texshelters

Archive for the ‘Election Politics’ Category

Facts about Class, Poverty and Downward Mobility

In Current Events, Election Politics, History on September 28, 2011 at 00:26

BY BOB ENGLEHART from politicalcartoons.com

There is a group of citizens that steals from taxpayers so they can sit on their divans and watch their high definition 3D televisions, eat subsidized food products and sponge off the American people. I am of course talking about the ruling elites. Republicans, however, want you to believe it’s welfare recipients that have created our economic troubles when it is unrestrained corporate and bourgeoisie greed that has brought about the economic collapse of the United States.

People project personal and societal problems onto convenient, weak targets such as the poor who have been villainized by the mass media. They are also scape goats for people who still believe in the myth of the American dream. The “American dream” is the idea that if you work hard, you will succeed. Thus, you won’t need welfare; only the lazy and undeserving receive welfare.

The idea of the American dream is one of the most successful pieces of propaganda ever perpetuated. If we believe in the dream, we can dismiss or outright ignore economic, social, and demographic realities that have more to do with economic impoverishment than any supposed behavioral deficiencies on the part of welfare recipients.

You are more likely to fall form middle class to lower class than you are to rise from middle class to the upper class. “The Pew study looked at Americans who were between the ages of 14 and 17 in 1979, and living at home with their parents that year. For teenagers who were part of the middle class in 1979 — defined as the 30th through 70th percentile of income — about 28 percent of them had fallen out of it, meaning below the 30th percentile of income, by 2006.” (link)

Part of the cause of this downward economic movement has been a drop in real wages for all but the top economic earners during that time period. “The Center for American Progress reported how between 1979 and 2007 the average income of the bottom 50 percent of American households grew by 6%; the top 1% saw their income increase by 229 percent.”  (1979-2007).

During the same period, inflation went up about 118% (1979-2007), more than doubling prices. Real wages, wages compared to inflation, has been dropping. But you won’t hear the Republican presidential candidates mention this except as way to blame the poor and attack Social Security, Medicaid and other government programs to aid the lower and middle classes.

Economic class at birth determines your economic opportunities in life, or as Max Weber put it, your class is identified with your market position and it determines your “life chances.”

Those that attack welfare recipients as being lazy and not motivated ignore the reality of class and market position. Of course there are examples of people who have overcome poverty and become wealthy. However, a 2006 study funded by the Center for American Progress showed that there was only a 1% chance of a person in the lowest quintile (bottom 20%) of becoming a member of upper quintile, the top 20% of national incomes.

The Heartland Alliance creates an even bleaker picture of poverty. “Intergenerational elasticity in earnings is estimated to be around 0.6 – this is the correlation in earnings between parents and their children in adulthood. This means that for a hypothetical family of four whose current income is at the poverty line, it would take the descendants of the family 5 to 6 generations (125 to 150 years) before their income will be within 5 percent of the national average.18…African Americans and single mothers and their children are less likely to be upwardly mobile than other groups.20”  (link)

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.

According to Professor G. William Domhoff in his newly updated “Wealth, Income and Power” (2011), the top 1% wealthy people in the U.S. control 34.6% of the nation’s wealth and the next 19% highest control an addition 50.5%. That means the top 20% wealthiest people in the U.S. control over 85% of the wealth leaving 15% for the rest of us. It is clear that if the poor are stealing from us, they are inept thieves. With the top quintile currently hoarding their wealth, how is a poor person with insufficient education, living in a run down neighborhood with little in terms of “life chances” supposed to dig out of poverty?

Why don’t people hate the corporate criminals who created hedge funds to bet against mortgages Wall Street Banks and mortgages firms originated? Those same companies write tax codes for themselves so they pay little or nothing into our nations treasury. They are too strong and powerful, and if you want to get elected to state or national office, you dare not take them on.

We must dispel the myths perpetrated by the far-right and others that welfare recipients are all lazy, all greedy, all selfish and that they are all stealing from us.

Reason people are poor

It might be news to many people in America, and especially the far right, but people aren’t poor by choice. There are reasons for poverty.

Being poor is harder today, for the economic and political climate around poverty has changed dramatically since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.  “Over the past 25 years significant structural changes have occurred in the United States that have influenced poverty, making current-day poverty different in some ways from poverty just a few decades ago. These structural changes include transformations in our economic structure such as the shift from manufacturing employment to service-sector employment; the de-institutionalization of people with mental illnesses into community settings; welfare reform, which resulted in a an emphasis on work over welfare; changes in immigration patterns; and skyrocketing rates of incarceration.” (link) Today there is no “War on Poverty”, just a war on the poor.

The current crop of the Republicans want to cut into the social safety net during a recession, a time when more people need help than any other. “Recessions…have a disproportionate impact on lower-income families because they cause rising unemployment, a reduction in work hours, and the stagnation of family incomes – all of which have the greatest impact for those with the least income to begin with.” (Ibid) But Republicans want to use the debt crisis to cut from and eliminate programs to aid the poor  and anyone that’s not a billionaire donor to their party.

Layoffs lead to poverty and government spending creates jobs and reduces poverty. But Republicans don’t deal with economic reality; they live in a realm of ideology devoid of facts. “Unemployment rates, wages, and inequality are used to measure the impact of economic performance on poverty, and all have rather consistently predicted poverty over the past two decades.22”  (Ibid)

Here are some of the reasons someone might enter into poverty or be poor, according to research by the Heartland Alliance.

1. “Individuals in households that experience a loss of employment are the most likely to enter poverty.”

2. A reduction in household earnings. “Almost half (49.3%) of poverty spells begin when the household experiences a decline in earnings.”

3. Low Wages. Having a job is not the answer if wages are too low. One quarter of all workers earn poverty wages.

4. Lack of high a school diploma. Despite the link to poverty, we have a high rate of high school drop outs in the United States.

5. Health care costs are a huge factor in poverty.

And the number one reason for poverty is…

6. lack of jobs.

Support President Obama’s jobs program and his attempts to raise revenue from the top tax brackets. That is one way they would become the “job creators” that they lie about being.

Links to ignorant hatred around welfare reform:
http://thebustednut.net/2011/07/19/idea-how-about-we-change-it-from-welfare-recipients-to-government-handout-grubbing-lazy-fucks/
http://www.angry.net/people/w/welfare_recipients.htm
http://ktsmere.hubpages.com/hub/Lazy-welfare-recipients

Supportive post on welfare lies:
http://www.homehealthinsider.com/2011/02/15/question-for-conservatives-do-you-believe-all-welfare-recipients-are-lazy-neer-do-well-crack-addicts/comment-page-1/#comment-21621

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Advertisements

Michelle Bachman’s Not the Problem

In Current Events, Economics, Election Politics, History on August 31, 2011 at 01:40

Michelle Bachmann exists as a symptom and a distraction. While the left (and others) writes endlessly about Bachmann, what we need to do is address the ignorant nationalistic and dominionist right-wing ideology from which she sprang.

First, we must address religious intolerance and the moral superiority complex of the far right in the United States.

Bachmann believes in Dominionism, the idea that people of faith are mandated by God to be politically involved. They believe that they need to be politically involved because they are the chosen people and the only ones that can faithfully carry out God’s plan. But Dominionism did not start nor will it end with Bachmann. Dominionism has also been called, “Christian Nationalism”, “Kingdom Now Theology”, “Dominion Theology”, or “Restoration Theology”. Bachmann and her ilk, from George Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and others practice this politicized brand of faith. And even if a candidate is not a Dominionist, groups like the Southern Baptist Convention, the Christian Coalition with their legislative agenda, Assembly of God (known for funding John Ashcroft’s congressional campaigns) among others push candidates to accept their far-right religion infused legislative agenda. They help choose the Republican Congressional candidates, in many cases being King, or should I say Queen, makers.

From gay marriage, reproductive planning, education, immigration laws, and other policy areas, Dominionists are actively trying to create public policy based on their theology. And if you are not of their faith, you are out of luck. Freedom of Religion is merely an obstacle to dominionists, not a right of all people in the United States. And if you are a practicing Muslim, dominionists won’t care about your immigration status, years of residence, community standing or law abiding history. All Muslims are suspect to the religious right. Herman Cain called forth the specter of McCarthyism by saying that Muslims would have to take a loyalty oath to work for him. Republican leaders fought the Muslim community center in New York City, Oklahoma banned Sharia law  (as if it was about to be applied), among other bigoted acts and fear mongering involving Islam and the far right. Attacks against innocent people in the United States solely because of their Muslim faith increased dramatically after Sept 11, 2001. The language of the Republican party against Muslims only makes such attacks more likely.

If Republicans take over the White House and gain control of the Senate, they will pass Jim Crow style laws against Muslims as soon as they take power. After they are done with the Muslims, the atheists will be next, then non-Christians and so on.

We must also educate each other and our children to fight Republican historical revisionism.

History and economics doesn’t deter the far right from promoting failed economic policies. We have had ten years since the Bush tax cuts, and the far right still argues that tax cuts create jobs. One look at the rise in unemployment since the Bush tax cuts will disprove that theory, and a look at historical tax rates show that high tax rates can be correlated to high employment. Notice, I didn’t say that correlation of high taxes with high employment proves causality, for I am not a Republican who confuses correlation with causality. The point is, there is no evidence that tax cuts create jobs and there is plenty of anecdotal and historical evidence that tax cuts don’t work.

Republicans and the far right also argue that cutting spending at a time of high unemployment will rescue the economy. The fact is that cuts in spending leads to public and private sector layoffs.  This leads to cuts into the amount if money in the economy and thus spending, which leads to further layoffs. But these economic and historical facts don’t deter the far right from demanding spending cuts, nor does it deter President Obama from considering them.

Bachmann and the right want desperately to have a gun in every pot, and so they make up history to meet their gun loving ideology. Sarah Palin, a staunch gun defender, told us that Paul Revere took his famous ride to warn the British not to take our guns. You see, she wouldn’t let historical facts get in the way of her ideology. The truth is that no Congress has ever tried to pass a ban on gun use in the United States, and they never will.

When fear of Islam was failing Bachmann, she called on the fear of the Soviet Union to rescue her. Recently on a Christian radio show, she reminded us what Americans fear, “They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward.” Doesn’t Bachmann realize that the Soviet Union is deader than Ronald Reagan?

But it fits in with her fear of the outsider and fear of the foreign, and she won’t let history deter her from calling on that fear to garner support.

Republicans like Representative Kurt Zellers ignore the fact that voting is right in order to pass laws to restrict the vote. When asked about laws restricting voting, he failed to get the facts straight, “I think it’s a privilege, it’s not a right.” Actually, it’s a right written in the Constitution in several places.

Republicans ignore the history of the Great Depression where unfettered capitalism created a run on the stock market, overproduction of goods with no buyers, and the worst economic collapse in world history, so far. They ignore this history because it interferes with their free market fetishism. They even ignore the recent history where over production and over investing in housing led to the recent recession.

Instead, the Republican leadership once again call on tax cuts as the solution, because as we have seen, tax cuts lead to reinvestment, right? And tax cuts lead to public spending cuts and leads to more layoffs. The trick is repeating that tax cuts will lead us out of the recession over and over again and convincing enough people that this is true to avoid a complete revolt.

There is also the myth that regulation hurts investment, but there are fewer regulations today then there were in the Clinton era when the economy did well. There is no evidence that a reduction in regulation helps our economy and will lead to investment, unless you count as evidence the self-serving statements of corporations who will benefit financially if they can pollute the environment and poison us with impunity.

“An analysis conducted by the Washington Post at the end of Bush’s first term found that since he took office, federal agencies had begun roughly one-quarter fewer regulations than President Clinton and 13 percent fewer than Bush’s father during their first terms.”

So, if cutting regulations will improve our economy, why after all the cuts in regulations under Bush isn’t our economy booming? The cutting of regulations leading to a better economy is a lie looking for evidence. Yes, we can find examples of over regulation and regulations that might cost us, in the short run. But regulations are put in place for the long term health of the economy.

Author Nomi Prins worked at Goldman Sachs before writing books on economics from an insiders perspective including, “It Takes a Pillage.” The book lays out the facts that a large part of the mortgage industry collapse that lead to the current recession was due to deregulation of the banking and mortgage industry. So much for deregulation saving us. It has instead lead to the biggest economic collapse in decades. Republicans lie about deregulation being the cure all because it would help out their patrons if they didn’t have to be concerned with ethical, ecological, and health and safety concerns when creating and selling their products. Again, they demand larger profits at the expense of people.

Republicans also ignore the history of abortion before and after Roe V. Wade to promote their pro-fetus agenda. Certainly, no one is “pro-abortion.” However, as this doctor points out, it is only option for some women, “The familiar symbol of illegal abortion is the infamous “coat hanger” — which may be the symbol, but is in no way a myth. In my years in New York, several women arrived with a hanger still in place. Whoever put it in — perhaps the patient herself — found it trapped in the cervix and could not remove it.”

And what of the women that didn’t make it to the hospital for medical help? While the statistics on abortion related deaths are uncertain, ranging from 1000-10,000 deaths a year before the Supreme Court Roe V. Wade decision, a thousand deaths is too much to tolerate, and banning abortion won’t change the reality that some women will die during an illegal procedure. But in the world of Republicans, a woman’s life isn’t worth that of a fetus, so safe procedures, and contraception, should be banned.

It is clear by all accounts that making abortion illegal won’t end abortions. It will, however, make them less safe for women without means. On the other hand, abortion will remain safe for the wealthy who can travel or hire private doctors to do the procedure. Republicans want to ignore this reality because they live in a fantasy land where unwanted and unsafe pregnancies won’t happen to them and theirs, and everyone has options when they become pregnant. This is not true. Not all women have options when they become pregnant.

Many of the religious right are also against the main tool used to reduce unwanted pregnancies, contraception. No one is “pro-abortion”, and it’s the far right that ignore the real consequences of a ban on abortions for their fantasy-land ideology and hatred of reproductive freedom.

We must acknowledge that Bachmann, Perry and Palin are symptoms and act accordingly.

If Republicans didn’t have Bachmann, they’d have to invent her. For too long the Democrats, progressives, liberals and moderates have let the racism and nationalism of the far right go unaddressed in policy forums. And “professional liberals” spend too much time mocking easy targets like Bachmann while ignoring the systematic exporting of jobs and cash by large corporations and the criminal military contractors like Blackwater that Jeremy Scahill writes about.

While the largest media outlets in the United States talk about Bachmann, apparently unimportant issues like corporate earnings, corporate welfare, poverty, unemployment, and a growing income gap get largely ignored. Poverty continues to be overlooked because it’s depressing and we don’t want to read or watch stories about things we can’t solve. However, “In the past six months, the Post has published online or in print 34 staff-written stories plus 12 wire service stories on Bachmann” and only five about Ron Paul who has spent twelve terms in Congress compared to Bachman’s three. Liberals need to stop adding to the Bachmann chorus and start writing about the issues.

Other underlying issues that must be address so fewer Bachmanns get undeserved press attention include: poverty, income inequality, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, fear of change, election laws and corporate speech, and lies about “family values”.

Let’s work on the issues that concern us and fight the Bachmanns of the world by promoting education, inclusiveness and good governance.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Republican Plans for Amerikkka: A New Stormfront

In Election Politics, History on August 24, 2011 at 16:42

The projected far right’s final solution, platform, for America in 2012

Republicans have been shy about their true agenda. As the economy collapses and wars rage, 2012 is an opportunity to come from behind the shadows of our past leaders and tell America where we stand, a time to demand Americans to follow or be left behind. We are the number one people on the planet, and we need to start acting that way. As the party of God moves further to the right of Joseph McCarthy and Nathan Bedford Forrest, here is my vision for a more expansive America and what I foresee as their 2012 platform. 

1. As part of the Corporate class of America and its allies, we demand that all people unite under a single banner to create a greater United States for real Americans.

2. We demand equal rights for the all people and respect from other nations and the cancellation of all debt to China and all creditor countries.

3. We demand lower taxes, Bibles, and flags to feed our People and tranquilize our excess population.

4. Only Corporatists (People of the Dollar) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of American blood can be Corporatists, regardless of bank affiliation. No Liberal can be a U.S. National.

5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in the United States only as a guest and must be subject to registration and strict supervision. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state, or local office.

6. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals, Muslims, gays, gypsies and liberals, (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the nation.

7. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-citizens who entered the United States after Sept. 11, 2001 be forced to leave the Empire without delay.

8. All Citizens must have equal rights and duties as the Corporostate allows.

9. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work at the lowest possible pay except for specialists determined by the state. Individual activity must not be harmful to the Corporate interest and must be pursued within the framework of the Corporation and for the general good of said Corporations.

We therefore demand:
10. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort, i.e. the end of all Social Security including SSI, food stamps, disability payments, veteran’s benefits, free lunches for children, tuition deferments without labor, and so forth, to be determined by the Corporate head of state.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest

11. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Empire by every war, personal gain from the wars must limited to contractors and suppliers to the war effort. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war related media and information not sponsored by the media monopoly and approved by the board of the FCC.

12. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises and moneys to be converted into Corporations or for the use of said Corporations.

13 . We demand profit-sharing in large Corporations to members of Congress that pass laws for them…Please.

14. We demand the large-scale dissolution of old-age pension schemes.

15. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound upper class; the immediate corporatization of the American people, which are to be leased at low rates for profit making enterprises. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of corporations in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities. We demand the continuation of no-bid contracts so competition won’t drive down costs or profits.

16. We demand land reform in accordance with our Empire’s needs and a law for expropriation of land without compensation for Corporate purposes. Abolition of rent for Corporations and prevention of all speculation in land not by Monsanto and other large agra-business firms and Corporations worth less than $100 billion will be prohibited.

17. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against Corporate profit in general are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race and without due process.

18. We demand the replacement of the New Deal, which serves as a wealth sharing and life saving set of socialistic creeds, by the laws of a pure free market, a market that we will continue to control for our own wealth enhancement.

19. In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions— available to every able and industrious Citizen, the Corporation must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State and Corporations must be achieved through the schools (teaching of the Bible, Ayn Rand and Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of wealthy parents. We demand that the arts, ethnic studies, and unapproved versions of history be eliminated from the class room.

20. The State must raise the level of national health by means of pharmaceuticals, the banning of alternative medicines, achievement of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training such as MMA organizations and NASCAR. Sports will be a unifying force for America, and thus we will ban all sports in which we don’t excel, like soccer.

21. We demand that more of the budget goes into the creation of a national army.

22. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies be eliminated. It is our right to lie, and to the best liars go the spoils.

Thus, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the American language must be American by race;

b) non-American newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the American language;

c) any financial participation in an American newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Americans and the penalty for any breech of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Empire of the non-American involved.

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements. The Corporostate will determine what “American” means.

23. We demand freedom for all Christian denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the Corporostate or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the American race. The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Muslim-terrorist spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our Nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of:

Corporate Interest before Public Interest.

24. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Empire. Unquestioned authority by the political central Corporate state over the entire Empire and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Empire’s basic laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points. Houston, August 21, 2011.

A special thinks to the coauthors of the Republican platform.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/25points.htm

Remember, friends don’t let friends vote Republican.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

 

Defending the Power Elite in America Against the Interests of the People: The Case of the United States Government

In Election Politics, History on August 3, 2011 at 09:48

This is a special updated edition of an article that lays to bear the problems with government that have been all to evident in the “debt crisis” talks. Not only have the latest talks shown that public opinion means less and less to our federal government, but it demonstrates how the wealthy classes are the protected class in our society. They are protected from taxes to pay for what they receive from us, responsibility to protect the environment, workers and customers, and accountability for the mistakes they made to get us into this recession. Instead of laying out the debt crisis and the problems with the talks, what others have done better than I could, I have laid out what must be done to start the path toward democracy in the United States.  

Defending the Power Elite in America Against the Interests of the People: The Case of the United States Government

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.

There are several ways the status quo, government run by the powerful and not the people, is protected in the United States.

1. The two party monopoly

Many democracies have multiparty systems. Having more parties means more competition, but apparently the two parties in charge only like the mythical competition of the economic markets and the competition on the football pitch. When it comes to political competition, they want to limit it as much as possible.

While I believe that many Tea Party supporters are deluded and extreme if they feel the Republican Party cares about them, they are challenging the two-party monopoly. I support that even if it comes from the far right. The complaints from the left of Obama’s own party makes it clear we could have a more liberal party than the Democrats. But in the United States you have two flavors of political ice cream, vanilla and vanilla bean: same basic corporate flavor with a different name. (link)

Another thing that the two-party monopoly does is limit the acceptable background of politicians in the United States. At the moment, it is unlikely we would have a candidate, let alone a president, from the lower classes like Lula Da Silva of Brazil. To become President in the United States you must be religious (not atheist or agnostic), Protestant (with the exception of President Kennedy thus far), you must have college degree. Being a lawyer is a major advantage and having a business degree is also helpful.

Furthermore, out of our forty-three Presidents, only one has been not all white, and there have been no women. There are no blacks in the current Senate. That is not representative. There are, however, forty-four blacks in the House of Representatives, which is the approximate percent of the population (close to 10%). This amplifies my arguments that the Senate is undemocratic. What about Hispanic representation? Two in the Senate and thirty in the House of Representatives. While the Senate is ruled by wealthy Whites, the House is much closer to what the United States actually looks like. (link) The two political parties in the United States are richer, whiter, and more educated that the rest of the United States. How could they ever have the interests of the working classes at heart when they aren’t one of us? It’s possible, but Congress demonstrates more clearly by the day how out of touch they are.

2. The Constitution

You might be wondering why I put the Constitution on a list discussing the barriers to a more democratic society. There are several reasons, some of which I discuss throughout this article. To put it in broad terms, it is a barrier because it codifies some of the problems with our democracy such as the Senate and the process for electing our presidents. The other reason is the sacred nature of the document. Like the Bible, the Constitution is taken as gospel, until you disagree with it. “But it’s in the Constitution”, or “But it’s not in the Constitution” are oft used phrases when one wants to end political debate. However, like the Bible, the Constitution accepted slavery and even made allowances for it with the 3/5s rule as well as containing other undemocratic policies. (link)

The Bill of Rights, if we adhere to them, is what’s best about our secular/holy document, but the plan of government needs updating, and we need to add amendments protecting people’s voting rights and ending corporate personhood to improve our failing democratic institutions.

3. Winner takes all

In a winner takes all election, you can win a congressional seat by one vote. The loser gets nothing. For example, the Senate candidate in California could win a seat with 6,000,001 votes while the loser gets 6,000,000 votes. That means there are 6 million voters who have no representative of their choosing. If we had a proportional representation system in the Senate (a body I want to dismantle as you will see later), the losing party would get the number of seats in proportion to the votes they received. In the case above, they would get half of the seats, minus one. Thus the “loser” would have a say and those views would be represented. Some people say that the system we have works, so why change it. Take a look at Congress and tell me if it’s really working. (link)

Sociologist G. William Domhoff has made a career studying elections and political systems.  He discusses the advantages of a proportional representation system,

In contrast to a system based on districts and pluralities, countries with systems of proportional representation usually have four or more parties, and would have even more if there wasn’t a minimum vote that has to be reached to receive any seats at all. Although the centrist parties soak up most of the votes, these countries are often governed by a coalition of two or more parties. Roughly speaking, there are left-of-center, center-left, center-right, and right-of-center coalitions. In this kind of system, everyone’s vote counts, and voter turnout is therefore very high. (link)

In Domhoff’s book “Who Rules America”, he reviews statistics comparing winner-takes-all systems versus proportional representation. It is clear from the data that proportional representation systems have much higher voter participation while providing more choices, and they are thus more democratic. The two ruling parties in the U.S. will not allow a proportional voting system that would interfere with their two party monopoly.

The positive side to the Tea Party ideology is that is shows a split in one of the major parties that could, over time, lead to a sustainable third party in America. We could also sustain a left of center party to compete with the corporate Democrats. Until the rules on elections change to allow more third party challenges, rules from registration requirements to costs for entry and proportional representation, citizens are doomed to vote between two inadequate parties.

4. Money Dominated and not Vote Dominated Elections

Money controls politics to a large extent in the United States. Those that defend this say that it has always been this way and that it would be undemocratic to not allow unlimited money from the wealthy to be used in elections. That means Congress is for sale. (link) By allowing unlimited campaign donations for corporations, the Supreme Court has moved the already corporate dominated U.S. Government even further toward a day when one just need buy a seat in Congress without the pretense of voting. Until we limit this money in elections, end the lie of corporate personhood, and treat everyone’s money as equal, our elections will be corrupted by those that can pay the most to have their candidate elected. Read my post about this here.

Post on the Supreme Court “Citizens United” ruling that gives corporations unlimited donation power.

5.
Presidential Election System

Our presidential primary system starts in two less populated states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Iowa primary is not even a vote by the people. It has a caucus (group meetings with the party faithful) that favors party insiders and not candidates with alternative ideas. The primary in New Hampshire has very small turnout. For example, only three to four percent of voters nominated McCain in New Hampshire. (link) So a few thousand votes in a small state decided who would represent the Republicans in 2008.

Furthermore, many state party primaries block those not registered with one of the two major parties from their primaries, and thus they promote the two party monopoly. Independents, non-aligned voters, don’t have a say. Thus, voters are coerced to sign-up with one of the two parties or have no vote in the primaries that determine the choice for president. And by the time the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are over, most of the candidates, often those with the most interesting ideas, have been eliminated. Iowa and New Hampshire, with about 2.5% of the U.S. population, have more say about the nominees that other states.

New Hampshire is mostly rural. So is Iowa. They are also states that have a higher percentage of White people than most of America. So why are those the first two presidential primary states?  If Brown of CA, Scott in FLA and Cuomo in NY (Governors of three populous and diverse states) pushed for a change and asked their legislatures to move up their primaries, the primary system would have an outside chance of changing.

Iowa compared to US demographics
New Hampshire compared to the United States

Other problems with the primary process are the debates that limit participation of candidates, even those on the ballots, and the system of super delegates that allows only party insiders votes. These groups are by nature about uniformity and not rocking the boat, and they insure that no reformer gets on the ballot to challenge the fundamental power of the ruling elite. If a candidate outside the mainstream of the Democratic elite gets a lot of popular support, if they might challenge the neoliberal and imperialist model of our nation state, the super delegates can override the popular vote. So while people say we have a democracy, the choice of candidates is severely restricted by party insiders, money, and the election process.

6. The Electoral College System

We should of course rid our selves of the undemocratic Electoral College system that allows candidates with fewer votes to win the presidency. (link) The electoral college was set up because the founding fathers believed that the average citizen was too easily manipulated and couldn’t be trusted with the direct election of the president, “Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice.” We are not trusted with democracy, so we can’t directly vote for president and have to rely on the college.  (link)

7. The Senate

The Senate is a “representative” legislative body that gives inordinate power to less populated states that skew toward a more traditionalist, conservative politics. Because they are over represented, less populated states take more resources per capita than more populous states and can block policies that would help the more urban states. It is counter to our stated ideology of one person, one vote. One vote in Montana for Senator is equal to the value of 70 votes in California. It also skews the Electoral College, based on the number of representatives in Congress, toward the less populated states. Before rejecting this unusual idea of eliminating the Senate, read my complete criticism here. (link)

We vote every fall or spring hoping that might make a difference, and some times it does. But 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. Our presidents will also continue to be beholden to corporations such as big oil, big agra, big pharma and Wall Street bankers and investment firms like Goldman Sachs, AIG and Bank of America. Until the rigged game changes, the people of the United States will always have inadequate representation. And, the voice of the majority of the population will be subverted by corporate money and ideology.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Obama Dismisses Progressives, Again

In Current Events, Economics, Election Politics on July 20, 2011 at 01:13

It is true that President Obama’s term in office began during the worst economic downturn in the United States in more than seventy-five years. It is also true that the President inherited two wars along with ecological problems, energy dependency, a health insurance crisis, and a massive deficit. So what happened with President Obama and the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress? He negotiated his way to mediocrity.

Let’s assume that President Obama is a moderate Democrat with some liberal ideas. One liberal idea that Obama once said he supported was single payer health care. So why after he became President, did he start the health care debate by saying that “single payer is off the table”?  Even the people selling things in pawn stores know that you don’t give away too much before the negotiations begin.

Obama didn’t push for single payer health care at all. He backed down before the discussion started. What’s the worst that could have happened? What if Obama had supported the single payer bill pushed by progressive Democrats and the Republicans and Conservative Democrats had rejected it? After it failed, he could have gone to his back up position, a public option. He would have looked like the compromiser instead of the capitulator, and he would have honored progressives by at least putting his support behind their bill. Even if he had changed his mind, he would have backed up his earlier statements and pleased a huge part of his base. But President Obama started out in a weak position by not pushing single payer first. The argument on whether Obama still supports single payer health care can be had elsewhere.

Another rebuff of progressives was keeping the Bush era tax cuts. The Republicans were holding unemployment hostage, among other things, and so Obama felt compelled to continue the Bush era tax cuts for those making over $250,000. Also at the end of 2010, as Obama backed down on ending the tax cuts thus giving more money to those that had enough already, he called for a freeze in pay to all federal workers. Now I know some Democrats find a freeze in pay while funding the wealthy fine and dandy, to give more money to those who don’t need it and then freeze salaries on working families, but as you can imagine, this angered quite a few progressives who had expected that Obama would fulfill this promise. It seemed like a forgone conclusion that didn’t take any Congressional action for the tax cuts were set to expire on January 1st, 2011. And, it would have happened before the new Republican dominated House took office on January 6th. Instead of calling on the top bracket to pay their share, Congress and the White House would have to find another way to balance the budget; for example, cuts to social programs like education and health care.

Ignoring the progressive caucus’s People’s Budget is another slight to progressives among dozens. The People’s Budget is more fiscally sound than any other budget proposal in the offing. And of course, Obama doesn’t want to taut it over his own tepid budget, although his is miles better than the Ryan plan.

The latest slight to progressives is ignoring the pleas to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head the agency she help create, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. Obama has received tens of thousands of letters supporting her nomination, but to no avail.

Obama’s reasons for not choosing Warren comes down to the same old conceit; he can’t win. Again, when Obama has a chance to make his case and embarrass the Republican party for their narrow pursuit of protecting the interests of the banks before the people, he echews the opportunity.

Republicans have stated clearly that they wouldn’t accept any nomination for this post. There will be a fight, regardless of the nominee. So why back down from your first choice? Is it because Obama doesn’t respect nor care about what the progressives in his party think?

As David Lazarus makes clear in the LA Times, it wasn’t about Warren. Republicans won’t pick anyone for the agency the way it is constituted. “But in my chats with agency insiders, it was similarly clear that the real fight wasn’t about Warren. It was about a demand from the banking industry and its GOP cronies that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be run by a five-person board rather than a single director.” (ibid)

So why not please the progressives for a change and support her nomination, especially if all nominations to this post will be summarily rejected by Republicans?

As one insider added,  “”Obama doesn’t look good not standing up for Warren. The agency was her idea. She’s done all the hard work. This seems like a slap in the face to Warren.””

Lazarus continues, “And now, despite the harsh lessons of the mortgage meltdown and repeated bailouts of reckless and rapacious Wall Street firms, the GOP is stubbornly attempting to cripple a new agency charged with overseeing credit cards, mortgages, payday loans and other financial products that are easily abused by businesses.”

The good news is that Obama vows to fight! I’d laugh if I wasn’t crying.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

The Language of Shared Sacrifice

In Current Events, Economics, Election Politics on July 16, 2011 at 21:14

President Obama has been using the term “shared sacrifice” in an effort to get Republicans to compromise with him over the budget. Obama is asking for more revenue in tax increases and closure of some tax loopholes for corporations and the upper 1%, and the Republicans, in general, want cut to social programs like Medicare and Social Security.

So, Obama said that he will meet the Republicans part way and discuss cuts if Republicans are willing to raise revenues, i.e. raise some taxes. The President calls for “shared sacrifice.” Although giving more in taxes when you can afford it seems less of a sacrifice than losing your health care or job or being unable to pay your heating costs in winter, the “GOP say they’ve sacrificed enough already on debt negotiations.”

What has the GOP really sacrificed? To sacrifice, you have to have something to give up. The Republicans are so bound to a failed ideology called “trickle down economics” that they think it is a sacrifice to reconsider these policies. Just voting for an increase in the debt ceiling is considered a “shared sacrifice” by what Republicans call their “leadership.”

Yes, voting to keep the United States from defaulting on debt payments and avoiding thousands of layoffs is a sacrifice for many Republicans. It’s a lot to give up, having to help unworthy public and private sector workers.

Yes, helping avoid a down grade in the U.S. credit rating and raising the cost of the current debt is a “sacrifice”. And of course, helping the United States retain it’s place as a nation to invest in, as one of the world’s leading economies is a big sacrifice. It’s too hard for Republicans to sacrifice so much to make sure the economy is stable.

How about getting those that so far have sacrificed nothing during the recession to sacrifice their share? The banks, investment houses, most of Wall Street, CEOs, the Koch brothers, oil companies, most of Congress, and so on should now “sacrifice” for a while so that the unemployed, homeless, jobless, uninsured, and destitute don’t have to sacrifice more.

Obama’s logic is faulty. To say we need “shared sacrifice” it to argue that all parties have the same to lose. To say we need “shared sacrifice” is to ignore how much we and so many of our fellow citizens have sacrificed in lost pensions, homes and savings so a few money managers could make millions on credit default swaps and betting against our economy by buying stocks in these swaps on margin.

Who suffers more, a CEO who fails to get a bonus because of a poor economy but still gets his/her million plus dollar salary, or the millions of workers who have lost their jobs since 2008?

Who suffers more, Exxon/Mobil or the people who can’t afford their pain medication due to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid?

Who suffers more, GE (and other corporations) who may no longer be able to avoid all taxes in the future, or the ever growing number of people who live in poverty?

President Obama needs to stop compromising with those that only have the interests of billionaires in mind when discussing the debt ceiling and start shaming them for their arrogance and their failed ideology. And please President Obama, stop using the misleading and disingenuous phrase, “shared sacrifice”.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

The NEA Endorses a less worse Enemy in President Obama

In Current Events, Election Politics on July 7, 2011 at 18:48

Facing the reality of Republican hatred of unions and teachers, the National Education Association Representative Authority voted July 4th to endorse Barack Obama for reelection, 5,414 to 2,102. http://www.counterpunch.org/gibson07052011.html In the past, the NEA made its presidential endorsement the year of the election, but this time felt compelled to call for an endorsement a year early.
What was in it for the largest teachers union in the nation? It’s not as if Obama has been a strong ally and supporter of teachers and their unions since becoming president. President Obama voiced support Monday for the mass firings of educators at a failing Rhode Island school”  where the school superintendent fired all 93 teachers and other staff in the small Central Fall district, the poorest district in the state. “”If a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn’t show signs of improvement, then there’s got to be a sense of accountability,” he said.” (ibid) Instead of looking at the validity of the tests, the methods of teaching, the poverty level of the area, and other factors, Obama just outright supports the superintendent over the teachers. Obama’s unwillingness to get the facts about education and testing is a hallmark for his policies such as Race to the Top.

President Obama also supports merit based pay, a system that has been found flawed on many levels. It pits teacher against teacher and limits education funds. Merit based pay ignores the reality of schools and that every year is a new challenge for every teacher and every student. It is a way to bust unions and takes the power away from the teachers and gives it to superintendents and lawmakers.

Merit based pay also rewards teachers that can fake test scores and teach to the test. It rewards prevarication. Is this really the type of teaching we want?  Race to the Top for “Obama and his Education Secretary Arnie Duncan means more testing, more uniformity, more charter schools and more punishment for creative teachers that try to help students love learning as autonomous human beings.” (link)

In total, Obama supports summary firings of teachers, merit based pay, a high stakes testing regime that punishes teachers and takes them away from actual teaching, charter schools where teachers will be less accountability to city and state standards and not have to join a union (in essence union busting), and a competitive funding model that rewards schools for following a national dictum thus crushing local autonomy. These dictums include testing and charter schools and other union busting policies.

“IN ADDITION to these backwards priorities, Obama has presided over some of the harshest attacks on public education in decades. As education scholar Diane Ravitch has pointed out, when it comes to education, Obama’s presidency has been like Bush’s third term.” (link)

So why did the NEA endorse Obama, and why did they support him so early instead of waiting for next year? Teachers are rightfully fearful of their future under a Republican regime. They might have also learned their caving technique from the example Obama has laid forth in his capitulation to the Republicans on the budget, taxes and other issues.
So instead of holding out for something better from Obama, they reacted out of fear of a Republican nation and endorsed him early. The NEA also sees that they have flagging support amongst many Democrats (see Cuomo in New York) and wanted to get on board early to boost their national stature. (link)

So, what is in it for Obama? President Obama doesn’t need the money from the teachers. He will already be getting millions from corporations and individuals. Reuters reports that the President might surpass $1 billion this election and already has the record of over $750 million dollars for his 2008 campaign. (link) Obama doesn’t really need the teachers’ money. So what does the NEA endorsement give him?

What the endorsement does is give political cover to a president whose policies amount to union busting. Generally, teachers’ unions are liberal and many people rely on endorsements to inform their voting. “Well, if the teachers endorse him, then he’s okay with me.”  It also ensures that some union members will work for his campaign, and they can be tireless workers.

However, as one teacher/delegate put it, not all were pleased by the early endorsement, “I am a building rep for the NEA.  I actually spoke personally with about 2/3 of my unionized teachers when the early endorsement – the first such in NEA history – was proposed.  Out of the more than 80 teachers with whom I spoke only one supported the early endorsement.  Many did not like giving up what little leverage the union had with the administration.” (link)

Teachers deserve better treatment than President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Congress and state governments have been rendering. Until they realize this, they will continue to act like abused children who keep expecting one parent to stand up for them against the abusive alcoholic parent. This doesn’t mean that teachers should stop voting for and supporting Democrats, it means that they need to stop working for Democrats and others that want to take away their power, pay, autonomy and careers. It means not giving an early endorsing to a President who is not an ally.

A good class based criticism of the NEA endorsement to be found at Counterpunch.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Tex Shelters takes his Republican Entrance Exam to Run for President

In Election Politics, Humor on June 15, 2011 at 04:12

Christian Gunn conducted the interview for Koch Industries.

Republican examiner, Christian Gunn (CG): What are the top issues in the world today?

Tex Shelters (Tex): Taxes, Terrorism (including terrorist unions), Immigration, and Taxes.

CG: What is scarier, a woman being raped, or taxes?

Tex: Taxes.

CG: Correct. Are you in massive denial?

Tex: More than any other candidate since Ronald Reagan.

CG: Name the last nine Presidents.

Tex: Barack Obama. And let me add that he’s what’s wrong with our nation and economy.

CG: Correct. Do you solemnly swear to fabricate facts?

Tex: All information will be vetted by Fox News and the Koch Brothers.

CG: Correct. What would you do to improve the economy?

Tex: Barack Obama has created the largest deficit of any nation ever in the history of the world and not created jobs.

CG: Correct. Name a Supreme Court decision you disagree with?

Tex: (Silence)

CG: Correct. Name a hero of yours and why.

Tex: Thomas Jefferson is my hero because he wrote the Declaration of Independence to warn the British not to take away our guns,  and he loves the Bible so much that he cut it into pieces and created his own version of it to better understand it.

CG: What do you think about cap and trade?

Tex: I don’t own and caps, so I don’t have any to trade.

CG: How do you feel about global warming?

Tex: I am all for it. This planet is too cold as it is.

CG: What would you do to improve our nation’s schools?

Tex: Get rid of the teachers. They’re what’s wrong with our schools.

CG: How would you improve our nations health?

Tex: Get rid of Obamacare.

CG: Correct. Now I will show you a few inkblots for your interpretation.

Number one:

Tex: Gay sex

CG: Very good Mr. Callahan, now number 2:


Tex: Gay marriage and sex

CG: Excellent. Now number 3:

Tex: Gay sex abortion.

CG: Good. Here’s another one:

Tex: Liberal socialist abortion

CG: Excellent once again. One more Mr. Shelters.

Tex: The anti-Christ, no Barack Obama.

CG: Well done Mr. Shelters. I have one last question for you, and I think I know the answer. Are you taking this exam to run for president or to get more attention for your businesses, books, and speaking tour?

Inkblots from http://blog.nermo.com/

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Gaddafi is a Free Mason, Obama is Irish, and Progressives want Peace and Jobs for Everyone

In Current Events, Election Politics, Humor on May 23, 2011 at 20:42

We all see things through our own lens of perception, and current events are tinted not only by those that present the news, but those that perceive the news. So without further ado, I present current events in the mind’s eye of Republicans (R), Progressives (P) and conspiracy theorists (CT). Note: I am a progressive that agrees more with the conspiracy theorists on issues than I agree with Republicans. And I am a conspiracy theorist skeptic.

Issue: Obama’s recent trip to Ireland

Reaction

R: Obama is really not a U.S. citizen, he’s an Irish National, and this trip proves it. Also, Obama’s great, great, great grandfather was a member of the IRA and Obama is promising more funds for the terrorist group because Obama, if not Muslim, is a Catholic terrorist.

P: If I was the President and could use my ancestors to visit the Irish countryside, I would too.

CT: His great, great, great grandfather was a member of the powerful Irish Illuminati Mason member of the Bilderberg group and Obama got elected President through the command of his dead ancestor’s dying decree.

Issue: Oil Prices are going up!

Reaction

R: Why isn’t Obama doing anything about oil prices?

P: Oil prices are rising because of increased demand and the wars in the Middle East have reduced the world’s supply of oil.

CI: The Bilderberg Group controls oil prices. They are raising the prices to control third world nations and keep them down.

Issue: A recent drop in gas prices (as of 5/8/11). 

Reaction

R: It is the Bush energy policy of offshore drilling and deregulation that has brought a drop in oil prices.

P:  People are consuming less oil, so the price has momentarily dropped.

CI: The Bilderberg Group controls oil prices. They are keeping prices down to protect their industries’ profits.

Issue: Death of Osama Bin Laden

R: Thank God George Bush started that war in Afghanistan; otherwise, we would have never killed Bin Laden.

P: Can we leave Afghanistan now?

CT: The Illuminati put him in his position of power, and they took him out. Beside, he died earlier and the NWO thought that this was the best time to bring out his showcase death.

Issue: Unemployment

R: We must cut government spending and government jobs to increase employment.

P: More jobs programs and infrastructure development funded by military cuts, the end to the two costly wars and a tax rate that makes wealthy individuals and corporations pay their share is the best way to address unemployment.

CI: The NWO runs the banks and they like it when people are unemployed. “They (the NWO, Illuminati, Rothschilds, Masons) now want to change strategy and create a mainstream “lower class” which will include most people; a preparation for the upcoming One World Government where the average citizen may be allowed to have a job, but is no more than a “lower class slave” with low pay… until it all levels out and becomes the cornerstone of the future Global Socialist State.” (link)

While I generally agree that the elite want to control employment and keep down the masses, they lose me when they say, “As a matter of fact, the Illuminati created Sweden as an experiment in mind control, together with Canada, which is Sweden’s sister country in this project.” (ibid) Furthermore, the many NWO conspiracy groups are very anti-socialist, but they speak of employment as Marx might have.

Issue: Global Warming

R: Burn baby, burn. 

P: It may be too late, but it is our duty to try to reduce our impact on the planet.

CT: Some in the NWO group say that global warming theory is being used as birth control against the planet’s people. Some say it is a psyop used to brainwash us. Some say global warming theory is being used to enslave us.

I think global warming is a theory being used to track, trace and expose all conspiracy theorists through their writings on global warming and visits to chat groups that discuss global warming.

Issue: The Bombing of Libya

R: Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Liby…what? That was Obama ordering the bombing of Libya? Then I am against it!

P: Bombing isn’t the answer and won’t end the conflict.

CT: Gaddafi is a Free Mason and that is why he hasn’t been killed yet.

So whether you blame Obama or the NWO for our problems, I invite you to support progressive, humanist solutions.

End the wars now!
http://unitedforpeace.org/
Veterans agree:
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
Barbara Lee agrees:
http://www.theroot.com/views/rep-barbara-lee-end-war-now
The Nation agrees:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/158024/time-end-war-afghanistan

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Where is the Proof that Obama is even Human?

In Current Events, Election Politics, Humor on April 27, 2011 at 19:55

Tex Shelters here, and I want to address the most important issue facing Americans. I am not talking about the war on Christmas that happens every summer when stores sell things like bathing suits, sunscreen and beach towels and completely ignores the blessed birth of Christ in the winter. No, I am talking about Obama’s status as a human on this planet.

The Donald, Mr. Trump, has clearly proven that Obama has no birth certificate, or at least he’s proved that making things up about the Dread Socialist Obama is a way to motivate the Republican base to support your possible run for the Republican nomination for President.  (link to poll)

Conservative comedian Nick DiPaolo, who hates the made up term birther but loves the made up term Obamacare, even questioned Obama’s education by asking for someone who went to law school with Obama to come forward and prove the President attended school. (Click here to see the paranoid DiPaolo’s “comedy”.)

I hope that Mr. DiPaolo runs for president too since he is as wise and logical as The Donald, and he’s so edgy and confident in his stereotyping of those he disagrees with like other great Americans from Coulter, to Ayn Rand, to Limbaugh and Savage. Thus, I throw my hat into the ring of possible potential presidential candidates if everything goes my way as well. And I also demand proof of things from Obama.

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?

How do we know that Obama isn’t a mixture of alien and human DNA? Where are the tests that prove Obama’s DNA is fully human and not mixed in with the DNA from the 1947 alien autopsy in Roswell New Mexico? We won’t know until a full analysis of Obama’s DNA is completed.

Obama may be a hologram. How do we really know he’s not a projection from a science project Soviet Madman Stalin started in the 1950s and his projection is here to destroy us all? Until we get directors Michael Bay and James Cameron to investigate this possible special effect, we have no proof Obama’s NOT a hologram. Maybe the Trilateral Commission created this Holobamagram, or the Bilderberg Group.

Certainly we know that Obama went to a radical communist fascist black power Christian church for years, but is he really a Christian? Until Jesus Christ comes back and tells us that Obama is a Christian, we will never really know. Why won’t Jesus Christ come forward with the proof of Obama’s Christianity?

Obama could be a figment of our imagination or a mass delusion created by the fluoride in our water. There is no way to disprove this, and thus it could be true.

We need more proof about Obama, or we will keep making up things about Obama to discredit him or until it no longer haunts us to have a black president.

Tex Shelters for President, 2012, maybe.

Peace,
Tex Shelters