Sunday, July 15, 2012

What is Romney hiding in his income tax returns?

It must be very damaging!  He won't release them, no matter how much that is called for, politically, practically--and morally.

Romney released 23 years of taxes to 2008 GOP nominee John McCain so he could be considered as a vice presidential nominee.

"John McCain's people looked at it and went with Sarah Palin" as the No. 2 on the ticket that year. "Whatever is in there is far worse than the first year," Emanuel said. "The Romney campaign isn't stupid. They have decided that it's better to get attacked on a lack of transparency, lack of accountability to the American people, versus telling you what's in those taxes."

Romney has refused and says that no amount of disclosure would satisfy his critics.

But some in his party said the debate over Romney's wealth is distracting from the campaign.

"He should release the tax returns tomorrow. It's crazy. You've got to release six, eight, 10 years of back tax returns," said conservative Bill Kristol, joining the Republicans who want to turn the page on stories about Romney's vast personal wealth. "Take the hit for a day or two."

Unless, as Obama's team hints, the returns prove disqualifying.

"The costs of not releasing the returns are clear," conservative columnist George Will said. "Therefore, he must have calculated there are higher costs to releasing them."

Share:

More to learn about our country and where it is headed

Here is an excellent site for truth about the JFK assassination and about our government today.  http://jfkassassinationconspiracyupdate.blogspot.com/2010_11_01_archive.html

EXCERPTS:
The Left/Right Divide and the Hiding of the Truth:


...we have become accustomed to there being only 2 possibilities in any given dispute over issues of public policy; the position of the liberal (progressive) left and that of the neoconservative right.[18] How many Americans understand that the neoliberal left and the neoconservative right are but artificial constructs in the Hegelian tradition, designed to allow for the appearance of debate all the while serving to disguise the truth that the resolution/synthesis has already been predetermined by the oligarchical Regime currently in charge? The Regime has as its greatest weapon the fact that no one wishes to believe the truth. For most of us it is simply too painful, unnerving and overwhelming. As many propagandists have indicated, “the bigger the lie the more readily it will be believed.” It is viscerally more comfortable to believe the lie that our government exists of, by and for the people rather than for an elite few who wield all the power and influence and for whom everyone else exists only to be utilized, abused and discarded. The mercenary (all volunteer) US military is a perfect example of the latter being made up almost exclusively of the offspring of impoverished Americans. This has been the case since the draft was ended in the 1970’s.

Theater of the Absurd:

Every four years the Regime treats us to another “theater of the absurd” in which US citizens are allowed to vote for one of 2 Presidential candidates, each of whom has been vetted by the oligarchy such that from its standpoint it matters little which one is elected. Irrespective of what campaign promises are made, once in power, the new Presidential administration hues to the wishes of the not so hidden “shadow government.” It should be intuitively obvious that no serious candidate for high office could rise to that level without demonstrating a willingness to regurgitate the “party line” of their respective political affiliation. As a result so-called third-party candidates are virtually never successful when running for the highest office in the land. The only real opportunity for rank and file US citizens to effect change in their government is to elect a Representative to the US House who is committed to representing their views. Unfortunately, the mega corporations now appear to enjoy monopoly control[19] due to the campaign finance laws which allow for virtually unlimited contributions to candidates.[20] The practical effect is to nullify the political power of the average citizen.

The Political Process is Broken:

The current political process then is broken. So what can we do? It is obvious that under the current set of circumstances, it makes no difference who is elected President and what major political party has the White House or Congress for that matter. To say this of course is considered heresy among the pundit/ruling class who earn their livings by pretending the system is legitimate. Unfortunately however, it is true and they are wrong. There are simply too many powerful individuals and multinational corporations who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Examples include the banking, health care, munitions and energy industries and their lobbies and individual pundits who make up the afternoon and evening chattering class on cable TV such as Chris Matthews, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ed Schultz, Keith Olberman and others.[21]

All of the above individuals to one degree or another represent special interest groups across the political spectrum. None are truly independent thinkers. They owe their jobs to their willingness to hue a particular political line as representatives of the media entity to which they belong. For example, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck regurgitate the Neoconservative party line for Fox News with very little difference in their messages that is, there are differences in style but not substance.

Matthews frequently repeats the claim that JFK and RFK were both killed by a lone deranged individual and he accepts/advertises the poor work of scholarship that is Pozner's "Case Closed" which is easily debunked, Olberman (who also accepts Pozner's conclusions in "Case Closed") and Schultz largely follow the left or liberal party line with minor differences in substance and major differences in style. All advance the liberal political views of MSNBC.

CNN on the other hand touts itself as simply reporting the facts without an obvious political orientation. However, the most powerful CNN pundit is Wolf Blitzer who is essentially an Israeli (Zionist) intelligence cut-out all the while presenting himself as a non-editorializing straight-up journalist. CNN is completely loyal to Zionist Israel and the Zionist Lobby. It never criticizes the genocidal policies of the Jewish state so in that sense at least it is completely biased in favor of the Israeli Jews and against the Palestinian Arabs. It has failed to report the Apartheid nature of modern Israel where the human rights granted to Jews are denied to Arabs.

Is there a Solution?

While the internet is still relatively unregulated, it behooves every US citizen to peacefully but actively spread the truth that in the wake of World War II/the creation of the CIA and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the constitutional representative democratic republic which was brought into being in 1789 was replaced with a not so secret shadow government which does the bidding of the elites and is antithetical to the needs, desires and goals of everyone else.

This effort should include organizing at the state and local levels. It should include electing to the US House of Representatives individuals who cannot be purchased by the multinational corporations and special interest groups. Finding such highly morally committed individuals will not be easy.

Finally, interested and committed individuals of like-mind should ban together for the purpose of pooling their various resources in order to better oppose the corporate media and their relentless attempts to “brain-wash” the public. Time is short for the survival of the American experiment. Please help Spread the word!



Share:

Excellent assessment of Penn State Cult

 

My Take: Penn State’s dark fellowship

Editor's Note: Joseph Loconte, Ph.D., is an associate professor of history at the King’s College in New York City and the author of The Searchers: A Quest for Faith in the Valley of Doubt.

By Joseph Loconte, Special to CNN

(CNN)–The results of the investigation into the sexual abuse scandal at Penn State University, released last week, suggest a crisis of conscience in the academy. The report blames “the most powerful leaders at the university” for concealing vital facts about football coach Jerry Sandusky’s chronic record of child abuse. Singled out are university President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, Vice President Gary Schultz, and head Coach Joe Paterno. “Our most saddening and sobering finding,” the report said, “is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State.”

Last month Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse, including rape and sodomy. If the investigation’s conclusions are correct, he had help. It seems that all these individuals, men of public achievement and outward propriety, conspired together to protect a serial pedophile. How is it possible?

 An intense desire to shield the reputation of the school, a jealous regard for its venerable football tradition, a determination to avoid the financial fallout of a sex scandal—these are the usual suspects, and they all played a part in this criminal episode. Yet even taken together they don’t fully explain the alleged conspiracy of silence.

CNN's Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the big stories

In their 162-page report, investigators said that “a culture of reverence” for the football program contributed to the abuse and its cover-up. This “culture of reverence,” in fact, functioned more like a quasi-religious cult than a college football program. At Penn State—as well as at other competitive football schools—we find the secular equivalent of high priests, holy rituals, secret initiations, unquestioned dogmas and fanatically devoted followers.

And, like any religious cult, there is a sanctified hierarchy: a cadre of elite who stand guard at the temple to protect its power and prestige—and its darkest secrets. They are individuals who, once welcomed into this fellowship, will not break faith with one another.

Christian author C.S. Lewis called this dynamic “the Inner Ring.” Based on his own experience at Oxford and Cambridge universities, Lewis discerned a powerful desire to enter these elite societies, to experience “the delicious sense of secret intimacy.” He described an equally potent fear of being shut out of the inner ring and, once admitted, to close ranks at the first sign of trouble.

Sandusky’s pastor addresses conviction from pulpit

In book three of Lewis’s space trilogy, "That Hideous Strength," we watch the moral descent of Mark Studdock, a university professor who comes under the influence of the N.I.C.E. (National Institute of Coordinated Experiments). The leaders of the N.I.C.E want to distract attention from their wicked machinations in the town of Edgetow. In an effort to consolidate their stranglehold over the community, they ask Studdock, a writer who craves their approval and acceptance, to fabricate a newspaper story.

“This was the first thing Mark had been asked to do which he himself, before he did it, clearly knew to be criminal. But the moment of his consent almost escaped his notice; certainly, there was no struggle, no sense of turning a corner,” Lewis writes. “For him, it all slipped past in a chatter of laughter, of that intimate laughter between fellow professionals, which of all earthly powers is strongest to make men do very bad things before they are yet, individually, very bad men.”

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

It now appears that the circle of leadership at Penn State, not unlike the N.I.C.E., was ruthlessly devoted to its vision of glory: a secular mission that took on the righteous urgency of a religious cause. The cult of football, like any other cult, not only produces heroes and saints. It creates hypocrites and charlatans.

None of the men implicated in the scandal at Penn State began his career determined to abandon his most basic moral obligations: to protect children from physical and sexual abuse. And, yet, the report found “a striking lack of empathy for child abuse victims by the most senior leaders of the university.” How could it happen? It probably happened in “a chatter of laughter,” in that dark fellowship that invites decent men to quietly condone the most indecent of acts against their neighbors.

If the report’s findings are true, the inner ring at Penn State manipulated a power structure that made dissent costly. University janitors, who knew what was happening to the children, reportedly kept quiet for fear of reprisals. “They were afraid to take on the football program,” said Louis Freeh, the former FBI director who led the investigation. “If that’s the culture on the bottom, then God help the culture at the top.”

The great tragedy here is that God and his moral law were excluded from the culture at the top. If that culture is to change, it will require more than tough talk and secular therapy. Maybe it’s time to recall that the God of the Bible is portrayed as the great defender of society’s weakest and most vulnerable. Jesus showed a special regard for children—a countercultural quality in his day—and admonished his followers about taking advantage of them.

His stern warning, repeated several times in the gospels, might serve as a moral signpost for coaches everywhere: “It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin.”

Share:

Saturday, July 14, 2012

A feel-good happening: 9th Symphony in street, Sabadell, Spain

Look at this "happening" in Sabadell, near Barcelona, Spain.
An orchestra and popular choir singing Beethoven's 9th Symphony in the street.
Share:

Where Is Romney's Plan?

It seems the only plan the Republicans have is to stymie all of Obama's plans  -- but they have none of their own to replace his. This is going to backfire Big Time on them. The Limbaugh "dittoheads" will vote for him, but only the dumbest independent voters will fail to recognize there is no there there.

Mitt Romney: No There There

By Bob Burnett

Returning to Oakland after a long absence, Gertrude Stein famously remarked, "there is no there there." During the first week of July, conservatives made a similar discovery about Mitt Romney: he's an empty suit. While Romney blames President Obama for America's economic malaise, the Republican presidential candidate doesn't understand what caused the recession and, therefore, has no recovery plan.

On July 5 the Wall Street Journal observed,

"The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that 'Obama isn't working.' Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better."

That same day, über-conservative William Kristol wrote in The Weekly Standard,

"... voters want to hear what Romney is going to do about the economy. He can "speak about" how bad the economy is all he wants -- though Americans are already well aware of the economy's problems -- but doesn't the content of what Romney has to say matter? What is his economic growth agenda? His deficit reform agenda? His health care reform agenda? His tax reform agenda? His replacement for Dodd-Frank? No need for any of that, I suppose the Romney campaign believes. Just need to keep on 'speaking about the economy.'"

What's wrong with Romney's campaign? Why is there no there there? It's probably due to an elemental Romney character fault. Although he comes from a privileged background, went to the best schools, and made an estimated quarter of a billion dollars as a job killer, Romney's bland and unimaginative. (A recent Selzer poll asked voters who they would rather sit next to on a long plane flight: 57 percent said Obama, 31 percent said Romney.) Perhaps it's the psychological consequence of flip-flopping on so many issues in order to appease the Republican poobahs. As a friend of mine observed, "If you have your spine removed there are bound to be cognitive consequences."

Nonetheless, Romney is part of a vast, well-funded Republican political operation and it's difficult to imagine that his campaign doesn't have the resources to conjure up an alternative economic plan. Perhaps Romney is saving it for his acceptance speech at the Republican convention on August 30.

But there's a more likely explanation. For two years, Republicans have done everything they could to sabotage the U.S. economy, believing that would help them defeat Obama in 2012. (On October 27, 2010, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell famously said, "The single most important thing [Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.") For the past twenty-one months Republicans have blocked all White House efforts to stimulate the economy.

The Republican "scorch the economy" policy has had psychological consequences. There's a famous sixties book "Been down so long it looks like up to me". It may be that Mitt Romney and Republicans are so used to going negative that they can't get their minds around a positive plan and are forced to fall back on conservative clichés such as "cut taxes" and "eliminate government." Remember that as a businessman Romney's forte was eliminating American jobs and shipping them overseas. (One of his most famous admissions was, "I like being able to fire people.")

But the simplest explanation for Romney's lack of vision is that what he plans to do, if elected president, would be a reprise of George W. Bush's economic policies. But Romney can't say this because most voters blame Bush for the stagnant economy. Moreover, even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that Bush had the worst job-creation record of any modern president. During eight years, Bush created 3 million jobs. Obama claims to have created 4.4 million jobs -- there's controversy about this number but it's clear that Obama has created more jobs than Bush in half the time.

Mitt Romney has a major problem. He can't tout his own record as a job creator because there isn't one, he was a job killer. He can't tout the last Republican president's record because it was terrible. He can't tout recent Republican policies because they've all been negative -- sabotage the economy to make Obama look bad. So Romney will continue to spout vague generalities: he'll be a better president because he was a successful businessman; Obama doesn't get it; the solution is lower taxes for the rich and fewer governmental regulations; and on and on.

Republicans may grumble about Romney but in November they'll vote for him because they hate Obama. So the election outcome will come down to true Independents. Will they be taken in by Romney or will they realize, "There is no there there"? Stay tuned.


Share:

Daniel Sheehan -- Most Important Talk Ever Given for Our World

Set aside an hour and a half where you won't be interrupted.  Then prepare yourself to hear, in this video, things you will never hear elsewhere -- Eye-opening revelations about the JFK assassination from Daniel Sheehan, who really knows what happened on November 22, 1963, who did it and why.  Plus, you'll hear his revelations about what he calls the most important event affecting Earth humans today: our entrance into a new paradigm involving extraterrestrials who are here now, not as enemies but as guides.  Sheehan speaks with authority on these subjects. I think you will agree this is not abstract theory or speculation on his part.  He is a man who knows these subjects intimately and personally.  Whatever you may think of this presentation, depending on your world view, I'm certain you will find it a most interesting talk that you won't easily forget.

Daniel Sheehan - Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon

Daniel Sheehan is a social activist who has spent virtually his entire life working on progressive social programs and initiatives. As the Legal Counsel on such nationally-recognized investigative cases involving government covert operations as The Karen Silkwood Case, The Iran/Contra Case, The Pentagon Papers Case, The Watergate Burglary Case, and The American Sanctuary Movement Case, Dan brings to the issue of Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the UFO Phenomenon a unique background in investigating and exposing the world of American governmental covert operations, "black budget" operations, mind control programs, government disinformation projects, covert warfare and clandestine operations. He established the Christic Institute in Washington, DC, which for nearly two decades was the country's preeminent public-interest law firm.

Daniel Sheehan also serves as Legal Counsel for The Disclosure Project
(disclosureproject.org): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztihh2d9xCE

NOTE: Daniel Sheehan has been in a privileged position to learn the full details behind the JFK assassination, and he delivers a full exposé of it at this conference held in 2007!

Daniel Sheehan - Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon
http://www.ufocongressstore.com/

NOTE: This video can be streamed here:
http://www.archive.org/details/DanielSheehan-ConspiracyTheoriesAndTheUfoPhenomenon





Share:

Friday, July 13, 2012

A great site for curious people to explore: FLUID INTELLIGENCE

http://www.wanttoknow.info/fluidintelligence

Gives all kinds of perception tests  -- at no cost. Challenging, interesting and exciting.  And even, perhaps, life-changing. (~.~)  It was amazing to me to discover what I had missed in the first perception test!  I hope you do better than I did. (The test is at:
www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/perceptual_experiment ) I am definitely going to explore more on this site to see all that it offers.

Here's a short description of what you will find on this site: 

The materials presented on WantToKnow.info and in the free Insight Course are designed both to inspire fluidity and to challenge beliefs of the old paradigm. In exploring these rich resources, you may find some of your beliefs about the world challenged. This can be a valuable opportunity for you to examine your viewpoint and use fluid intelligence to revise and expand your beliefs.

Please understand that those involved with presenting this material have no desire to make you believe anything. Yet we are interested in challenging all of us to open to more expanded levels of belief and experience in all aspects of our lives.

The entire WantToKnow.info website and Insight Course provide an abundance of rich material which challenges us to explore more expansive and integrated ways of living together through stretching beyond our old beliefs and conceptions. They invite us to explore reliable, verifiable information which suggests that the commonly held view of the way things work in the world may be overly simplistic and distorted. We are also encouraged to move toward less secrecy and greater transparency as we work together to support what's best for all who share our world.





Share:

Romney: Professional Liar and Man without a Conscience

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/04/23/mitt-romney-professional-liar/

Romney is the conscienceless liar the Republicans want to have as President.  God help us if they get their way. We've already been taken through the grinding mill by the liars Cheney and Bush, who should be in prison right now for international crimes against humanity. Their tradition of lying without conscience, sacrificing innocent lives to achieve their secret agendas, will be continued in a Romney presidency.  America can't live through another disastrous regime like that at its helm.  We have already lost our greatness and are headed down the Last-Days-of-the-Roman-Empire route.

EXCERPT:
Romney learned his skill as a liar from those days at Bain Capital – and he has put it to good use as a politician, taking opposite sides of issue after issue, from abortion rights to global warming to government mandates that citizens buy health insurance to whether stay-at-home mothers “work” or not.

Romney’s whole campaign is based on a cynical belief that Americans suffer from “amnesia” about what caused the nation’s economic mess and that they will simply blame President Obama for not quickly fixing it.

The guilty pleasure of watching the TV series “The Good Wife” – besides the scenes with Kalinda (the private investigator played by Archie Panjabi) – rests in the ethical ambiguities at the intersection of law and politics, a place where truth and morality are relative, sometimes useful but at other times sacrificed for profit, power or legal tactics.

Yet, the show recently introduced a new character, a lawyer-politician played by Matthew Perry who tells blatant lies. He coolly makes up conversations and circumstances that are total fabrications but also can’t be easily disproved. Even from the moral fog of her personal and professional life, The Good Wife character played by Julianna Margulies is shocked.

In Campaign 2012, Mitt Romney is the Matthew Perry character, a politician who cuts through the hazy world of political half-truths with the clarity of strategic lying. Indeed, he lies with a confidence that may be a special right of the well-connected rich who are beyond accountability.  (For many examples of this sociopathic tendency in Romney, read the rest of the article.  Also read Mitt Romney, the New Teflon Man at: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/44294/mitt-romney-the-new-teflon-man)

Share:

Thursday, July 12, 2012

The Most Honest Three and a Half Minutes of Television, EVER...

Saying it Straight and True:  Sad to say, but I agree with this video clip. It's what we have come to in the 21st century; certainly not what most of us had expected.



    
Beginning scene of the new HBO series,
The Newsroom explaining why America's
Not the Greatest Country Any Longer...
But It Can Be.

(Warning: Contains Rough Language).


Video:









Share:

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

George Carlin : Rights and Privileges

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

Oh, how he is missed!  He called it like it is!  "Made up and make believe!"

Share:

Easy as one, two, three

Educating the public on the Affordable Health Care Act is necessary, but Tea Party Republicans who are programmed by Limbaugh and Fox cannot allow truth to penetrate the lies they've been told. 

Here are the simple truths about RomneyCare (aka ObamaCare)
: (1) you can’t be denied coverage for preexisting conditions; (2) no cap, you won’t get cut off or lose your home if you have costly medical bills; (3) reduces the deficit, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office; (4) you can keep children on until age 26; (5) you can keep your own doctor and choose your own coverage from a variety of plans, just like members of Congress.

It’s simple and easy to understand if you haven't bought into a Bubble World preconception based on Fox and Limbaugh lies.

Share:

Republicans have an "elitist" for their candidate

EXCERPT: Republicans give their leaders more room to relax. Reagan took 349 days over eight years at his California ranch, and Bush topped him with 490 days at his ranch in Texas (make that 977 vacation days if you count time at Camp David). Democrats are just more anxious. Obama’s time off this year will be as close to a staycation as his family will allow.

Romney goes all funny when the subject of money comes up, joking about having once been unemployed and about having multiple Cadillacs. He dismisses concerns about income inequality as the preoccupation of the “envy-oriented” and says the subject is something to be discussed in “quiet rooms.”

In his defense, Republicans probably are more forgiving of candidates who flaunt their wealth (unless they are Democrats like John Kerry, who was viciously attacked by Republicans as "elitist" when he windsurfed)  Read below about Romney's vacation.


WHAT YOU CAN'T DO ON YOUR SUMMER VACATION (if you're running for President)
By Margaret Carlson

At the end of his summer vacation last week, Mitt Romney got the question inevitable for anyone in the White House or hoping to get there:

At Bradley’s Hardware in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, Romney was asked if, at a time of such “grim economic news,” he should be vacationing at all. Romney responded that if he became president, he would make sure all Americans get the “capacity to take a vacation now and then with their loved ones.”

We’re not supposed to begrudge our leaders their time away. Point taken. What people resent is how politicians carefully calculate when, where and for how long they’ll take off to ZIP codes that are cool in the summer, warm in the winter and generally inaccessible to Joe the Plumber.

On the other hand, catching an overhandled, overgroomed, and overprotected politico in a body of expensive water is one of the few chances those of us canoeing in a state park get to see the man inside the suit. (Or woman inside the pantsuit, as the case may be; see, for example, Hillary Clinton mini-golfing on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts, hiking in Wyoming or dancing in her bathing suit in the U.S. Virgin Islands.) The photos of Romney whooshing across the lake on a water scooter were so revealing because they were so rare. His thighs are pasty! His hair moves! He likes turquoise for his swimming trunks!

Offshoring Elitists

The specter of Romney frolicking (later he was in a gigantic boat) in sight of his mansion unhinged the editors of The Wall Street Journal. Not only is the presumptive Republican nominee squandering a historic opportunity, they wrote, but just as President Barack Obama’s campaign is successfully defining Romney as an out-of-touch offshoring elitist hiding money in the Cayman Islands, “the rich man obliged by vacationing this week at his lake-side home with a jet-ski cameo.”

The Journal’s editorial page usually celebrates moguls at play. In Romney’s case it channeled the pain of campaign operatives who quake at the thought of their principals out of sight -- and, more important, mobile-phone range. It leads to nothing but trouble and embarrassing photographs. Think of Bill Clinton’s flabby thighs in swimming trunks, Obama shirtlessly surfing in Hawaii, Jimmy Carter and the killer rabbit, John Kerry windsurfing after he blew in the wind over voting for funding for the war in Iraq before he voted against it.

Normal people -- the most significant voting bloc -- don’t windsurf, or like people who do, or so pollsters would have us believe. The Vineyard combines everything normal people don’t like: swells from the Acela corridor and pointy-heads from the Ivy League aboard non-motorized boats. Clinton aide Dick Morris was so alarmed by Clinton’s Martha’s Vineyard vacations that he forced the family to go to Wyoming and ride horses. Someone with an eye on Joe the Plumber told Obama to forgo his trip to the Vineyard this year.

To comply with the first rule of politics, Romney should be spending the summer defining himself before Obama finishes the job for him. Fueled by Obama campaign attack ads, the image of Romney as a heartless job outsourcer with the ethic of Gordon Gekko and temperament of Scrooge (he gives a lot to the Mormon Church but to no one else) is taking hold. Among swing-state voters who said the ads changed their minds, 76 percent now support the president, versus 16 percent for Romney.

Yet Romney is nothing if not fearless. He topped off his vacation by heading to New York’s Hamptons for three fundraisers. Like Willie Sutton, Romney went there because that’s where the money is. Where else to soak the rich but where the rich are soaking? Despite being behind in fundraising (in June, Obama collected $71 million to Romney’s $106 million), the president decided the Hamptons were too dangerous a place to be seen in campaign season.

Envious Elitists

Romney goes all funny when the subject of money comes up, joking about having once been unemployed and about having multiple Cadillacs. He dismisses concerns about income inequality as the preoccupation of the “envy-oriented” and says the subject is something to be discussed in “quiet rooms.”

In his defense, Republicans probably are more forgiving of candidates who flaunt their wealth -- so long as they observe certain guidelines:

-- As much as possible, refer to each of your multiple homes as a family compound.

-- Own, don’t rent like the Democrats do. See, for example, Romney’s lake, George W. Bush’s ranch, Dwight Eisenhower’s farm; also Clinton’s and Obama’s houses on Martha’s Vineyard. (John Kennedy and Kerry are exceptions to this rule.)

-- Stay inland (Romney, Bush, Ronald Reagan) or, if you must dunk in an ocean, do so in a swing state (Richard Nixon in Key Biscayne, Florida) or the Pacific (Romney in the La Jolla enclave of San Diego).

-- Recreate with high-RPM toys: snowmobiles, ATVs, speedboats, etc. Only wussy liberals waste time cross-country skiing, sailing and surfing.

Luckily for Romney, there were more pictures of his many grandchildren than his house. Tanned with good teeth and hair, they look like the Kennedys, who somehow escaped the effete label despite such decadent pursuits as tennis and yachting.

Republicans give their leaders more room to relax. Reagan took 349 days over eight years at his California ranch, and Bush topped him with 490 days at his ranch in Texas (make that 977 vacation days if you count time at Camp David). Democrats are just more anxious. Obama’s time off this year will be as close to a staycation as his family will allow.


Share:

Monday, July 09, 2012

The Wonders of the Universe - beautiful song!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5C2ku7K7eQ

by the group called Quintessence -- from the late '60s --  a heart-touching song that has been loved all these years by spiritual seekers all over the world
.  Am sending it out today with love to dear friends, past and present, who may still appreciate and treasure it.
Share:

CIA Agent tells truth about Roswell -- Yes, it really did happen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2170831/Roswell-UFO-landing-CIA-agent-Chase-Brandon-speaks-65th-anniversary.html

Yes, there really are aliens -- something I and many of my friends have been aware of for decades and have been trying to tell our doubting friends and relatives.  It's interesting that we are seeing more and more credentialed verification coming out regarding the visitation of our planet by extraterrestrials.  Of course, this has been happening for centuries -- but now, in our time, we are being told -- gradually but insistently -- that we are not alone, that we are being visited by aliens, and that perhaps the stories of aliens working with our governments on Earth are true.  Would this explain some of the mysteries making the news lately, of underground rumblings/loud noises and shaking/rattling of various areas of the U.S.?  Underground bases are operative all over our country/world, and no doubt more are being built.  Are we being told of an alien presence on Earth now because the powers-that-be are being forced to let us know? Or has this informing plan been in the works since 1947, giving us the knowledge little-by-little in gradual bits, so as not to panic the masses? 

Well, for whatever reason, it seems that a vast part of the public now has the knowledge that UFOs are real and aliens are visiting Earth.  It is probably only the rigid fundamentalists of all religions who are in denial and refuse to acknowledge that we humans are not exceptional in the universe. More material is being brought out to the public that earth humans are an engineered species, which would be extremely hard for fundamentalist types to accept.  Their belief in "intelligent design" may be truer than most think -- but not in the way the fundamentalists believe it.  Human evolution on Earth may in fact be a result of engineering/design changes in our species throughout the ages by advanced extraterrestrials.  ET interference in our genetic evolvement could explain the reason behind our failure to ever find the "missing link" between apes and humans.

We are being asked to expand our minds beyond the small-box limits of nursery-school consciousness. Judging from the political scene today as a measure of our understanding, it's apparent there is a heck of a lot of stretching to do.  It would take a miracle to stretch the minds of the Bubble dwellers who don't even believe in global warming in the midst of killer heat waves.  For those who are interested in finding more truth about extraterrestrial visitation of our planet and what it means to us as a species, go to
► 115:51► 115:51
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk and watch the parade of credentialed government and military people telling of their own experiences with UFOs and ETs.  Also, you can google names like Robert O. Dean, a military man who, over decades, has been giving us great details of what is really going on in our world.  You may be amazed at what has been kept hidden from the public for so many years.

Share:

Inspiring video of Dr. who experienced death -- and came back

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/11/mary-neal-knew-about-her-sons-death-before-he-died-from-an-accident/?iref=obnetwork

This surgeon's story may help people lose their fear of dying -- her experience has convinced her we live on after earth life.  In her near-death experience during a kayak accident, she was given notice of a life challenge coming up: that her son would die in an accident -- and that did happen later.  Her story is inspirational.  I know, from my own real experience in seeing and talking with my daughter after her death, that Dr. Neal is speaking truth.  Watch the video and judge for yourself.

Share:

Anyone for "Truth?

Not that having truth about Romney will change the votes of Tea Party right wingers, but this is an excellent column, asking some good questions that Romney doesn't want to answer: 

MITT'S GRAY AREAS  (by Paul Krugman)

Once upon a time a rich man named Romney ran for president. He could claim, with considerable justice, that his wealth was well-earned, that he had in fact done a lot to create good jobs for American workers. Nonetheless, the public understandably wanted to know both how he had grown so rich and what he had done with his wealth; he obliged by releasing extensive information about his financial history.

But that was 44 years ago. And the contrast between George Romney and his son Mitt — a contrast both in their business careers and in their willingness to come clean about their financial affairs — dramatically illustrates how America has changed.

Right now there’s a lot of buzz about an investigative report in the magazine Vanity Fair highlighting the “gray areas” in the younger Romney’s finances. More about that in a minute. First, however, let’s talk about what it meant to get rich in George Romney’s America, and how it compares with the situation today.

What did George Romney do for a living? The answer was straightforward: he ran an auto company, American Motors. And he ran it very well indeed: at a time when the Big Three were still fixated on big cars and ignoring the rising tide of imports, Romney shifted to a highly successful focus on compacts that restored the company’s fortunes, not to mention that it saved the jobs of many American workers.

It also made him personally rich. We know this because during his run for president, he released not one, not two, but 12 years’ worth of tax returns, explaining that any one year might just be a fluke. From those returns we learn that in his best year, 1960, he made more than $660,000 — the equivalent, adjusted for inflation, of around $5 million today.

Those returns also reveal that he paid a lot of taxes — 36 percent of his income in 1960, 37 percent over the whole period. This was in part because, as one report at the time put it, he “seldom took advantage of loopholes to escape his tax obligations.” But it was also because taxes on the rich were much higher in the ’50s and ’60s than they are now. In fact, once you include the indirect effects of taxes on corporate profits, taxes on the very rich were about twice current levels.

Now fast-forward to Romney the Younger, who made even more money during his business career at Bain Capital. Unlike his father, however, Mr. Romney didn’t get rich by producing things people wanted to buy; he made his fortune through financial engineering that seems in many cases to have left workers worse off, and in some cases driven companies into bankruptcy.

And there’s another contrast: George Romney was open and forthcoming about what he did with his wealth, but Mitt Romney has largely kept his finances secret. He did, grudgingly, release one year’s tax return plus an estimate for the next year, showing that he paid a startlingly low tax rate. But as the Vanity Fair report points out, we’re still very much in the dark about his investments, some of which seem very mysterious.

Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven?

And then there’s his Individual Retirement Account. I.R.A.’s are supposed to be a tax-advantaged vehicle for middle-class savers, with annual contributions limited to a few thousand dollars a year. Yet somehow Mr. Romney ended up with an account worth between $20 million and $101 million.

There are legitimate ways that could have happened, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don’t know which if any of those legitimate reasons apply in Mr. Romney’s case — because he has refused to release any details about his finances. This refusal to come clean suggests that he and his advisers believe that voters would be less likely to support him if they knew the truth about his investments.

And that is precisely why voters have a right to know that truth. Elections are, after all, in part about the perceived character of the candidates — and what a man does with his money is surely a major clue to his character.

One more thing: To the extent that Mr. Romney has a coherent policy agenda, it involves cutting tax rates on the very rich — which are already, as I said, down by about half since his father’s time. Surely a man advocating such policies has a special obligation to level with voters about the extent to which he would personally benefit from the policies he advocates.

Yet obviously that’s something Mr. Romney doesn’t want to do. And unless he does reveal the truth about his investments, we can only assume that he’s hiding something seriously damaging.

Readers' Comments

Share:

Saturday, July 07, 2012

Once People Understand ObamaCare, They Like It


The key is in reading what it provides and understanding it. Too bad more Republicans don't take the time to do that. For instance, do they know that the Affordable Care Act will lower premiums for most Americans and reduce the deficit?  The following article explains, to those who want to understand.  For the rest, who listen to Fox and Rush Limbaugh for their opinions/explanations (lies), they will just have to continue to live in their Bubble World misunderstanding, where hatred of Obama keeps our country from moving forward.

Defending ObamaCare: 5 Basics

By Bob Burnett

The June 28th Supreme Court decision that let Obamacare stand gives the president, and all Democrats, an opportunity to remake the case that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a good thing. That's a blessing because many American voters do not understand Obamacare.


The most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll finds Americans evenly split on Obamacare with 46 percent agreeing with the Supreme Court decision, 46 percent disagreeing, and eight percent unsure. While Democrats and Republicans divided along party lines, a slight plurality (45 percent) of Independents approved the ruling.


Nonetheless, many of those who say they do not like Obamacare do not understand it. An April Kaiser Family Foundation Tracking Poll found that only 51 percent of respondents believed they had enough information about how the law would affect them personally. However, when asked their opinion about specific provisions of the law -- "the law will prohibit insurance companies from charging women higher premiums than men" -- typically a strong majority approved. When voters understand Obamacare they like it. (Even Republicans.)


President Obama, and all Democrats, needs to do a better job of conveying the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Here are 5 points to remember:


1. Obamacare reflects values, not policy. At the root of the healthcare controversy are two different conceptions of America. Most Democrats believe that we belong to a "benevolent community" and work together for the common good; as President Obama has repeatedly said, "It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family." Linguists George Lakoff and Elisabeth Wehling refer to this notion as "The Public," "everything that our citizenry as a whole provides to all."


On the other hand, Republicans believe the U.S. is a collection of rugged individuals, each competing in the free market. Lakoff and Wehling term this worldview, "The Private," noting "a free market economy depends upon a strong Public."


From the benevolent-community perspective government, The Public, is how we organize to get certain things done: build roads, construct schools, and make sure that every American has a minimal standard of living including access to affordable healthcare. From the rugged-individual concept, government is an encumbrance; the Private already provides healthcare for some Americans.


2. Healthcare is a right, not a product. Those of us who believe in the benevolent-community vision of America view healthcare as a right that should be enjoyed by all Americans. Those of us who believe in the free-market vision of America see healthcare as a product; Republican Rudy Giuliani once likened healthcare to a flat-screen TV, "If you want a flat screen TV, buy one; and if you don't have the money, go earn it. If you can't, too bad, you don't deserve it."


3. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) regulates insurance companies; it does not regulate healthcare. Obamacare guarantees access to healthcare for all Americans -- except illegal immigrants -- by regulating insurance companies. President Obama defended this by observing:

Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover. We are the only democracy -- the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

4. Obamacare will lower insurance costs. The Affordable Care Act will lower insurance premiums for most Americans. First, it requires everyone to have insurance and eliminates free loaders. Second, it requires insurance companies to spend money on services and not overhead.


5. Obamacare will decrease the deficit. Mitt Romney, and Republicans in general, have spread misinformation about this. However, "in February 2011, the CBO estimated that Obama's health-reform law would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years."


To summarize, the healthcare debate comes down to five points. Two are value driven and three are factual. Obamacare stresses the primacy of the Public over the Private and asserts that healthcare is a right for every citizen. Furthermore, Obamacare regulates insurance companies thereby lowering consumer costs and the deficit. The Affordable Care Act is worth defending.




Share:

Excellent New Yorker article re. the cult of Scientology

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

This article appeared in a February 2011 issue of the New Yorker magazine.  It tells about Paul Haggis, Hollywood writer/director, who was a Scientologist for 34 years -- and finally woke up, realizing he was in a cult.  Because Katie Holmes seems to now have had the same revelation, this article is of interest as it presents many of the Scientology teachings -- and the stories of ex-Scientologists and why they left.



Share:

Friday, July 06, 2012

Good news: There is still some sanity in the Republican party

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/06/reagan-appointed-judge-republican-lunatics-made-me-less-conservative/
This judge makes some sensible points.  But will they be recognized as valid by far right-wing Republicans?  I doubt it.

REAGAN-APPOINTED JUDGE: REPUBLICAN LUNATICS MADE ME LESS CONSERVATIVE


A well-respected judge who was appointed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Ronald Reagan says that he has become less conservative because of “crackpots” and “lunatics” in the Republican Party.

In an interview with NPR on Thursday Judge Richard Posner said that “right-wingers” were making a serious mistake by attacking Chief Justice John Roberts for siding with liberals and upholding President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

“Because if you put [yourself] in his position, what’s he supposed to think?” Posner wondered. “That he finds his allies to be a bunch of crackpots? Does that help the conservative movement? I mean, what would you do if you were Roberts? All of a sudden you find out that the people you thought were your friends have turned against you, they despise you, they mistreat you, they leak to the press.” 

"What do  you do?  Do you become more conservative? Or do you say, 'What am I doing with this crowd of lunatics?'  Right?  Maybe you have to re-examine your position."  He added: "I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy."



Share:

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

The American People Are Angry: Senator Bernie Sanders

     

Bernie Sanders has his hand on the pulse of America -- and is definitely telling the truth!!!  I love this guy and wish he could be President!

"The American people are angry," says Senator 
Bernie Sanders of Vermont. "They are angry that 
the middle class is collapsing because of the 
Wall Street-caused recession, they are angry that 
unemployment is sky high, that 50 million people 
lack health insurance, and that working families 
can't afford college for their kids.

"The top 1% of America owns 40% of the wealth 
in America. The bottom 60% owns less than 2% 
of the wealth in America - and the bottom 40% owns 
less than 3-tenths of 1% of the wealth in America! 

Between 2009 and 2010, 93% of all new income 
went to the top 1%, while the bottom 99% earned 
the remaining 7%.


Video:  

Share: