by

A Patch for Pesky GOP Wedge Issues

occupy patch for gop wedge issuesOne particular obstructionist tactic Republicans have used repeatedly with great success against Barack Obama and the Democrats has been their wedge-issue ploy. Several times during the president’s term in office, when he and Democrats wanted to focus on job creation, Republicans repeatedly came up with non issues to use as a wedge and, assisted by mainstream media, directed public attention away from the urgent matters before Congress, only to refocus it on what was to become the latest GOP distraction.

Wedge issues were presented to the public cloaked in hatred, fear and over-the-top vitriol that usually targeted a particular ethnic group, religion or class of citizens. For many, Fear and Hatred are two of the three major attention getters of the human emotion. (Love, a word you rarely hear from the far right, is the third.) Whereas some of the issues used to distract were of an important nature, some were old hat and had previously been resolved, while still others were a complete non-starter, or political BS. However, they all had one thing in common — they all were untimely and less urgent than the matter before Congress.

One example of a wedge that was an important issue and debate for Congress to have was the Debt Ceiling Debate. This important debate could have been conducted at any time during the year, but the GOP used the DCD to block the more urgent job creation discussion Democrats were trying to have. Creating jobs and restoring economic security for the middle class was more timely and of utmost importance to the nation. Even so, instead of keeping the need to create jobs before the public, the media became instructmental in distracting public attention by focusing on the debt.

Flack about the building of the Muslim temple at Ground Zero is an example of a non-issue Republicans manufactured and used as a wedge to kill job creation proposals from the Left. Plans to erect a community center in NYC had been known for months with nary a murmur of dissent. But without warning it was delegated top news story in the media and presented by journalists and political pundits in the hateful rhetoric that has become the hallmark of the Republican Party.

By misleading the public into believing that a Muslim temple was slated to be built at Ground Zero, Republicans were able to generate a good deal of fear and hatred. In truth, the Muslim community was planning to erect a community center which would be open to people of all religions, and it was not going to be built AT Ground Zero! American Muslims were being charitable and spreading brotherly love, while their elected Christian leaders were more interested in inciting hatred, and perhaps violence, as they knowingly spread false information that pitted Americans against Americans.

Issues to distract, what I call a “non-starter,” are issues that have already been resolved in one form or another like gun control, abortion, planned parenthood and the border wall with Mexico. As previously stated, although these and other patterned issues have brought the GOP much success in the past, they were trotted out once again to distract the nation’s attention from the creation of jobs. All the while Congress unceremoniously filibustered, tabled or rejected each of the 30-odd pieces of job producing bills, the democrats and the president had offered since Obama first took office.

The most recent proposal by Democrats to get a jobs bill passed was one where every item in the package was fully paid for and had been previously approved by both parties. Here was an opportunity to not only create jobs which would help strengthen the struggling economy, but also would not add a single cent to the debt. However, keeping to party policy that “it is not government’s role to create jobs,” the GOP used the continuation of its attack on women’s issues as a wedge by introducing non-issues involving women’s reproductive and contraceptive rights. And instead of questioning the legitimacy of the GOP’s actions, the media proceeded to divide the nation into two camps, those who think a woman is entitled to make decisions regarding her own body as it relates to personal health, and those who think a woman’s body should be legislated by Congress.

We the people must realize that we are the majority, while politicians (our representatives), and robber barons (to whom our reps have sold us out), are in the minority. This is a democracy, for goodness sakes. Going forth, this type of behavior from our elected representatives is unacceptable.

What can we do about it? We can take a stand… in the middle of the streets of America, that is. Standing shoulder to shoulder with ten million or so fellow citizens across this nation in, say, a one day protest where millions of Americans wave placards, all communicating a single idea. This protest, where we occupy the occupy groups, may be as brief as a few minutes, or we can remain in the streets for as long as it takes politicians to stop their vitriol and hate speech and return to the table for the good of all the people and negotiate in good faith, like we pay them to do, or whatever is the appropriate action the people feel must be taken.

Of course we won’t attract 10 million occupiers right off the bat, but millions of people coming together to occupy the streets for 15 minutes to communicate a single message to the nation is the type of protest that will catch on like wild fire. It is the kind of action more and more people will show up for.
The more people we are able to amass at single event, the less time we will need to spend out there. Not only is this a great public information/communication tool, an excellent device with which to education and recruit, but it also brings a sense of relief to people to know they are finally doing something about what’s been bugging the hell out of them these last few years.

Bottomline, we need to occupy the news cycle now, or we will be forced to occupy it later.

Source: http://innergnat.com/

by

White on White Crime

Has the question ever crossed your mind why so-called “liberal” TV news shows typically feature more Republican guests than they do Democrats? Shouldn’t the idea for a liberal news show be to offer refuge from Republican rhetoric and hate speech?

Recently on Current TV, in the “War Room” as it were, the hostess asked her guest, a California Republican, to weigh in on the news of the day, the investigation of the Trayvon Martin murder case. I don’t know who’s idea it was to assign such a sensitive news item to a Republican, but it was obviously a bad pairing and waste of time. This garden variety Republican had no interest in the Martin case and could not have cared less about it.

Instead of responding to the question, he resulted to a Sarah Palin-type spiel, which is more a filibuster than coherent response, and promptly played the Race Card, claiming he didn’t see what the big deal was over the murder of this Black youth. Reframing the question, he suggested they instead take a closer look at “Black-on-Black crime” because, according to him, more Black people are killed by other Blacks than by white people.

Instead of the War Room hostess taking ownership of her question from this holier-than-thou GOP numb nut and emphasize she was referring to the BLOTCHED police investigation, she found it easier to roll over and agree with his racist implications before proceeding to her next topic.

Since there are more white adults who molest white children than there are Black people who kill other Blacks, what if a Black elected official had been asked about a high-profile child abduction investigation, where some unfortunate white kid had been kidnapped, raped and murdered, and the Black politician had responded in the same insensitive manner as the numb-nut by playing the Race Card and saying he didn’t see what the big deal was all about, since child molestation is the biggest white-on-white crime in America?

What if this Black politician was so full of himself as to suggest that a pregnant teen-aged incest or rape victim should not only be made to bear and raise the rapist’s offspring, but love and treat it as a gift from God, as well?

He could have buttressed his position by arguing that both front-running GOP presidential candidates have a long standing affiliation with religious organizations who’s tradition includes an immoral record regarding pedophilia. The Black office holder could categorize the differences between the two candidates religious affiliations by suggesting that members of one group have been known to engage in same-sex pedophilia, which is generally characterized by brief, promiscuous encounters, while members of the other group support opposite-sex pedophilia and believe in marrying their victims.

While race-bating hatred expressed by the white politician was perfectly acceptable to this hostess, would it had been equally acceptable if my fictional Black elected official had given such a response in the context and manner I described?

by

Black Cons of Fascism

Black supporter in right-wing hate group

The latest political craze of some misguided Blacks is to join a right-wing hate group. (Click to enlarge)

Today a growing number of Black Americans see what they consider to be an opportunity to “get rich” by embracing the “principles” of the Republican Party. They seem to think they can find fortune and fame with black hat Republicans who are currently embroiled in the suppression of middle-class jobs, women’s contraceptive and reproductive rights as well as denial of voting rights to a large swathe of Americans.

These are the tactics of fascism, same as the GOP’s unholy alliance with banks and big business. Hence, I call these Black Americans the Black Conservatives of Fascism. Their mantra is that “the Republican Party is not for rich people, it’s for people who want to be rich.” Tandem to their willingness to accept the role of apologist for a pro-slavery sub-culture that has taken over the GOP is their unwillingness to rock the slave ship. This is supported by their acquiescence to the Republican Party’s misrepresentations that glorify slavery.

For instance, according to one pro-slavery buff, Michele Bachmann, a black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be “raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household” than was an African American baby born after the election of President Obama. Another pathological distorter of truth, Haley Barbour, claims slavery was a good deal, saying it had not been so bad for Black people.

That these revisionist statements are allowed to go unchallenged by the Black Cons is amazing to me. What message does their capitulation to these hateful attacks send to Black youth? At minimum, it suggests that in order to become successful or “rich,” one has to put aside one’s self pride and human dignity. Surely, this is what the Black Cons did when they bought into the GOP rhetoric and denounced the Democratic Party as a “slave plantation,” and that entitlements for working class and low-income Americans are “chains” that Democrats use to trick Black Americans into remaining in the Party.

They even dove deeper into their well of self-depreciation when they characterized Black people as slaves and themselves as “runaway slaves.” The advice they offer black “slaves” is, in order for them to gain freedom, they need to “escape” to the Republican Party and accept the GOP “Principles of Government,” namely: Personal Responsibility, No Abortions, Fiscal Responsibility and Small or Limited Government, for starters.

Black Cons also seek to advance the anti-democratic measure of paying down the national debt on the backs of the working class, students and elderly, while continuing to bail out banks and giving huge tax breaks and billion dollar subsidies to the filthy rich. However, the very notion of working class taxpayer’s money being used to pay subsidies to the wealthy is fascism on its face and ought to raise a red flag that begs a closer look at what the GOP calls its “principles;” to wit:

**Fiscal Responsibility: A big drain on the U.S. economy results from Republican policies that irresponsibly give tax breaks to major corporations that ship American jobs abroad. Thus, by putting the tax burden on new, start-up job creating enterprises needed for replacing jobs loss to China and India, they create an environment that makes it extremely difficult for the creation of new jobs to take place. Consequently, this policy leads to a reduction of the tax base and dries up funds for education, infrastructure and other needed social services.

**Small or Limited Government: This principle is as dishonest as the previous one is fascist. Considering how GOP policies run the gambit from maintaining a standing army of over a million men and women in uniform, with armed personnel in 150 countries around the world, to legislating a woman’s uterus, interfering with a couple’s bedroom activities, denying one’s right to marry of one’s choosing, and planning one’s family. What could be more expansive?

**No Abortions: Here the GOP’s male-driven, non-medical approach is not only draconian and unhealthy but short-sighted and deprives women of a host of medical options, hormonal contraceptive decisions and pre-natal benefits. It is also fiscally irresponsible since it drives up medical cost.

**Personal Responsibility: This is more deception from the party that knows how. For them, the “personal responsibility” they require of Americans does not include millionaires and billionaires ever having to give up their sizeable subsidies or to pay a fair share of the taxes.

While neither party is perfect, at least with Democrats there is the opportunity where an exchange of ideas can take place. Where small groups of people are more important than any one major group or class. But most importantly, the last thing Black people need is to allow themselves to be conned into joining a party that is conspiring to take away their right to vote.

Black people, as all Americans, should see the GOP Principles of Government as the con it is, and support President Barack Obama’s vision for an America where everybody gets a fair shot, where responsibility is rewarded and hard work pays off, and everyone does their fair share and plays by the same set of rules.

This is the right side of history.

by

Rick Santorum and the Second Amendment

guns on display

Presidential candidate Santorum's proposed second amendment remedies

Rick Santorum drew on the Sharon Angles playbook in response to a question at a Texas Tea Party rally last month. Suggesting that armed resistance could be necessary to protect alleged violations of the Constitutional rights of Conservatives, Santorum claimed that “the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment.”

Like, DUH!, Mr. Presidential Hopeful, whatever happened to the judiciary?

Surely Conservatives are not advocating picking up the gun against the US government. The last time something like that happened was in 1859 with the attack at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, and we all know how badly that went for John Brown.

But exactly which of their First Amendment rights do they feel are threatened anyway? Their right to impose Conservative and Far-Right Religious values on the rest of us? Their right to deprive us of our Constitutional right to marry who we choose? To deny a woman’s right to pre-natal care, or to end her unwanted pregnancy? To deny our youth the right to vote? A worker’s right to join a labor union?

So if Liberals don’t adopt the politics of the far right extremists, does that mean there will be more gunplay at women’s health clinics? Will more abortion doctors be cowardly gunned down? More gays dragged to their deaths from the back of pickups? Does it mean “minorities” are in for more church bombings? Will more federal buildings be leveled?

It would make more sense if Liberals were the ones advocating for an armed resistance to protect their Constitutional guarantees to a liberal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as opposed to a conservative one.

Conservatives also see it as their right to require our Liberal president to prove his fitness to govern by producing a birth certificate, like the plague of racist cops a few years back (DWB) who only stopped black motorists and required them to prove their fitness to drive by showing a drivers license. If this is fair, then should it not also be fair to have presidential candidates who make seditious statements prove their fitness to govern by having their heads examined?

Seriously. Is this the mind set we want in the White House? While it is fitting that pro athletes have to prove their eligibility to play in the major leagues by submitting to a drug test, and since alcohol destroys brain cells, should we not, at the very least, require our politicians to submit to alcohol testing? At least while Congress is in session?

As a result of watching the GOP presidential “debates,” it appears that a home-school education is more of a disadvantage than I once realized. Many in the audience seem to embrace an anti-fellowman animus as they hoot and applaud the hardship of others. One can only hope that whatever ails them is not contagious.

Perhaps a secular class, or workshop involving people of various backgrounds (that you actually have to communicate with), should be required as a prerequisite for a gun ownership permit. Otherwise, we may end up having to take the guns from their cold dead hands.

by

Obama Cares

Mitt Romney said recently he felt no concern for poor people because they already have a safety net — apparently he is unaware that millions of women and children are still without a home and are being forced to sleep in public parks, or abandoned vehicles, because his party gave tax breaks to corporations that shipped American jobs to China.

There is little difference between him and Republican rival Rick Santorum, who on a Think Progress video said poor children should have to suffer hunger and other ills to prevent them from developing the sense of government “entitlements.” Both candidates have promised to overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which they seek to discredit as an entitlement, while, in addition to the huge tax breaks to major corporations, approving billions of dollars in subsidies.

In case you missed it, the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare” to Republicans, makes life a lot easier for a number of people. Now American families, like many families in progressive countries around the world, have control over their own care. And it gives them the comfort of knowing that their insurance will be there when they need it most — especially if they get sick.

The Obama administration has also ventured to set up an online site, HealthCare.gov, where consumers can review customized information about how affordable health care is designed to correct a number of deficiencies in the system. Improvements include:

- People denied coverage for a pre-existing condition have access to a temporary high risk health insurance plan, and they are guaranteed the right to choose the primary care doctor or pediatrician from their health plan’s provider network.

- Four million more children are insured under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in addition to the 6.6 million already covered.

- Children under 19 can no longer be denied coverage of benefits for a pre-existing condition. And as a result of the 2010 Health Care Reform Act, young adults can stay on parent’s insurance plan up until age 26.

- Starting in 2014, consumers with a pre-existing condition cannot be denied health coverage by an insurance company.

- Health care insurance plans are prohibited from putting a lifetime limit on the benefits you receive. And starting last year, there is a 50% discount on prescription drug costs for seniors in the Medicare “donut hole.”

- Annual dollar limits on health benefits have been restricted and will be phased out by 2014.

- Insurers selling to groups of 50 or more employees are mandated to spend 85% of premiums on medical care and quality improvement

ACA is already giving new benefits to more than 100 million Americans, and while Republicans are expected to chip away at the affordability and quality of treatment aspects of the new reforms, they are unlikely to “overturn” it.

While ACA is not perfect and needs more tweaking, one of the best things about it right now is that it takes your health care decisions out of the hands of politicians and health care CEOs and places them in the hands of your doctor.

by

Barack Obama: The Jackie Robinson of U.S. Presidents

When Barack Hussein Obama was elected president, I wondered how many other students of Black Achievement thought of him as the Jackie Robinson of U.S. Presidents as I did.

Jack Roosevelt “Jackie” Robinson was born in 1919 and developed into an outstanding, all-round athelete. He became the first black baseball player in six decades to play major league ball when he broke baseball’s color barrier and debuted with the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Although the versatile Robinson excelled at serveral team positions, he was not well received by the fans, his team mates, or other players in the league. Players on a rival ball club threatened to strike, mates on his own team rebelled, and fans expressed displeasure by booing, hurling insults and releasing an ocassional black cat on the field. Sports Illustrated’s Bill Nack wrote: “Robinson was the target of racial epithets and flying cleats, of hate letters and death threats, of pitchers throwing at his head and legs, and catchers spitting on his shoes.”

By the end of Robinson’s rookie season, he was voted National League Rookie of the Year. A few years later, he was selected as the NL’s Most Valuable player of the Year and also won the batting title with a .342 average that same year. As a result of a successful career, Jackie was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Six months prior to Barack Obama assuming duties of the Oval Office, the country had lost four million jobs with another four million lost before his policies were accepted. He was also faced with two major wars to fight, with no stradegy for winning or plan exiting; hundreds of thousands of homes were being foreclosed on every month; fifty million people were left without affordable healthcare; banks were on the verge of failure, and the economy was just days away from a complete meltdown. By all accounts, it is safe to say only one other U.S. President had taken office with the country in nearly as bad a shape as the day Obama was sworn in.

The blueprint for turning the country around and bringing it out of such a depressed economy had been created by Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, who was president at the time this country saw its worse days. To get the economy moving in the right direction, FDR had created jobs by improving infastructure, paving roads, building schools and erecting landmarks.

Like Robinson, Obama was not well received, particularly by his Republican colleagues. Seasoned Republicans put their publicly stated goal, to make the new president a “one term president,” above the needs of the country. They told the president it was not the role of government to create jobs and refused to consider any of his job bills even when they were fully paid for. The GOP offered instead their own job plan, not to repair bridges and roadways as needed, but to build a cross-country pipeline to aid the oil industry to ship Canadian oil abroad to China. They also fought him on badly needed healthcare but Obama managed to pass a healthcare plan, which was over a hundred years in the making.

The Repubicans were also refusing to approve Obama’s committee appointments needed for enforcement of his new reforms. While Congress was on one of its many receses, Obama, using his presidential powers, made several appointments himself. He drew on the powers of the presidency on other occasions to stimuluate the job market. His efforts resulted in a slight uptick, gradually bringing some improvement to the economy.

Oddly enough, as President Obama approaches the end of his first term, he reminds me of another Black over-achiever, John Arthur Jack Johnson, the first Black heavyweight boxing champion. After Johnson had won the title by defeating champion Tommy Burns, racial animosity among whites ran deep and the call went out for a fighter to take his crown away. Thus, Johnson as title holder had to face a series of opponents each billed by boxing promoters as the “Great White Hope.”

White fans wanted nothing more than to see Johnson beaten up, and “ground into the dirt.” They beseeched former undefeated heavyweight champion James J. Jeffries for months, offering him an unheard sum of money to fight Johnson. When Jeffries came out of retirement he said, “I feel obligated to the sporting public at least to make an effort to reclaim the heavyweight championship for the white race. . . . I should step into the ring again and demonstrate that a white man is king of them all.”

Jeffries words seem to reverberate a hundred years later when Mitt Romney, the Republican’s choice to defeat Obama in 2012, summed up a GOP primary win by saying, “Let’s not forget what this is about… it’s all about beating one man and sending his family packing from the White House.” When the call was sent out by Republicans, it was not only for someone to defeat Obama, but to beat up on him, “rough him up,” make him “look bad.”

The Johnson – Jeffries boxing match took place in 1910. After Jeffries had been knocked down twice for the first time in his career, the referee jumped in and brought a halt to the match in the 15th round, just as the former champ was on his way to being knocked out.

by

Santorum: Rick’s Family Values Rant

Same-sex couple

Same-sex couple at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco


Rick Santorum, ardent opponent of same-sex marriages, while addressing a group at the Iowa State Caucuses vowed that as president he would unify Americans around “our core ultraconservative Christian values.” His attempt however to draw a “direct connection” between the nation’s economic woes and the “redefinition of marriage” has about as much integrity as Neo Cons swearing on a stack of Korans, and reeks more of conservative Christian values than real world concerns.

Like many Republicans who favor amending the U.S. Constitution to include their pet peeves, Santorum advocates for an amendment that would define marriage as solely between a man and a woman. Arguing that same-sex relationships “destabilize” society, he pledged that if elected president he would annul all same-sex marriages.

Santorum seems to think that what he terms the redefinition of marriage is not supportive of strong nuclear families and is not “standing up for the dignity of human life.” He states that same sex marriages lead to a society that is “broken.”

Continuing, he says, “I have no problem with homosexuality, I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships.”

That there may be a fair amount of so-called destabilizing acts INSIDE traditional heterosexual relationships does not seem to occur to Mr. Santorum.

But I recall John Ensign’s months-long heterosexual affair with a congressional aide a short time ago. Ensign was Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and family values advocate during the time of his somewhat destablizing affair with aide Cynthia Hampton. Hampton’s husband found out about the affair and emailed Santorum, then Senator from Pennsylvania, and asked for his help. Santorum instead forwarded the email to Ensign, alerting him the husband knew of the affair he was having with his wife. Ensign later resigned his Senate leadership position over the affair.

Santorum was also caught up in the ever-widening scandal as he and several other Republicans, also champions of family values, were named in a “blunt and damaging” Senate Ethics Committee report for trying to cover up the Ensign scandal.

Then there is fellow GOP Conservative, Newt Gingrich, who’s heterosexual exploits seem to make him a darling among DC Conservatives. While also proclaiming to be a champion of family values, Gingrich committed repeated adultery with younger women, while each of his wives were seriously ill.

One woman, Anne Manning, confirmed a relationship with him during the 1976 campaign. “We had oral sex. He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, ‘I never slept with her.’”

Kip Carter, Newt’s former campaign treasurer, said he was walking Gingrich’s daughters back from a football game one day and cut across a driveway where he saw a car. “As I got to the car, I saw Newt in the passenger seat and one of the guys’ wives with her head in his lap going up and down. Newt kind of turned and gave me this little-boy smile. Fortunately, Jackie Sue and Kathy (Gingrich’s daughters) were a lot younger and shorter then.”

And there is the infamous heterosexual, Bob Packwood, former Senator from Oregon, who sexually harassed at least 29 female staff members and campaign workers before resigning under the threat of expulsion.

And who can forget pizza pie salesman, Herman Cain, who continued to rise in the GOP polls even after being outed as a serial sex offender. Despite legendary gaffs and his “999″ tax-plan farce, Cain’s downfall is closely connected to his having one of the worse pick-up lines in the Republican Party.

The above stated accounts are decidedly destablizing acts which occurred inside traditional heterosexual experiences, yet they add nothing to the dignity of human life. But owing to the degree of betrayal and infidelity involved, they seem more apt to lead to a “broken” society than would wholesome same-sex dalliance.

by

War and (PTSD) Disorder

military cemetery

No people are free when they are constantly at war.

To the dismay of some if not many politicians in Washington, the longest war in American history has come to an end. The American people are at peace again. Family members and love ones will be home for the holidays. But as we maintain troops on the ground in Afghanistan and aim our sights on Iran, and another major war, few expect this peace to be a lasting one.

However, no American is impacted by war as much as our youth. We have lost over 4,400 young people in Iraq and approximately 1,300 in Afghanistan — sacrificed in vain in a war our elected leaders misrepresented to us about the need to fight. Other sacrifices they made include about 35,600 seriously injured, which brings the total to slightly over 40,000 men and women who are to some degree needlessly incapacitated or lost to their families. Unfortunately, the sacrifices these brave young men and women were called on to make does not end there.

Large numbers of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from such symptoms as bad dreams, irritability and flashbacks — all symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. PTSD is not a new disorder. The National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder estimates that one of every 20 World War II veterans suffered major depression, generalized anxiety, and other mental health disorders.

According to statistics in 2004, 25,000 World War II veterans were still receiving disability compensation for PTSD-related symptoms. In all, 161,000 veterans in 2004 had received PTSD disability compensation. While there are no major studies readily available regarding Korea, one researcher concluded that as many as 30 percent of U.S. troops who fought there and are still alive today may have symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

PTSD was not officially recognized as a clinical condition until 1980 — in wars prior to Vietnam it was referred to as “battle fatigue” or “shell shock”. A major VA study found that about 31 percent of men and 27 percent of women had suffered from PTSD at some point after their return from Vietnam. Many reported that they feared seeking treatment would make them appear weak or cause their peers to treat them differently.

According to the same survey, almost half of all male Vietnam veterans suffering from PTSD had been arrested or in jail at least once, 34.2 percent more than once and 11.5 percent had been convicted of a felony.

Also, among veterans who turn up at medical facilities, there are approximately 1,000 suicide attempts per a month. In actual suicides it works out to be 6570 per year. That’s about 18 suicides per day among America’s 25 million veterans.

With the end of the Iraq war and the “troops” returning home, it is important to keep in mind that our family member, friend or love one is about to enter some of the worst battles of their lives. It took several years for full-blown PTSD to develop in most Vietnam veterans. Let’s hope Congress continue to “support the troops” because they need to find ways to get our people help sooner, as well as lower current barriers to treatment.

by

Hate Groups in the U.S.

Name-calling and blaming the opposing party for adversities caused by the Right Wing are popular hate group tactics.

In the eyes of the federal statures, there is no such thing as a hate group. Nonetheless, there are more hate organizations operating in the US now than at any time in American history.

A hate group as defined outside of the statures is one with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people. Hate activities can include marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting, publishing or criminal acts. Recently, a list was compiled by listing publications and web sites of hate groups.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 1,002 active hate organizations and their chapters were known to be active during 2010. They include John Birch Society, Arian brotherhood, various white citizen councils, skin heads, gay bashers, anti abortionists, pro-war and capital punishment advocates.

Many of the radical ideas and ultraconservative Christian principles that are so important to right-wing haters have been co-opted by conservative politicians across the country. This is evident by the GOP stance against immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage, Muslims, etc., which allows the bigotry of these hate groups to be heard in the political arena where hatred has long occupied the fringe of conservative thought.

Most dramatic growth in the radical right came in the anti government “patriot” movement, with conspiracy-minded organizations that see the federal government as their primary enemy.

Considering hate groups affiliation with the Republican Party, it is understandable why right wing politicians campaign on such strong anti-immigration, Muslim, gay and racial hatred in appealing to the base of the GOP.

by

Better Off Under George Bush, Not!

Middleclass woman hoist placard at rally with other Americans seeking employment.

In 2012, GOP is expected to campaign around the question whether the American people were better off under George Bush than they are under President Obama.

This question really is an insult to the intelligence of the average American voter. It suggests that voters have forgotten about the GOP commitment to make Obama “a one-term president.” How they went about being disruptive during his term in office, intending to inflict the greatest hardship possible on the working class in hopes they take it out on the president at the polls.

Furthermore, the question is misleading and has no basis in reality. In 2012, Obama won’t be running against George Bush, and it doesn’t matter which GOP candidate wins that party’s nomination since all the GOP campaigners have vowed to represent corporate greed over the needs of the American people.

Their pledge, the selling out the American people, was drafted by the business community and states in effect that the signee, if elected president, promised to keep in tact the Bush tax-cut and subsidy policies for the wealthy while paying down the national debt on the backs of the middle class, senior citizens and the poor.

Thus, a more relevant question with respect to the 2012 election would be whether the American people were better off under President Obama with a democratic House than they are with the do-nothing GOP running Congress?