Sarah Palin has secret talks with Russia

An aid to Sarah Palin revealed that she has been having secret meetings with Russian ministers from Putin’s inner circle about a joint Russian/United States plans to destabilize the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The goal was, is, to destabilize the Islamic nation in time for an October surprise to derail Obama’s reelection bid in 2012 and also bring Iran onto the brink of political and economic collapse. Is this an attempt by Palin to get elected, is she just trying to bring an end to the Obama government or is she hoping to get someone in her party elected?

Palin, through the FSB (the new KGB), has suggested to Putin over email that the secret service get radical Iranian Imam’s to come out against the Ahmadinejad government and call for massive protests in Iran’s major cities just before the 2012 U.S. elections. This would be in exchange for future economic considerations. It was even hinted that a weapons exchange with Colombia to get money to support the new Imam revolution was in order. Putin’s government, along with the new Palin administration (?) would divide up the oil fields and licenses in Iran and share the oil and the profits. Both Russia and the United States would provide extractive and refining technology (making Iran pay for the technology) and as has been hinted by Palin’s aid, Iran would become a passive nation no longer a threat to the region. At least that is what Palin’s aid thinks.

During the Vice Presidential Debates, Palin signals to her handlers in Russia.

<object width=”480″ height=”385″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/SVVdkLtnw3M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param value=”always”></param></object>

If you believed this article, you did so because you WANTED to believe it. You have a dislike of Palin and that has clouded your judgement. That’s okay, it happens to me and everyone else.

I offered no proof of this story at all. People will believe all sorts of nonsense when it is attacking a person we politically detest. That is why so many people think Obama is a Muslim although there is no credible evidence for this.

Here is  what the right does to attack Obama. They find something that has a modicum of truth and exaggerate it out of proportion. Then they use the language of fear to tap into the concerns of their constituents regarding immigration, taxes, gun control and America. For example, the current nontrovery over the NYC mosque, that isn’t a mosque, taps into fear of Muslims, foreigners and dark skinned people. So it doesn’t matter whether there is any truth in the stereotyping of Muslims. It strikes at the fear centers of the brain (the brain stem), as far away from the thinking brain, the cortex, as possible.

People call the video that follows “evidence” or him being Muslim. In the video below, Obama was making the point that McCain did NOT call Obama a Muslim. And so? Here is the out of context quote used “evidence” Obama is a Muslim:

<object width=”480″ height=”385″><param value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/yP_2YfZmTXc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>

Saying something like “Obama is a Muslim” does NOT make it so.

And to a deeper point; so what if we elect someone who is Muslim. (Which would never happen in the United States, at least for another 100 years or more.) People act like electing a Muslim is akin to having a rapist or serial killer in the White House. It cuts into the deep-seated bigotry against Muslim-Americans in this nation.

As Salaam Alaikum,
Tex Shelters

Extend the Bush Tax Cuts if you know what’s good for you

We need more money. And I am NOT talking about the royal we or Nintendo Wii, I am talking about the top class we, the top earning in this nation such as the Waltons and Gates families. The ruling classes are suffering from neglect. We are suffering in heck. In order to counter terrorism, we need to extend the tax cuts for the top 2%. This will also help small businesses since we know that small businesses that earn over $250,000 make up at least 3% of small businesses. We must use the misleading idea of protecting small business as a way to promote massive tax cuts for big business.

<object width=”640″ height=”385″><param value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/41Mg0S4Qod4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param></object>

Notice the truthiness of this video that I am talking about here. You see, if a billionaire like me has his tax cut eliminated, they will go after your tax cut next. And by the way, my taxes being is all you should worry about.

We must remember that letting the tax cuts expire for the richest 2% is a tax hike on everyone even if the tax cuts for the 98% rest of America would be extended. Really people, the rich IS America, and if you think that’s not true, why don’t you move to the Muslim Soviet States of Nazis where Obama came from.

The “Bush” tax cuts in no way affected the deficit. The only reason there was increased deficits during the Bush years was too many Democrats insisted that the federal government do things for the nation. These selfish Americans refused to live life without being educated, and that taxes our budgets. If Democrats only home schooled their children like Patriotic Americans instead of schooling their children on the public dollar, the deficits wouldn’t be so high. Also, planes are safe enough without having to pay for federal agents to inspect planes and passengers. And air traffic control? We don’t need that. It’s expensive. And pilots don’t need federal licenses to fly when they can easily get licenses on the Internet. Food inspections are for wimps with weak immune systems. And coal and gas plants can just regulate themselves as do the mining companies.

But NOOOO! Democrats demand that the government functions to protect people, at least some do, which is more than I can say for most Republicans. Republicans understand that we don’t need a nanny state protecting us from powerful interests that would dump even more mercury in our water if they had the chance. If you aren’t healthy enough to live with a little toxic waste in your water or can’t afford your own water supply, then you might as well die. What good are you to America anyway?

The deficit had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts like so many economists have said, and it certainly had nothing to do with the wars. It was greedy Americans asking for things that have put us in dept. So save the tax cuts for the worthy Americans.

Here’s a letter you can copy and paste to tell your congressman what you feel.

Dear Senator ________:

As you have seen on Fox News, the most important issue facing Americans today is whether the rich will retain their tax cuts. You can help make that happen and protect your jobs as well.

As you realize, the Supreme Court defended the rights of the well off like me to give millions of dollars to the campaign of my choice. So, if you don’t support my right to shirk taxes and not pay for the benefits I get from society, I will buy ads against your candidacy pointing out how you want to raise taxes and ruin our economy. And since the Disclosure Act was blocked in the Senate, I won’t even have to put my name on the ads.

So if you love America and your job, you will extend my tax cuts.

Yours, for now,
Tex Shelters

Congressional switchboard 800-828-0498

Just ask for the office of your Senator or Representative
House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/house/house_comments.shtml

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/

Find your Congressperson here:
http://www.votesmart.org/official_congress.php

Another link regarding the deficit madness
http://www.truth-out.org/zach-carter-conservative-deficit-hawks-demand-tax-cut-extensions61962

The Supreme Court thinks Money is a Wrench

If you think the Supreme Court defended free speech with their Citizen’s United ruling earlier this year, you are well on your way joining the Tea Party to be a dupe for the wealthy classes. What the ruling did was protect the causes of multi-millionaires and corporations who use their riches to promote the issues on their wish list. And to the surprise of few, the corporate interests are often antithetical to the interests of the people. The BP disaster, mining accidents, the corporate friendly health care bill, and the bank bailouts are examples of this conflict of interest between corporate America and the people.

Just look at the Koch brothers. They are using their billions to fund Americans for Prosperity, who in turn fund the Tea Party Movement. The Tea Party fights against health care and the Koch brothers are major health care industry players. Are you surprised? Thanks to the Supreme Court ruling on Citizen’s United, they will now be able to buy millions of more ads to keep health care rare and expensive as well as deregulating the oil industry for the Brothers big oil holdings.

Ever since the Supreme Court gave free and fair elections the final death knell in their Citizens United Ruling, concerned citizens and a few Congress people who are not yet wholly owned subsidiaries of Fortune 500 companies have been looking for a remedy to this undemocratic decision.

The ruling eliminates most limits on corporate donations to campaigns and thus opens the doors to massive influence pedaling by big business. With this decision, the Supreme Court is perpetuating the false notion that money is free speech. Here is their simple-minded logic:

There should be no limit on free speech
Free Speech = $$$
Thus, there should be no limits on $$$ in campaigns because
$$$ = Free Speech

The false premise that money is free speech has no basis in logic, reality, or society. Alas, the Supreme Court is NOT full of economists; it’s full of legally trained minds have learned legal double speak at the best universities in the nation. They are not living in the real world where money is used to manipulate elections and buy legislative support. Or perhaps they know exactly what they are doing and are acting on behalf of the moneyed classes of which they have full membership.

Money is mainly used as exchange for goods and services in our society. That does NOT make it equal to “free speech”. Money can be exchanged for advertising for one candidate or another. Buying ad time, speech, does not make the money itself speech. People confuse money with the thing that they are buying. Buying a wrench with my money doesn’t make money a wrench. Using money to buy airtime, speech, does not mean that money IS speech. But the Supreme Court, living in the world of their own, thinks the phrase “money talks” is literal. When was the last time you actually heard your twenty-dollar bill talk to you or speak freely? Do you think that a dollar bill should have free speech rights? If so, I suggest therapy.

So the question comes down to how much money we can spend on campaigns. The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling says that there is no limit what so ever. What does that mean for the rest of us that want to donate to a campaign? It means that unless we are billionaires, our voice doesn’t matter. Our “speech” will be drown out by the millions of dollars from those that can afford to buy influence under the existing rules.

When advertising and the ownership of mass media outlets can limit the choice of candidates and unduly influence who becomes our elected official, there is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

“It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.” (link)

Laws that allow unlimited contributions to campaigns by the wealthy and corporations nullify the individual right to vote and can be seen as a violation of the Constitution under the 14th Amendment.

In the famous Reynolds V Sims Supreme Court case of 1964, the court ruled against unequal proportioning of state legislative districts. They ruled that all districts should have equal representation (population), “one man, one vote”. Now with the Citizen’s United Ruling, that idea is thrown out the window. Now the ruling could read, “one vote per person, but you can buy, through unlimited resources (money), as many votes as you wish if you are a millionaire.”

If you don’t think money matters that much, why do candidates with the most campaign money win 73-98% of their seats, depending on the year?  It is money, not issues, that wins the race. Certainly, having good ideas used to garner you more campaign money. Not anymore. More than ever a candidate will now have to promote the causes of people and companies with millions to give your campaign since the SCOTUS ruling. Remember, the donations are now unlimited and people with millions can afford to give more than average Americans.

Three websites on the influence of money on elections that I recommend are: White House for Sale, Common Cause, and Open Secrets.

One attempt to defend the electoral process from a flood of corporate and special interest money is the Disclosure Act. It is coming back to the Senate in September where the Republicans blocked it with the undemocratic filibuster rules. We must act now to call every Senator to get it passed.

The DISCLOSE Act would require corporations and interest groups to identify themselves when they sponsor political ads and, in the case of smaller organizations, to reveal their donors.

 

… Not one Republican voted to proceed with debate–not even after the Democrats modified the bill, in order to address GOP arguments that it would treat unions differently from other groups. (link)

The DISCLOSE Act is a package of campaign finance reforms that includes prohibiting foreign entities from spending on American political campaigns, stopping certain contractors who get large sums of government money from lobbying, and requiring many groups to disclose their funding in campaign materials. (link)

So, the party of patriots, the Republicans, wants to block a law that would reduce foreign influence in our elections. That doesn’t seem very patriotic.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R-Ky) tells out right lies about the disclosure act.

– McConnell claimed the legislation is designed to “protect unpopular Democrat politicians by silencing their critics and exempting their campaign supporters from an all out attack on the First Amendment.” [7/26/10]

I am sorry to tell you Mitch, but the Disclosure Act only says ads have to “disclose” their funding. Since when did disclosure come to mean “ban”? It’s time we sent you back to school.

 

– “the DISCLOSE Act is not about reform. It is nothing more than Democrats sitting behind closed doors with special interest lobbyists choosing which favored groups they want to speak in the 2010 elections … In other words, a bill to shield themselves from average Americans exercising their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech.” [7/27/10]

 

Lobbyists love Republicans and Democrats equally, depending on the industry. And how many of your “average Americans” have millions of dollars to spend on ads and campaigns? This is about defending the millionaire who without, you would not win an election. You are lying Senator, and you are lying to defend your millionaire donors at the expense of America.

 

–“This is a transparent effort to rig the fall election.” [7/27/10]

 

Rigging elections by making donors disclose? I don’t even understand where you got that one.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/03/mcconnell-disclose/

People against disclosure call it an attack on free speech. Right-wing web sites are touting the failure of the Disclosure Act as a victory for free speech and America.

 

“The DISCLOSE Act was written to silence YOU……and the National Association for Gun Rights” says one pro-gun site (link).

In reality, it only asks for disclosure of donors names. Is it that the gun lobby is ashamed of their constant stance in favor of guns and against gun victims while leaving no room for reasonable regulation of guns? Is that why they are against disclosure? I thought the “guns first and only” crowd was proud of their stance. If so, they should support the disclosure act.

The measure would implement strict disclosure laws on campaign ads, require corporate leaders to appear in ads much like candidates and severely restrict foreign-owned companies and those that do business with the government. Advocates cast it as a positive response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling, while opponents say the bill would freeze corporate speech. (link)

Corporations are not people. They don’t live and breathe or have families to support. Why do Republicans defend corporations? It’s because they can’t win without the help of large money donors, the more, the better.

Most people can’t spend millions on attack ads, and nothing in the law stops the ads. All it does is say that people promoting a candidate or cause have to reveal their names in the ad. How does that silence powerful multi-million dollar organizations?

Write or call or email your Senators to support the disclosure act. Don’t you want to see the Koch Brother promote Sharon Angle have to say at the end of their ad, “We support his message”?

Congressional switchboard 800-828-0498

Just ask for the office of your Senator or Representative

House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/house/house_comments.shtml
Senate: http://www.senate.gov/
or send note online:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Here are some phrases that might help with your letters:

Will you side with people, or the corporations?

Are you owned by corporations, or do you work for the people?

We didn’t elect you to protect corporate interests. Show that you care for the citizens by voting for the disclosure act.

I will rip out your spleen if you don’t vote for the Disclosure Act.

The only way to get this passed might be for the Banks, big Pharma, insurance companies, and the defense industry to tell Congress that if they don’t pass this bill, they will cut of the donations to them.

More News on the Disclosure Act
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024922.php

Yours,
Tex Shelters

Howard Dean Defends Bigots, Update

As a super agnostic, I don’t care about the god debate. It gets in the way of real issues. As a religious libertarian, I say let people build a house of worship wherever they legally can. Christians certainly have built churches all over the world, and on sacred sites. And it’s debatable that this site or any other is sacred beyond being labeled so my humans. It’s also a property issue, for all you libertarians against the community center.

Many people have told me that we need to listen to those with reasonable objections to the Muslim community center. Well, I have yet to hear a reasonable objection to the center’s construction. So far it’s just stereotyping about Islam, fear, bigotry, ignorance and hatred. That is not what I can reasonable.

And being emotional about 9/11 is also NOT a reasonable objection. It’s an emotion, not evidence of harm that the center would cause. It’s evidence of the grief the 9/11 terrorists caused, not Muslims in New York, many who share your grief.

Eugene Robinson on the Community Center

Mayor Bloomberg Supports Center’s Construction

Fear All Muslims!

Yours,
Tex Shelters

Muslims have Sent Mayor Bloomberg to Hell

Even though New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is Jewish, he’s going to hell. Why? Because he not only spoke in favor of allowing a Muslim Terrorist Training Center on ground zero (you know, the building the liberals call a “community center”), he defiled the Constitution while supporting terrorism, i.e. Muslim rights.

The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

 

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right –and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the US Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/03/michael-bloomberg-ground-zero-mosque

Bloomberg is Jewish, so he doesn’t know about religious persecution like us Christians do. Bloomberg also felt it necessary to remember history or times when Catholics, Quakers, and Jews were prevented from having a house of worship on Manhattan. How dare he use historical fact in an attempt to prevent modern hysteria! Damn him and his mitzvahs! He even points out that Muslims died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, as if we should care. They were all in on the 9/11 plot and these Islamo terrorists were martyring themselves so later they could be used as an example of a good Muslim so Bloomberg would allow terrorist training center to be built on that spot. It’s sickening how clever those Muslims are. They even planned 49 years ago to get Obama’s name in the Hawaiian papers to fake his birth so they could have a Muslim president when the terrorist training center in New York City.

Oh sure, stupid liberals think this is some kind of “community center” and that make it okay to allow terrorists (Muslims) to have a center in the center of New York.

While most libtards are squawking on about right, Howard Dean, former DNC chair, recognizes that bending over is the best way to handle this, “the best way to heal the wounds is not to have a court battle, but to sit down and try to work things out.” Yes, the whiny liberals should get off their feet and sit down and talk this out with the people that hate them.

The man behind the Terrorist “community” Center is Imam Feisal. He is so dangerous that he “has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance”. (link) A Muslim promoting religious tolerance would be like a French man promoting bathing or a liberal promoting hard work; it just aint gonna happen.

Some people say that Imam Feisal, the centers main proponent, worked with the FBI to ferret out domestic Islamic terrorists. See how clever he is, turning in his own people so that he could get that Muslim terrorist training center built in New York City so terrorist Muslim boys could learn the American game of basketball on the center’s basketball courts, join the NBA, and then rule our game and take over America. They also plan to have a deepwater emersion terrorist training tank to teach Hamas terrorists how to swim and invade Israel my sea form Gaza.

 

The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

 

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the US Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2010/aug/03/michael-bloomberg-ground-zero-mosque

Thankfully, Harry Reid is cowering under our hysterical claims.

“The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,” reads a statement from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office (D-Nev.). “Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else. If the Republicans are being sincere, they would help us pass this long overdue bill to help the first responders whose health and livelihoods have been devastated because of their bravery on 911, rather than continuing to block this much-needed legislation.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/reid-mosque-should-be-bui_n_683762.html

While I know it’s my patriotic duty to ignore the words of Imam Feisal when reporting about his community center plan, I figure, he will just spew some anti-Semitic, anti-American crap just like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (all Muslims are alike you know) and thus discredit himself.

The project has been mischaracterized, so I want to explain clearly what it would be. Our planned 13-story community center is intended for Park Place between Church St. and West Broadway. It is not a mosque, although it will include a space for Muslim prayer services. It will have a swimming pool, basketball court, meeting rooms, a 500-seat auditorium, banquet facilities and many other things a community needs to be healthy. The center will offer theatrical programming, art exhibitions and cooking classes. These are amenities missing now from this part of the city.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/26/2010-05-26_the_truth_about_the_mosque_the_leader_of_proposed_muslim_center_near_ground_zero.html#ixzz0wvszqcOC

See, I told you they would have basketball and swimming. And, they are going to have cooking classes so they can become short order cooks in all the Denny’s in the U.S. and slowly kill us all with their Grande Slam Muslim Meat Platter.

President Obama
CO/ The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500-0004
or phone: (202) 456-1414

Or send note online:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Congressional switchboard 800-828-0498

Just ask for the office of your Senator or Representative

House of Representatives
Senate

So be aware my Patriotic friends, or you may become religiously tolerant and bi-cultural curious like all un-American liberal traitors if you don’t write Congress and the President and tell them to stop this Muslim thingy we are against because Fox News and others on the TV and radio told us to be afraid of.

And a reprise of Fear all Muslims, just cause it’s scary and amusing.

Yours,
Tex Shelters

War Doesn’t Kill People; People Kill People

Liberals are calling for an end to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, again. I know, I know, fellow right-wingers are going to hate me for saying that. You see, Obama seems to be for the war, and liberals are against it, so I just said that Obama is NOT a liberal. Let’s face it dear patriots, Obama is NOT the radical we on the right paint him out to be. But keep up on the name calling our President with “socialist”, “fascist”, “Nazi”, “Witchdoctor”, “Muslim” name calling favorites.

The Real Obama in many colors:

Oh, there’s more…

It’s still not okay in PC America to call him a nigger, but we’ll get there soon when President Palin is inaugurated. Just check out all the clever videos showing how Nazi and Communist Obama is, at the same time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3yMPWmeaBs

Or better yet, watch Hitler complain about the Obama comparisons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZAP6E2yzNs (They have taken away the embedding because they don’t like the free promotion of their movie)

“We have to take back America”, and you know whom for. For us “real” Americans. You know, us white folks. Come on America! We choose to insult Obama because we can’t debate issues on his level. But we’d like it if you understood that underneath this fear mongering is the fear of blacks and Latinos taking over.  And we’re concerned because them blacks and Latinos might treat us like we treated them slaves and farm laborers, and that would be unfair. Let’s hope they don’t call on them Native Injuns to join the cause. Those Natives might demand we go back to Europe or where ever we came from.

I better get that “Obama dressed as dangerous Redman” poster ready. I wonder if someone has an Obama as Jew picture ready? That’s a tough one. No, people won’t notice that we call Obama a Nazi and a Jew. And we are talking about the bad money grubbing banker Jews, not the good Jew that kills Palestinians for American empire.  No one knows their history anyway thanks to the brilliant cuts in education funding perpetrated by President Bush’s NCLB. “Money for tests, not the rest” is a great motto to live by.

Back to the war thingy. War doesn’t kill anyone; it’s the people that do the killing. Now stupid liberals will say, “then end wars if you want to end killing.” But that’s ignorant and unpatriotic. If everyone had a war, that would be a deterrent to future wars. So let’s help everyone obtain a war, and there would be less killing in the world. We are well on our way to success.

Action: won’t you write Congress and the White House to congratulate them on sending more troops to Afghanistan to die and kill and please invade more nations, for peace, for America.

President Obama
CO/ The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500-0004
or phone: (202) 456-1414

Or send note online:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Congressional switchboard 800-828-0498

Just ask for the office of your Senator or Representative
House of Representatives
Senate

Yours,
Tex Shelters

We Live in A Buyocracy

Political wisdom floating around is that incumbent candidates for Congress are in trouble this year. Other than the retiring politicians, over 90% of the members of Congress will return to their seats despite their low favorability ratings. (link) But money changes everything, that and lack of candidate choice in our two party system.

The California Republican candidates for Senator and Governor in 2010 prove that only wealthy people hould run for election, and the candidates with the most money deserve to win. Because capitalism is the greatest economic system ever, we should not bar any part of our society from capitalism’s tentacles. We do, after all, live in a Buyocracy where you must buy political office to get elected.

Money won big last night in California. It greatly helped Meg Whitman win the GOP nomination for governor and gave Carly Fiorina the Republican nod to run against Democratic U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in the November general elections.

Whitman admits to, and is proud of, the fact that she has spent more than $70 million of her own fortune to secure the nomination and is, she says, prepared to spend up to $125 million to get the actual job.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-feldman/money-wins-big-in-califor_b_605489.html

And Meg Whitman is worth a reported billion dollars. Being a billionaire is enough of a resume to prove she deserves to be Governor. With a few million dollars worth of well-placed misleading attack adds against Former Governor Moonbeam Brown, she has a real chance of buying residence in the governor’s mansion.  And that will be a victory for big money I will celebrate with new oil contracts off of the Santa Barbara coast.

And don’t worry too much about Mr. Brown. The reason he had no opposition in the Democratic primary is that he had amassed $20 million for his campaign before anyone even entered the race. He has spent little thus far, but he might lose because Whitman who spent $71 million of her own money on the primary is willing to spend $80 million to buy office.  After turning EBay into a multibillion dollar enterprise, bidding to get what she wants is second nature to her.

Her promotional brochure reads like a glossy version of People Magazine: lots of super photos, little detail on her plans. Look at the pretty pictures and platitudes here.

What are Meg Whitman’s solutions to create jobs? Tax cuts of course. There would be no capital gains taxes under Whitman, and she cites all the states that have a huge debt crisis such as Arizona, who don’t have a capital gains tax. See how fiscally sound she is?

There would be no license fees for businesses under Whiteman, and the budget shortfall will be closed. Tax incentives for hiring will be doled out so that if jobs are created, the workers will have to bear the brunt of the taxes for the state and not the benevolent corporations. Yea Whitman!

Of course, where would any self respecting Republican be if they didn’t pledge NO NEW REGULATIONS! My favorite idea of hers is…”Harmonize Regulatory Authority”. In essence that means no new regulations unless it doesn’t hurt the bottom line for business. Who cares if the regulation would protect people, like food safety, offshore oil drilling regulations, workplace safety, seatbelt laws, and so forth.

And please, let’s have tort reform, because them damn lawyers are to blame for everything the liberals haven’t done yet. Whitman, as I call her, for she likes to be called Meg, promises to secure the border, improve education, reduce crime and improve the universities. Specifically, she is against any kind of amnesty for immigrants. Hear that Latinos? And, she would put $1 billion dollars into the UC system to study EBay.

Thus, Tex Shelters, Billionaire supports her. I can’t wait to buy that new yacht from the tax cuts she gives Tex Shelters Offshore, LLC in California. I am sure I will hire another pool boy for my mansion in Coranado Island. Pool boys do SO please my wife.

In Colorado, Democratic Senator Michael Bennet had raised $7.7 million for his Senate primary against upstart Andrew Romanoff who only had $1.96 million at his disposal. Never mind the supposed anti-incumbent sentiment in the elections, money wins out again.

I have heard people say that “there is an anti-incumbent sentiment” since Newt Gingrich’s Republican revolution. However, incumbents almost always win, and candidates with the most money, usually the incumbents, win. So much for the anti-incumbent feeling. The chances of the opposition is a myth propagated by the mainstream media to sell that idea that elections are fair and to drums up rating. A news hour starting with “most incumbents have a huge lead in campaign money and are expected to win again this year” won’t do much for your ratings.

In Colorado, the Senate elections proved that big money wins and small money doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Let the little people go back to doing the little things and leave the elections for the well off.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only 10 percent of Bennet’s donations came from people giving $200 or less; Romanoff, on the other hand, raised 62 percent of his funds from small donors. (link)

Bennet will out spend his Republican opponent and easily retake his Senate seat. Hey, Bennet promises that Republicans are scarier that Democrats and that should get out all the Bolder, Co libtards to put him over the top and back into the Senate.

On the other side of the nation in Connecticut, Worldwide Wrestling mogul Linda McMahon won the endorsement of the Republican party for Senate and only had to spend $22 million of her own dollars to get less than half the vote in a three way race. Shocking, isn’t it, only $22 million to get 58,206 votes, 49% of the Republican vote. That’s $378 a vote. I am sure they voted for her based on her crotch kicking policy.

And according to Politics Daily “McMahon plans to spend another $30 million on negative TV commercials designed to convince the voters that Blumenthal is not the public official he seems to be.” That is a winning formula, unless Demoncrat Blumenthal uses his ill-gotten money from unions and the DNC (as opposed to the hard earned wrestling money) to body slam the poor lady. So what if McMahon has nothing positive to contribute. It’s Blumenthal that is the evil Triple H in this real world (?) grudge match for Senate. (link)

In Minnesota, the top spender in the Democratic primary for Governor did not win the nomination. Matt Entenza spent $5 million of his own money and came in third while Mark Dayton won the contest after spending $3.3 million of his money for the campaign. (link) It was not reported how much Mr. Dayton spent from other sources for the primary victory. The exact figure is not important. What is important is that you have to be a millionaire to be a governor in the United States. And as we know, millionaires are the best people on earth, other than billionaires, so they should be allowed to buy office. Besides, the unemployed would just waste those millions on food.

Incumbent Advantage

The charts below show the enormous financial advantage enjoyed by incumbents. That’s one of the reasons re-election rates are so high—incumbents generally don’t have to work as hard to get their name and message out.

Senate
Type of Candidate	Total Raised	Number of Cands	Avg Raised
Incumbent	$289,512,291	31	$9,339,106
Challenger	$71,678,052	138	$519,406
Open Seat	$206,998,936	107	$1,934,569
Grand Total	$568,189,279	276	$2,058,657

House
Type of Candidate	Total Raised	Number of Cands	Avg Raised
Incumbent	$437,616,273	420	$1,041,944
Challenger	$169,837,748	1,027	$165,373
Open Seat	$102,422,413	351	$291,802
Grand Total	$709,876,434	1,798	$394,814

Based on data released by the FEC on August 10, 2010. Figures include all candidates who have filed reports.

As the tables demonstrate, incumbents far out pace their challengers for campaign donations. And, those that raise more money consistently win more than 90% of their house races and won between 70 and 90% of the Senate seats depending on the year.

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

“The 2008 election will go down in U.S. history as an election of firsts, but this was far from the first time that money was overwhelmingly victorious on Election Day,” Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said. “The best-funded candidates won nine out of 10 contests, and all but a few members of Congress will be returning to Washington.”

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html

Reelection Rates Over the Years

Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats—as this chart shows.



http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php?cycle=2006

While Washington pundits go on and on about the year of the challenger and how incumbents better fear for their seats, the reality is that most seats only change hands when an incumbent retires. Unless the challenger is a multimillionaire like Carly Fiorina in California, most challengers don’t have a chance. And I wouldn’t bet against Barbara Boxer just yet. I am sure she has millions of her own donations from millionaires saved up for her Senate campaign.

Take this headline form ABC News online :
Poll: Ahead of 2010 Midterm Elections, Incumbent Support Its Lowest Since 1994

Now, reference the charts above. In 1994, 90% of the House was reelected and 92% of the Senate. What does that low poll rating in 1994 mean when it does nothing to change outcomes?  This year, like every year in the last 56 years, incumbents will win a vast majority of their seats.

Action: Write letters to Congress asking for real campaign finance reform today and the Disclosure Act. Or you can write them and tell them that you are glad that only real Americans, millionaires and billionaires, can run for office with any chance of winning. And tell them how happy you are that each year the average American has less and less say over who runs our nation.

Congressional switchboard 800-828-0498

Just ask for the office of your Senator or Representative

Write Your Representative at:
House of Representatives
Senate

Find your Congressperson here:
http://www.votesmart.org/official_congress.php

Yours,
Tex Shelters

Support Elizabeth Warren for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

This is an update from my old MySpace page while the action is still imperative. Obama has yet to nominate Warren for the post she is most qualified for. I guess she’s too much of a “professional liberal” for him. Please, put on some pressure and write President Obama today. (info below)

If you owned a store, would you hire the shoplifters track inventory? That is essentially what the last three White House administrations have done. That is why we need an experienced, education consumer advocate running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and NOT the bankers friends.

Director of Obama’s National Economic Council, Larry Summers, received investment money from the banks he was in charge of investigating for a bailout.

Last month, a little-known company where Summers served on the board of directors received a $42 million investment from a group of investors, including three banks that Summers, Obama’s effective “economy czar,” has been doling out billions in bailout money to: Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley. The banks invested into the small startup company, Revolution Money, right at the time when Summers was administering the “stress test” to these same banks…

http://www.alternet.org/economy/140327/is_larry_summers_taking_kickbacks_from_the_banks_he%27s_bailing_out/

And why is Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner so opposed to Elizabeth Warren as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

The truth is that she would work to change the practices that make banks rich by raising fees on the consumers and giving little or nothing in return. Some of those that profited from Geithner’s bailout were his friends, for example Countrywide Financial Group. http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/23/timothy-geithner-making-countrywide-executives-rich-again/

Here’s how out of touch Geithner and his ilk are. He was quote as saying on ABC News, “Right now, the best thing the government can do is help create the conditions for the private sector to start to invest in hiring again,” he said. “Now, we’ve seen six months of positive job growth by the private sector.  That’s pretty good,” Geithner said. “Pretty good this early in a recession.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/treasury-secretary-private-job-growth-pretty-good.html

Isn’t that what eight years of Bush was about, helping the rich guy so that someday we might get jobs with them. Sounds like voodoo economics to me. Yes, jobs are back and that is why we still have 9.5% official unemployment.

Job growth is NOT good as Geithner asserts, about 2 million Americans have been unemployed for over 99 weeks, and little has changed in the job picture. Do we really want people who are so out of touch with the economic reality outside of Wall Street to continue to make national financial decisions for us?

Obama gave these men the keys to the hen house because Obama is an insider that has been indoctrinated into the crony capitalism that says only banking insiders can regulate banks. Not only is that untrue, it once again puts the “profits first, consumers last” crowd in charge of our nation’s banking and financial regulations.

Another reason to support Warren to head the CFPB is that the banks are so set against her. In this case the old cliché about “any enemy of my enemy is my friend” holds true here.

Without Warren heading the agency that was her brainchild, the CFPB would hold no power and not actually protect us. It would be like the oil companies running the Minerals Management Service…uh, well, they in many ways of do.

In this case, Warren would not just be a figurehead, she would take action to deal with hedge fund managers, work to protect our pensions, fight to keep credit card interest rates low, push regulation on pay day loaners, and work to end “to big to fail”. Geithner would say, “everything’s fine folk, keep moving…”

Tell the whining bankers who never did an honest days work to shut up. Support Warren.

Petition: http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f11d4b55-c029-478d-a14a-4bd8b6a87974

Petition 2: http://act.boldprogressives.org/act/call_demreps_maloneyletter/

Tell Obama to nominate Warren to CFPB:

President Obama
CO/ The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500-0004
or phone: (202) 456-1414
Or send note online:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Suddenly Geithner supports Warren? Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/geithner-praises-warren-hints-support-for-her-to-take-consumer-protection-post.html

For more financial muckracking

http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/2010/07/around-the-web-support-for-elizabeth-warren/&#035;

Reasons to support Warren:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704684604575381934250239018.html

http://afdportland.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/support-elizabeth-warren-for-chair-of-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/

More News: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/fear-factor-whats-keeping_b_661256.html

Why Chris Dodd is a coward on financial regulation:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCsQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2010%2F07%2F27%2Fdodd-nixes-elizabeth-warr_n_661115.html&ei=C0JQTP_ULY2osQPzxrX3Bw&usg=AFQjCNFy8eBpxcehLGuhC4TA-7DSjcbq-w

Remember, he’s from one of the largest financial services and insurance capitals in the nation, Connecticut.

Yours,
Tex Shelters

Help Wikileaker Private Bradley Manning

About three weeks ago, Wikileaks, the online muckraking site, released 77,000 classified documents out of 90,000 obtained that discuss U.S. operations in Afghanistan, past missions, collateral damage, failures and successes of the U.S. in the Near East “cemetery of empires”.

The mainstream media and even many alternative outlets quickly downplayed the leak by at once saying, “these documents undermine our national security” while at the same time saying, “there is nothing in the documents we didn’t already know”. It’s this kind of double speak that helped kill the story and undermined the evidentiary power of the documents that proved our strategy in Afghanistan is NOT working.

(Watch politicians worry about nothing new)

Lost in the stories and short term news cycles was the fact that the anti-war crowd had found their smoking gun that proved their accusations of civilian deaths, a strong Taliban resistance and ineffective strategy of the U.S. (coalition?) forces. No longer were these accusations hearsay; they had hard evidence that the war was NOT going well.

The media ignored the evidence and discussed the leak and Wikileaks while debating whether leaking this information was okay. The discussion of freedom of the press became the headline not the failings of our war efforts and lack of clear goals or strategy.

The White House and the military are now going after the whistleblower in the case, Private Bradley Manning. He is in jail awaiting trial for leaking the documents.

The New York Times decided to do a hatchet job on Private Manning in an article called, “Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case” (link)

Instead of focusing on the issues and reasons for his leaking of the documents, the fact that Manning disagreed with the U.S. tactics in the war, they have to paint him as a hurt gay man. “…classmates made fun of him for being a geek”, and “classmates made fun of him for being gay”. Yes, it’s those gay geeks that cause trouble.

Why mention those facts at all? It’s an attempt to discredit the information he leaked by discrediting the messenger. “his social life was defined by the need to conceal his sexuality under “don’t ask, don’t tell” and he wasted brainpower fetching coffee for officers.” He’s gay AND a coffee drinker. The NYT article infers that his mental derangement was the reason for his leaking of the documents and NOT a conscious objection to U.S. strategy and policy. Has anyone considered that the demoralizing effect of “don’t ask, don’t tell” would leave gay soldier to not give a damn what happens to them and make them less concerned what happens to them?

The NYT article continues to dissect his psychology and not the motive for releasing the documents, “At school, Bradley Manning was clearly different from most of his peers. He preferred hacking computer games rather than playing them, former neighbors said. And they said he seemed opinionated beyond his years about politics, religion, and even about keeping religion out of politics.” A gay communist computer geek is going to release this kind of information, for sure. “Private Manning refused to recite the parts of the Pledge of Allegiance that referred to God or do homework assignments that involved the Scriptures.” He’s a subversive for sure, and thus the war is okay because Manning is a gay commie computer geek that hates America.

” Private Manning’s parents divorced, he moved with his mother”, the article reads. He’s a mama’s boy from divorced parents, (that’s why he’s gay) gay computer geek communist atheist America hater. Thus, the information PFC Manning released in not credible.

“Former students at his school there, Tasker Milward, remembered Private Manning being teased for all sort of reasons. His American accent. His love of Dr Pepper. The amount of time he spent huddled before a computer.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/us/09manning.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

Release of those documents by this Doctor Pepper loving momma’s boy computer geek of divorce communist gay atheist America hater shows how desperate he was for attention. And he was friends with outcast Tasker Milward. Thus, any information in those documents on Wikileaks is NOT credible.

Instead of spending all that space attacking Pfc Manning, the NYT should spend it’s time following the leaks, discussing the implications of the leaks, analyzing the content and reporting on the war.

Write the Ombudsman (Public Editor) at the NYT and/or Cancel your subscription

Contact

• E-mail: public@nytimes.com
• Phone: (212) 556-7652
• Address: Public Editor
  The New York Times
  620 Eighth Avenue
  New York, NY 10018

Hears my letter to the NYT Public Editor

Dear Editor:

The article “Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case” is unwarranted character assassination against Pfc Manning.

Instead of spending your time and space attacking Pfc Manning for being gay, or hurt, or “troubled” or gay, the NYT should spend it’s time following the leaks, discussing the implications of the leaks, analyzing the content and reporting on the war.

I can only assume that the Times wanted to discredit Private Manning as a way to discredit his tactics or leaking of the documents. Please stick to the news and leave the gossip to People Magazine.

Yours,
ABCD aka Tex Shelters
AZ

Support the release of Private Manning

Bradley Manning Support Network
http://www.bradleymanning.org/

If you can, Donate to the Defense Fund: https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=36678

Send Private Bradley a letter of support:

Inmate: Bradley Manning
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134
USA

Brig phone: +1 (703)432-6154

Brig fax: +1 (703)784-4242

Sign the Online Petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/manning1/petition.html

Visit Courage to Resist and take more actions for more resisters
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/849/122/

“Blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime,” says former Marine Corporal Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist, a group working with the Bradley Manning Support Network to raise funds for Pfc. Manning’s defense. (link)

Radical Representative wants to see Manning executed for leaking the facts.

Last week, Representative Mike Rogers called for the execution of military whistleblower, Private Bradley Manning. His crime? Sharing the “Collateral Murder” video and the classified Afghanistan “war logs” with Wikileaks, which exposed the truth behind the failing war in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s cooperation with the Taliban, and potential war crimes. The 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst said he felt it was “important that it gets out…I feel, for some bizarre reason…it might actually change something.” He is currently in jail at Quantico, on suicide watch, and is facing up to 50 years in prison for exposing information the American public has the right to know.
(link)

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Gibbs and the White House Using the Republican Playbook, again

In the good old days, Republicans would throw out the word “liberal” to attack and discredit Democrats and those more progressive than themselves. Thankfully, the Republicans now have the White House to do it for them.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is blaming the “professional left” for criticizing Obama. (I hope I am part of the “professional left” too!) What Gibbs wants is lock-step Democrats, liberals and progressives like the Republican clone machine. Gibbs wants us to support Obama even if he continues the policies we attacked Bush for such as warrantless wiretapping, don’t ask don’t tell, the Afghan war, and bailouts to the banks.

And, Gibbs wants us to be content with the health care bill that is a sell out to the health care industry and big pharma and also love the banking regulations bill that doesn’t address “too big to fail”. Well Mr. Gibbs, only 20% of the nation is hardcore Republican voters and the rest of us don’t accept whatever the President does even if we voted for him in 2008. Instead of talking to us like adults, Gibbs acts like a hurt child.

“These people (liberals) ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality. They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.” (link)

I have news for you Mr. Gibbs: liberals would be very happy if Rep. Kucinich was in the White House and NOT Obama. And we would hold Dennis Kucinich to task if he didn’t fulfill his promises. Gibbs wants to make Obama’s presidency thus far about loyalty to a man instead of sticking to principles. Sorry. For progressives, principle is more important than the man or his office. Gibbs is creating his own fantasy land of paranoia like Republican talking heads on Fox and elsewhere. Almost NO ONE has called for the elimination of the Pentagon. Can you name anyone who has Mr. Gibbs?

Alan Grayson Says It Well

“He (Gibbs) belongs on Fox, not as the White House Spokesman.”

Read More
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/40926.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html

Actions:

I suggest two options. Write Gibbs and tell him to “shut the fuck up, you’re losing the election for Obama and the Democrats” or you can write Obama and tell him to fire Gibbs.

I’ll take the later option.

President Obama
CO/ The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500-0004
or phone: (202) 456-1414

Or send note online:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Here’s my letter to Obama.

Honorable President Obama:

I hope that the remarks of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs do not mirror your feelings about “the professional left” or any liberals or progressives that worked hard to get you elected.

Many liberals are already disappointed in your term, but we understand your challenges. The words of Mr. Gibbs only increases the gulf between the White House and your base of supporters in an unstable time for your party.

Mr. Gibbs needs to be fired before he loses more Democratic support, Democratic seats, or your election in 2012.

Yours,

Or you can just thank the Obama White House for acting like Republicans once more by attacking the “left”.

Yours,
Tex Shelters