools who don’t realize that a Republican would be worse than a Obama. Sorry folks, we know Obama would be better than the current crop of Republican candidates, but he’s not better than say, Reagan. Being better than a Republican doesn’t make you a good president any more than being a better singer than William Shatner means you should win a grammy.

People who write unsupported statements online as if they are facts and don’t provide links or evidence for what they are saying
If you don’t have anything nice to say, at least back up your comments with facts or links or posts or something. Otherwise, you are wasting everyone’s time. That also goes for positive but unsubstantiated claims as well.

The idea that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme
People who think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme know little about either. Let me make it simple: In Ponzi scheme, you put money into an investment and the money actually goes into the pockets of the schemer and you receive a portion of what you invest as “dividends” with promises that you will reap more later if only you invested more. Social Security taxes, on the other hand, are put into a low yield trust for later use and the money you put in is what you are guaranteed later. And unlike a Ponzi scheme, people are getting their money from the Social Security Trust Fund.


Ron Paul supporters
Ron Paul is apparently the best thing since sliced bread for his supporters. But he is a racist who has a few things correct. He wants to end the minimal wage, get rid of a woman’s right to choose, he wants to privatize education, and opposes the separation of church and state among other things.

Sure, I don’t like other Republican (or Democratic) candidates, but the blind allegiance people have to Paul is the real version of the fantasy Obama-messiah complex. However, no one goes anybody go around calling out the followers of the Paulist religion. No, that would be heresy.  People prattle on and on again and again about how Ron Paul is the answer to our problems. If he is the answer, what is the question? Paul is only the answer because the other Republican candidates have no credibility on any issue, and at least Paul can stand by his long held anti-war and fiscally conservative stances in the past. His positions on many issues are well thought out compared to the other GOP candidates. But hey, even I look tan next to an albino.

The use of the term Nazi
Republicans have called President Obama nearly everything, including “Nazi”. The IRS, Occupy Wall Street, all government, Democrats and Republicans have all been called Nazi this year. The Nazis were a one off historical organization and nothing will ever be like the Nazis. If you need a term, although I wouldn’t use this one without reason, use “fascist.”

Promoting the misuse of the term “Nazi” distorts history and promotes ignorance, as is exemplified when a fourteen year old boy was beaten by bullies in a suburban Denver school as they called him “Nazi” for being German and “Fag” for liking musical theater.    This is disturbing in many ways, and sidesteps the fact that Nazis killed homosexuals by the thousands in WWII.  But history seldom trumps racism and homophobia. Even Democrats joined the chorus of people misusing the label “Nazi” as Rep. Cohen (an ironically Jewish sir name), compared Republican tactics against health care to Nazi tactics. 

People who don’t read my online articles
No, seriously, thanks to my dozens of readers and I wish you all a happy New Year. Please post your own pet peeves below or link this to other social media sites with a click of your mouse.

 

Peace,
Tex Shelters

While Millions Remain Jobless, The U.S. Government Votes for the Right to Detain You

In Current Events, Election Politics on December 18, 2011 at 21:41

from blog.amnestyusa.org

To prove to the world, Republicans, Democrats and perhaps himself that he was tough on terror, President Obama signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which included the embedded  indefinite detention provision. And yes, Congress passed the bill with bipartisan support. We are now on notice; behave, or the government will detain you as long as they want.

The detention provision states:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined–  (Read the text here)

It is clear that after reading the detention bill that was added to the NDAA and commentary regarding said bill, that there is no expressed prohibition against indefinitely detaining a U.S. Citizens contained in the bill. At the same time, the vague language makes it appear that only foreign nationals are targeted.

For example, what does the term “affiliate” mean in the passage of the bill that states, “al- Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates”? Is Occupy Wall Street an affiliate, and should they be detained indefinitely? Moreover, why are we still going after al-Qaeda when they have already been eliminated as a threat? It is the desire Congress and our elites have for a never ending war that makes money for the military industrial complex? It also keeps U.S. Citizens in fear and distracted from addressing the real problem in the nation, Congress and the elites themselves who continue these wars against the world’s poor.

Will President Gingrich use this detention provision to detain any political opposition, non-citizen and citizen alike? Republicans clearly think that the Occupy Movement is full of violent extremists, so will they use it against them? The law contains room for interpretation and thus such detentions can be easily justified under it.

Obama pushed for this provision and signed this bill even though it unconstitutionally abridges the Fifth Amendment, guaranteeing the right to due process; the Sixth Amendment, right to a speedy trial and to confront the witnesses against him or her; and the Seventh Amendment, the right to a trial by jury. All of these amendments legally cancel out indefinite detention laws for anyone living in the United States and any U.S. citizen anywhere in the world.

However, if you can label someone an enemy combatant, then the President and the local, state, and national police apparatus can detain you as long as they want without any judicial checks to this power. And the detention provision in the NDAA makes this possible.

What are Obama’s motives in signing this? Is he trying to look tough. The tough stance would have been to veto this bill and explain why. But he had to show the Republicans he meant business, by taking it out on the rest of us. And Congress and their allies will celebrate with the construction of new laws to squelch dissension.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

 

My Dream Christmas Letter From Obama to the Republican National Committee

In Current Events, Election Politics, Humor on December 12, 2011 at 23:13

from tlj-news.com

Dear Republican National Committee:

First of all, Merry Christmas. See, I’m not against Christmas like you think, ha ha.

Seriously, I know we haven’t always got along these last three years. However, I want to thank you for the recent discussions of issues you’ve had at those debates. They’re priceless.

I loved to hear all those audience members cheer Governor Perry’s executions of U.S. citizens, some possibly innocent, in Texas. It makes our drone attacks seem downright humane.

And Ron Paul’s comments about people on their death bed and Tea Party support for death panels bolsters national support for the health care plan we passed in 2009. I appreciate it Representative Paul.

And Michelle Bachmann, what can I say? She thinks black families had it better during slavery than they do now. Thank you for that Representative Bachmann. Have you asked Herman Cain about that?

Thanks for reminding America that I was the one who ordered the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. Every time you criticize my foreign policy record, average Americans remember how I got the man who planned 9/11. So thanks. And now, remind them that I was the one who ended the fighting in Iraq. I love it when we can work together for my reelection.

I want to thank Rick Perry for angering not only gays, but all the Jews in America, the non-evangelicals, about 2/3rds of Christians, the intellectuals, and all the people who can fire more that two neurons at once and realize there is no war on Christmas.  And thank you Governor Perry for your continued ignorance of the separation of church and state.

In general, thanks for supporting an end to the minimum wage, and end of the education department, supporting child labor (Here’s to you Newt!), cuts to Social Security and Medicaid and cuts to billionaires taxes, and all the great things you say and do.

You Repubilcans make a guy feel loved, by the rest of America that you have petrified. You know how to make a guy feel welcome, to four more years in the White House.

Merry Christmas, see you in 2012. I can’t wait.

Your Black President,
Barack Hussein (suck on it) Obama.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 122 other followers