Veep Pick Ryan Makes Plutocratic Ticket; Ryan's Wealth Sources

To contact us Click HERE
Paul Begala: With Ryan, Romney Has the Plutocrat Ticket[scroll down: Ryan and his wife's wealth, includes a trust fund]by Paul Begala Aug 11, 2012 8:47 AM EDTBy choosing Paul Ryan—the guy who wants to slash taxes on the rich and gut the government—Romney shows he’s decided to go nuclear in the class war.

In selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has doubled-down on the one thing he has never flip-flopped on: economic elitism. Romney, born to wealth, has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who was also born to wealth. As the former University of Oklahoma football coach, Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple.There's nothing wrong with inherited wealth. Lord knows great presidents from FDR to JFK came into their fortunes through the luck of birth. But there is something wrong with winners of the lineage lottery who want to hammer those who did not have the foresight to select wealthy sperm and egg.Finally, we have peered into Mitt Romney's core. It is neither pro-choice nor pro-life; neither pro-NRA nor pro-gun control; neither pro-equality nor antigay. But it is pro-wealth and very anti–middle class. Mitt Romney has decided to go nuclear in the class war.Paul Ryan, the darling of the New York–Washington media elite, is almost certainly not the most qualified person Romney could have picked. Unlike governors like Chris Christie or Tim Pawlenty, or a former high-ranking White House official like Rob Portman, Ryan has never run anything larger than his congressional office or the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. The elite love Ryan because he speaks for more cowardly members of their class; his stridently anti–middle class policies are music to their ears.You will often hear people who ought to know better dress up Ryan's savage economic priorities with euphemisms. Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare. No, he doesn't. He wants to kill it. Saying Paul Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare is like saying the vet wanted to "fix" my dog Major; that which used to work very well no longer works at all—and Major is none too happy with the procedure.Think about that. As my buddy James Carville has said, what would all the Best People say if Nancy Pelosi made her staffers read, say, Margaret Sanger? Or if Barack Obama made interns study Das Kapital? Sure, a few months ago, facing Catholic protestors at Georgetown University, Ryan said he renounced Rand. But as the national Catholic weekly, America, wrote, he did not change the substance of a single policy. Some renunciation. It seems to me Ryan has renounced Rand's politically incorrect atheism, not her morally bankrupt philosophy of Screw Thy Neighbor.Politically, the choice does the one thing Romney needed least of all: it shifts the focus of the 2012 presidential election away from the soft economy and onto the Ryan—now, Romney-Ryan—budget. The most radical governing document in a generation, the Romney-Ryan budget would dramatically alter America's basic social compact. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering".Don't be fooled. Ryan is no deficit hawk. He voted for all the policies that created the current ocean of red ink: the Bush tax cuts for the rich; the war in Iraq; the Bush Medicare prescription-drug plan, the first entitlement without a dedicated revenue source. Ryan cloaks his brutal budget in the urgent rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, but that's a Trojan Horse. As the Center for American Progress has noted, under the Romney-Ryan budget, "the national debt, measured as a share of GDP, would never decline, surpassing 80 percent by 2014, and 90 percent by 2022."Ryan's real goal is to destroy the ladder of opportunity for the poor and the middle class. Look at his budget: Medicare would be shattered and replaced with a voucher system wherein seniors would be given a stipend and told to negotiate with the health insurance goliaths. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ten years after the Ryan plan was enacted, seniors would pay $6,400 per year more for the same health care, as the stipend would fail to keep up with projected cost increases.And that's just for starters. One out of every four dollars spent on transportation—which is already underfunded—would be cut. Veterans' benefits would be cut 13 percent from what President Obama says is needed. Young men Paul Ryan voted to send into combat would suffer once more on the home front. Education would be cut, food safety, air traffic control, environmental protection—almost everything that makes us safer, smarter or stronger—would get hammered.How can a budget so brutal not make a dent in the debt? If you have to ask you have not been paying attention. What is the holy grail for princelings like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? Of course: tax cuts for the rich. The Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers and found that under Romney's proposal, 95 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by an average of $500, but millionaires would receive an extra $87,000 tax cut. The net result: an $86 billion annual shift in the tax burden away from those making over $200,000 a year and onto those making less.And so Romney Hood has his Friar Tuck. And somewhere in hell, Ayn Rand is cackling with glee. Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.Paul Begala is a Newsweek/Daily Beast columnist, a CNN contributor, an affiliated professor of public policy at Georgetown, and a senior adviser to Priorities USA Action, a progressive PAC.For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.Ryan's budget is the fiscal embodiment of the deeply evil, wholeheartedly selfish so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand. In fact, Ryan has described Rand as "the reason I got involved in public service," and reportedly makes staffers read her works.

Ryan has family business connection to earth moving industry. A mini-Dick Cheney II in some senses: In recent years, he has significant investments in Oklahoma mineral industries. Read on in Politico.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan’s personal wealth is no mysteryRead more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23KjyOcVT By DAVE LEVINTHAL | 8/11/12 11:46 AM EDTThe details of Paul Ryan’s personal wealth are no mystery — unlike those of Mitt Romney.And while Ryan is nowhere close to the nine-figure wealth Romney boasts, he isn’t exactly hurting, either.Latest on POLITICO Hirono, Lingle prevail in Hawaii Meet Janna Ryan Ryan is liked by friends and foes Is Ryan just Mitt squared? 8 Dem slams against the Ryan budget Mitt hugs Ryan, not budgetRyan’s overall net worth falls between $927,100 and $3.20 million, making him the 124th wealthiest member of the House, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics of the new Republican vice presidential candidate’s 2010 personal financial filings.(PHOTOS: Scenes from Romney's running-mate announcement)Additional personal financial disclosures by Ryan, who by law has each year filed such reports since entering Congress in 1999, indicate that the Wisconsin congressman has maintained well-above-average wealth for the duration of his congressional tenure.Ultra-wealthy Romney, in contrast, has largely occluded his recent personal financial history.He’s refused to release his recent tax returns before 2010, and unlike Ryan, is under no obligation to release annual personal financial disclosure reports.While running for president in 2007, Romney did file a federal public financial disclosure report that listed hundreds of assets across numerous financial categories.Ryan, meanwhile, has to date been under no significant pressure or obligation to release his personal Internal Revenue Service filings, although calls to do so will likely begin immediately.“It’ll be very, very interesting to see if Ryan releases his tax returns,” said Kathy Kiely, managing editor for the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political money.Ryan’s latest personal financial disclosure report, which covers calendar year 2011, lists several dozen stocks and mutual funds he or his wife, Janna, own.Ryan’s individual investments are generally modest, ranging in value from $1,001 to $15,000. (Federal law only requires lawmakers to report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges.) These include stock in well-known companies that run the gamut from tobacco and oil interests to fast food and athletic wear.Among them: Amazon.com, Air Products Chemicals, Accenture, Berkshire Hathaway, Estée Lauder, McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, Nike, Praixair, Ralph Lauren, Starbucks, Priceline.com, Mastercard, Google, Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble, IBM, United Technologies, Visa, General Electric, ExxonMobil, Apple, Bristol Myers Squibb, Citrix Systems and tobacco companies Altria and Phillip Morris.Ryan also reported a holding in the Ryan Limited Partnership worth up to $250,000. He reported no financial liabilities.(PHOTOS: Paul Ryan through the years)Janna Ryan also individually reported a living trust fund worth $1 million to $5 million, that ranks as the largest asset they collectively reported for last year.She also individually reported up to $250,000 in assets tied to gravel rights with Blondie & Brownie LLC, $100,000 in mineral rights holdings, as well as up to $100,000 worth of holdings in the Little Land Co. All are located in Oklahoma.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23Kk7jtXC

Tom Smith, Speaker of Misogynist Nonsense, Pennsylvania's Verbal Cousin of Todd Akin

To contact us Click HERE
Just when you thought Missouri Congressman and Senatorial candidate Todd Akin takes the cake,meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM PDT
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
by Joan McCarter

Why, oh why, aren't Republicans doing better with women? I mean, they've got guys like this:
[ Then there's a link to this 48 second Youtube video of dumb utterances by Tom Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MhN8F7L7FI ]

That's Tom Smith, anachronistic Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, the guy who said earlier this week that "having a baby out of wedlock" was pretty much like rape. That's a guy with six daughters, so he's got great insight to women.

He's generous, he "allowed" his wife to get a new dress for the event he was speaking at. He's relatable, making a point of talking to the little ladies.

A video released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Democrats shows Smith, who introduced Ryan at an event last week, greeting two women in the crowd and asking them what they're talking about.

"We're talking about the power of petite women," one of the women says.

"Oh," Smith responds. "My guess would have been you were talking about shoes."

"Hahahaha! You women and your shoes. See how well I know your concerns?!"

And he also understands the problems of the economy, and can express it in terms everyone can understand.

"Perhaps where we're making our mistake is that we are asking President Obama and Senator Bob Casey to do something they have no knowledge of. They've never been in business, they've never ran [sic] businesses, they don't have that knowledge," Smith said. "It would be like, your wife wrecks your car. You're gonna take it to the beauty salon to get fixed? No."

"You women and your bad driving and beauty salons. Aren't you precious!"

Ladies, and gentlemen too, that's your 2012 Republican Party. It's hardly a wonder that they don't think we're capable of making our own decisions about our health care and our bodies. We're too busy wrecking cars and thinking about shoes.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote



August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:

Specifically, his daughter's unintended pregnancy to rape, after a Harrisburg press luncheon in front of a group of reporters.

Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press asked Smith, "How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?"

Smith answered, "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But fortunately for me, I didn't have to. . . . She chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."

Scolforo: "Similar how?"

Smith: "Having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: "That is similar to rape?"

Smith: "No, no, no. Well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smith, incidentally and like Akin, is not attending the national Republican confab in Tampa, joining the Romney campaign's ever-expanding list of untouchables, ne'er-do-wells, foot-in-mouthers, and don't-even-think-about-its.

Let's give Smith his due. He's a self-financed, wholly inexperienced candidate who isn't particularly savvy with the press.

Then again, he's a self-financed, inexperienced candidate who, because he's a multimillionaire, hasn't bothered learning the ropes while attempting to launch his elective career in the U.S. Senate, the Augusta National of politics. No baby steps, if you'll pardon the expression, for this guy.

The reason Smith was asked such an indelicate question is because he and his fellow conservatives are on a crusade to outlaw a procedure that's been legal for four decades. They would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, because that's how much they care about women.

Powerhouse Mother Jones site with Romney's 47% comments

To contact us Click HERE
Here's the powerhouse lode of Mitt Romney videos slamming the 47 percent

by David Corn at Mother Jones:

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3149

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:

The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

Advertise on MotherJones.comAt the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn't believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is "almost unthinkable," and that he would merely "kick the ball down the field.")

Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger

Research assistance: James Carter

This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here.

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now Expands Presidential Debate to Include 2 Third Party Candidates

To contact us Click HERE
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now did the great service of expanding the presidential debate to include two third party candidates, Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party). Video is posted at the right on this page.

As President Obama and Mitt Romney squared off for the first time on Wednesday night, Democracy Now! broke the sound barrier by pausing after Obama’s and Romney’s answers to get real-time responses from candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Stein and Anderson joined Democracy Now! for a live special just miles away from the Obama-Romney contest at the University of Denver. Many Obama supporters have expressed surprise that Romney was able to put the president on the defensive, while Obama failed to mention several of Romney’s potential weak spots, including including his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, his vast personal wealth and offshore investments, and his recent remark that 47 percent of Americans are government dependents. Today, highlights from our "Expanding the Debate" special with the voices of all four candidates, showcasing the broadened perspectives on the critical issues beyond the Democratic-Republican political spectrum. [includes rush transcript]
Filed under Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, Dr. Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama
Guests:
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president.
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party candidate for president.
Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president.
President Barack Obama, president of the United States campaigning for re-election.

.Go to this site for a full transcript of the expanded debate, as broadcast at Goodman's Democracy Now.

Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

To contact us Click HERE
From Daily Kos:Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

The former chairman of the Florida Republican Party and former Gov. Charlie Crist, along with two of the party's consultants, say the Grand Old Party curtailed early voting in the state for the express purpose of reducing turnout by Democrats. Although citizen advocates have been saying for more than a year that such efforts in Florida and elsewhere were intended to hurt Democrats at the polls, these insider comments are the strongest evidence yet of the GOP's unAmerican shenanigans directed at curtailing the vote. Not just of Democrats, but of African American voters.

Dara Kam and John Lantigua at the Palm Beach Post quoted Jim Greer, the former state Republican chairman:

“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. [...]

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.” ...

“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”

The law that was passed in 2011 with supermajorities of Republicans in the Florida legislature cut early voting days from 14 to eight, placed restrictions on voter registration efforts that were so onerous the League of Women Voters stopped its efforts in the state and made it more difficult for voters who changed counties between elections to vote, a move that affected minority citizens more than whites.

Greer is under indictment for a campaign fundraising scheme that allegedly put $200,000 into his pocket. He claims party officials knew what he was doing and didn't object and he has sued them for money he says they owe him. The party's current chairman says anything Greer says should be viewed in light of the indictment. In fact, Greer made similar allegations last July during a court hearing on his lawsuit.

The problem with the current chairman's line of defense is that Crist backs up what Greer says. And so do two current GOP consultants, one of whom didn't want his name used:

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.

“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

Crist said that after he extended early voting hours by executive decree in 2008, some Republicans told him, "You just gave the election to Barack Obama.”

Amy Goodman's Democracy Now Expands Presidential Debate to Include 2 Third Party Candidates

To contact us Click HERE
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now did the great service of expanding the presidential debate to include two third party candidates, Rocky Anderson (Justice Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party). Video is posted at the right on this page.

As President Obama and Mitt Romney squared off for the first time on Wednesday night, Democracy Now! broke the sound barrier by pausing after Obama’s and Romney’s answers to get real-time responses from candidates Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. Stein and Anderson joined Democracy Now! for a live special just miles away from the Obama-Romney contest at the University of Denver. Many Obama supporters have expressed surprise that Romney was able to put the president on the defensive, while Obama failed to mention several of Romney’s potential weak spots, including including his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital, his vast personal wealth and offshore investments, and his recent remark that 47 percent of Americans are government dependents. Today, highlights from our "Expanding the Debate" special with the voices of all four candidates, showcasing the broadened perspectives on the critical issues beyond the Democratic-Republican political spectrum. [includes rush transcript]
Filed under Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, Dr. Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama
Guests:
Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president.
Rocky Anderson, Justice Party candidate for president.
Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president.
President Barack Obama, president of the United States campaigning for re-election.

.Go to this site for a full transcript of the expanded debate, as broadcast at Goodman's Democracy Now.

Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

To contact us Click HERE
From Daily Kos:Ousted Florida Republicans, including ex-Gov. Crist, say voter suppression was state GOP's goal

The former chairman of the Florida Republican Party and former Gov. Charlie Crist, along with two of the party's consultants, say the Grand Old Party curtailed early voting in the state for the express purpose of reducing turnout by Democrats. Although citizen advocates have been saying for more than a year that such efforts in Florida and elsewhere were intended to hurt Democrats at the polls, these insider comments are the strongest evidence yet of the GOP's unAmerican shenanigans directed at curtailing the vote. Not just of Democrats, but of African American voters.

Dara Kam and John Lantigua at the Palm Beach Post quoted Jim Greer, the former state Republican chairman:

“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants. [...]

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.” ...

“The sad thing about that is yes, there is prejudice and racism in the party but the real prevailing thought is that they don’t think minorities will ever vote Republican,” he said. “It’s not really a broad-based racist issue. It’s simply that the Republican Party gave up a long time ago ever believing that anything they did would get minorities to vote for them.”

The law that was passed in 2011 with supermajorities of Republicans in the Florida legislature cut early voting days from 14 to eight, placed restrictions on voter registration efforts that were so onerous the League of Women Voters stopped its efforts in the state and made it more difficult for voters who changed counties between elections to vote, a move that affected minority citizens more than whites.

Greer is under indictment for a campaign fundraising scheme that allegedly put $200,000 into his pocket. He claims party officials knew what he was doing and didn't object and he has sued them for money he says they owe him. The party's current chairman says anything Greer says should be viewed in light of the indictment. In fact, Greer made similar allegations last July during a court hearing on his lawsuit.

The problem with the current chairman's line of defense is that Crist backs up what Greer says. And so do two current GOP consultants, one of whom didn't want his name used:

Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.

“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

Crist said that after he extended early voting hours by executive decree in 2008, some Republicans told him, "You just gave the election to Barack Obama.”

February 13 Primaries: What's at Stake?

To contact us Click HERE
Today are the Alabama, Mississippi, Hawaii, and American Samoa primary contests. The American Samoa has already voted, and Romney won.

That leaves the three US states. There is little polling information out of Hawaii (20 delegates), with the last one completed back in October, which is a lifetime (or two) ago for these candidates. Ron Paul is thought to have a shot, and Rick Santorum sacrificed a daughter, but I expect Romney to continue his dominance of the Pacific territories.

Regardless, the two states everyone is watching today are Alabama (50 delegates) and Mississippi (40). Romney has an infamous disconnect with the southern and midwestern parts of the country, which just happen to hold the conservative base of the party. Indeed, the only southern or midwestern state Romney has won is Virginia, and that was likely because Gingrich and Santorum never saw the ballot. Aside from that, Romney has lost Iowa, South Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, and North Dakota. With a losing list like that, one can understand why Romney continues to be dogged by negative press and conservative critics.

How might he stop those voices? By winning one or both of today's Alabama and Mississippi primaries. Of course, as with any primary these days, these contests are even more important to his rivals, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

Gingrich needs to show he belongs in this race. With ubiquitous calls for him to drop out, if he can go 4-0 across the Deep South (by pairing these two with his resounding wins in South Carolina and Georgia), he will quiet those calls. It's hard to argue that he's irrelevant if he's undefeated with the southern base of the party and states like Louisiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, and massive Texas with its 155 delegates remain. Gingrich has a path to 400 delegates, and since his goal is to get to a convention, the possibility of walking that path and limiting Romney to under 1,144 is enough to keep him in the race. Therefore, only one win today will keep him in the race. But if he loses both? You might see a Gingrich exit before Saturday's Missouri Caucus, so as not to hurt Santorum.

Santorum, meanwhile, desperately needs to dig into Romney's large delegate lead before the rest of the party sees a Romney nomination as inevitable. That means defeating him in the south, where Romney is most vulnerable. Gingrich's presence, of course, is a nuisance. In the latest Alabama and Mississippi polls, Gingrich's southern base is clearly not deserting him. In the last PPP poll, the three candidates are running in a statistical three-way tie in Alabama, while Mississippi is almost as tight, with Gingrich polling at 33 percent to Romney's 31 and Santorum's 27. (Rasmussen polls support the razor tight races.) Thus, despite Romney polling rather weakly for a frontrunner, the Gingrich/Santorum split of conservative allegiances is keeping Romney a contender in both states.

Clearly, the results from Mississippi and Alabama have several combinations. All we know is that Ron Paul will finish in fourth. Any of the three candidates can win, and any of the three can finish in third. With all these possibilities, I conjured eight scenarios and their ramifications:

Scenario 1a: Gingrich wins both, Santorum is the runner up in both. The story: Romney's chances for 1,144 take a minor but very real hit, and we look to the calendar to see if Romney has a path to 1,144 without strong results in the remaining south. Gingrich stays in and sees a bump in polls across the board. He positions himself for wins in a handful of future southern states.

Scenario 1b: Gingrich wins both, Romney is the runner up in both. The Romney team celebrates as all candidates march on with a greatly weakened Santorum.

Scenario 1c: Gingrich wins both, Romney and Santorum split the runners up. The Romney team celebrates as all candidates march on with a weakened Santorum.

Scenario 2a: Gingrich wins one, Santorum wins the other. Gingrich has justification for staying in. Santorum claims to be winner between the two "contenders," especially if he finishes second in the other primary. If Gingrich and Santorum lock Romney out from a top 2 in both states, this primary is going into May.

Scenario 2b: Gingrich wins one, Romney the other. Romney shows he can compete in a southern state. Santorum is wounded, with two third places finishes being particularly painful.

Scenario 3: Santorum and Romney split victories. Gingrich drops out if he has two third places. A split goes to Romney in the spin room, as he finally won in the south.

Scenario 4: Romney sweeps. The primary's finished. Everyone stays in, though.

Scenario 5: Santorum sweeps. Gingrich drops out, regardless where he finishes. He lends his full-throated support to Santorum, who will go on to win Missouri in a blowout. The reeling Romney Campaign empties out the treasury to squash Santorum's third surge, but it might not be enough this time. We could be on our way to a brokered convention. (Though it's actually 1a that gives the best chance for a brokered convention.)

My prediction: 2b.

D'oh! The Etch-A-Sketch Seen 'Round the World

To contact us Click HERE
"You could not have found a more perfect illustration of why people distrust Romney than to have his (adviser) say that the Etch A Sketch allows you to erase everything in the general election." - Newt Gingrich, yesterday, Louisiana

Seriously, Romney Campaign? Seriously? I mean, you're going to be the nominee and everything, but can you please get out of your own way? This Etch A Sketch thing... you just can't make it up.

What's the number one criticism of Mitt Romney from the Republican Party's conservative base? That he's not actually a conservative! When he wanted to be a United States Senator from liberal Massachusetts in 1994, he ran as a moderate. It's only when he started running for the Republican nomination for the presidency that he became a conservative. That smell of fish doesn't come from Cape Cod. Something's obviously convenient about the evolution of Mitt Romney's ideology.

Romney, consequently, has basically spent five years assuring the GOP that he's actually a conservative now. ("Honest! I swear! Cross my heart!") Finally, on Tuesday night, he won the Illinois Primary, a contest that basically assured Romney of the inevitability tag for the rest of the nomination process. He did it. He finally pulled it off. Whether he had legitimately moved to the right or he successfully pulled the wool over conservatives' eyes, he was going to be the nominee of the Republican Party. It worked. He won.

And then yesterday happened. Now, I hesitate to say this will have any real impact on his inevitability. It won't. But it still makes for an entertaining development that, at the very least, cost him Louisiana on Saturday. When one of Romney's top advisers, Eric Fehrnstrom, engages in this back and forth with CNN's John Fugelsang, and you consider all that Romney has had to do and say to convince the party of his conservative stripes, you can see why this is pretty darn funny. Here's the video which reveals the dialogue in question:

Fugelsang (CNN): "Is there a concern [that] Santorum and Gingrich's attacks might force the governor so far to the right that it might hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?"

Fehrnstrom (Romney Campaign) responded: "I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."

In other words, Romney says what he needs to say in order to win the Republican nomination, but then when it's the general election, he'll say something else--something moderate--which is the number one thing conservative Republicans had been fearing. You can't make this stuff up.

His rivals, both campaigning in Louisiana, quickly pounced. Rick Santorum has actually been levying this kind of criticism for about a week now, especially after Romney seemingly reversed his position on Puerto Rico's English language requirement for state-hood. ("We stood up for the truth in Puerto Rico. Mitt Romney pandered." This development, therefore, was right in his wheelhouse.

First, his campaign posted a Twitter photo of Santorum using the toy, captioning that the candidate was "studying up on (Romney's) policy positions." Santorum later told the Louisiana audience that Romney "will say what he needs to say to win the election before him, and if he has to say something different because it's a different election and a different group of voters, he will say that, too." Then he drove the point home:

"Well, that should be comforting to all of you who are voting in this primary." With that, Romney lost Louisiana.

Newt Gingrich piled on at his own Bayou State rally. "You have to stand for something that lasts longer than this," he said, holding up his own Etch a Sketch. (Here's what I want to know: did the toy's sales see a bump yesterday? They must have, right?)

More Gingrich: "Here's Gov. Romney's staff, they don't even have the decency to wait until they get the nomination to explain to us how they'll sell us out."

And from that link, more Santorum: "Gov. Romney's campaign had a real moment of truth today. . . . It actually revealed what everybody knew or suspected but now know: Gov. Romney is interested in saying whatever is necessary to win the election and when the game changes, he'll change."

Ouch!

Of course, it should be said that it's not at all uncommon for a nominee of either party to move to the center once the general election season begins. It's just that when conservatives constantly struggle with Romney's past views on social issues, this kind of comment really sticks out. And perhaps the biggest impact of this slip-up is not that it will affect the primary, but that if and when Romney does move to the center, conservatives will feel all the more betrayed, and perhaps even desert the candidate on Election Day.

If only the Romney Campaign could erase yesterday and start anew.

2 + 2 = -15: Double-Dipping on the Ames Straw Poll

To contact us Click HERE
FHQ has thrown a bit of a Twitter temper tantrum over the last few days in response to all this grossly premature talk about tearing down the Ames Straw Poll. For the record, I have no attachment to the quadrennial fundraiser Iowa Republicans hold in the year before a presidential election year. FHQ is indifferent to the exercise itself. What we are not indifferent to is the continued misperception of impact/role of the straw poll.

Sure, the National Review can cart out the tired and useless straw men like the fact that Ames is rarely predictive of the eventual nominee. Maybe some in Iowa operate under the illusion that the straw poll, or the subsequent (and consequential) caucuses for that matter, are or will be predictors of the outcome of the full nomination race. But that has never been the intent of either exercise. To the extent that either is accurate in forecasting the nominee is typically a function of an existent consensus within the party behind one candidate. The hope, then, may be to be predictive, but the reality in the case of the straw poll and the caucuses is far different. Both are winnowing contests, paring down the choice set for voters in contests in New Hampshire and Nevada and South Carolina and every other state. This is the role of any campaign event that takes place in the invisible primary.

The offshoot of this argument -- or perhaps the evolution of it -- has been to turn the tables and poke at the "harm" the straw poll does to the Republican process of nominating presidential candidates. The straw poll not only isn't good at predicting the outcome the argument goes, but it is also eroding top candidate participation in the, again, more consequential Iowa caucuses themselves. Here's the version of that argument from Governor Terry Branstad's (R-IA) spokesman, Tim Albrecht:

Branstad spokesman Tim Albrecht doubled-down on the governor's sentiment last week telling CNN Branstad believes the straw poll is a "disservice to Iowa Republicans in that it discourages top-tier candidates from attending, and therein threatens their participation in the caucuses."...
"The governor instead wants to have events that strengthen the caucuses, NOT weaken them," Albrecht continued, adding "Democrats don't have a straw poll, and they have had all their candidates participate in the last two contested caucuses. Republicans can't say the same."

Look, people are entitled to their opinions. If someone wants to believe that the straw poll kept McCain and Romney away from Iowa, that's fine. It's the wrong conclusion and doesn't add up, but it is fine. [And FHQ won't delve too deeply into this idea that the Democrats in 2004 and 2008 had full candidate participation in their Hawkeye state caucuses because they didn't have a straw poll. That is an utterly ridiculous notion.]

Let's examine this in a different fashion. Scapegoating the Ames Straw Poll after 2012 is like blaming a microphone for a bad congressional town hall meeting. Ames, like open mikes at all those healthcare town hall meetings that took place during the summer 2009 congressional recess, only amplifies extant feelings/partisanship/ideology/consensus within the caucus-going electorate (or within the broader electorate in the case of the town hall meetings). The candidates don't stay away from Iowa because of Ames or the microphone. The candidates know full well that isn't the problem. The problem is one of strategy. No candidate who is viewed as more moderate compared to the full set of candidates is going to invest heavily in a contest where they are likely to lose on ideological grounds. They are outside of the "mainstream" of most (or a plurality of) caucusgoers in Iowa. Candidates in that situation -- let's call them John McCain or Mitt Romney -- make minimal investments, hope for the best and focus more heavily instead on other states. That has nothing to do with the straw poll. It has everything to do with the electorate and strategy relative to the likely outcome (in the straw poll or caucuses) given that electorate.

Those making a premature mountain out of the molehill that is Ames, need to sit back, stop misdiagnosing the problem and wait until 2015, like Republican Party of Iowa chair, AJ Spiker said, when decisions will be made concerning the straw poll.

--
Footnote:
One thing that has not been touched by the press in all of this ballyhoo over Ames is the extent to which the Republican Party of Iowa is still dominated by Ron Paul supporters after 2012. The complaints are coming from outside of the organized party infrastructure. It could be that this is not a story about Ames so much as it is a story about politics within the broader Republican Party of Iowa. Spiker and other Ron Paul supporters within the party apparatus will be up for reelection again before 2015, and it may be that those on the outside looking in on those positions would be better served organizing to defeat those folks rather than attempting to rectify the Ames non-problem. Stated differently, this Ames non-problem is a problem but not because of the injurious impact it may have in 2016. Rather, it is an issue to the governor and others in Iowa because of who would be in charge of the process. These are all really good questions that should be asked of those suddenly calling for an end to the straw poll. A better one would be whether all of the complaints are a function of or a nod to a feeling that those Ron Paul folks can't be beaten and will control any straw poll in 2015. That's the true fear.

...and yeah, that might actually keep a great many candidates not named Rand Paul away in August 2015.

But again, folks, that isn't an Ames problem. That is a political problem within the broader Republican Party of Iowa; one similar to but distinct from the discussion about the direction of the Republican Party at the national level.



Recent Posts:
The Death of the Ames Straw Poll?

2012 Electoral College Wrap Up, Part 2

2012 Electoral College Wrap Up, Part 1
Are you following FHQ on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

State Sen. Dan Patrick Supports School Choice Bill Again in 2013 Texas Legislature

To contact us Click HERE
From Big Jolly Politics (David Jennings):

Support Sen. Dan Patrick’s quest for school choice
If Sen. Dan Patrick wasn’t already the target of the left in Texas, his advocacy for allowing parents and students to have more choices in public education will certainly put him in the crosshairs. Thankfully, he has Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst on his side but this will still be a hard battle to win. Hopefully, facts will win the day and the ultimate fate of school choice will not hinge on emotions. In that light, here are a couple of resources from pro-school-choice groups.
The first is a policy paper from the Orthodox Union, an educational, outreach and social service organization which serves the North American Jewish community. This is the group that sponsored the Rally for Tuition Affordability that Sen. Dan Patrick spoke at last week. They passed out copies of their Orthodox Union Position Paper on Government Aid to Jewish Day Schools, which includes a short section on why they support choice, a discussion of the constitutionality of school choice, and a few specific policies that they support. A quick outline of the paper:

• Reasons to support:
  • Economic fairness
  • Benefits the educational system by adding competition
  • Social justice
• Constitutionality
  • Federal
  • State
  • Tax incentives and constitutional issues
• Specific Policies Supported
  • Security Grants
  • Reimbursement for Government-imposed mandates
  • Special education services
  • In-Kind support (healthcare, textbooks, technology)
  • Free transportation for all students
  • Energy efficiency rebates and grants
  • Tuition Tax Credits
  • Tax credits for donations to scholarship organizations
  • Education vouchers

read the rest of the article here: http://blog.chron.com/bigjolly/2012/11/support-sen-dan-patricks-quest-for-school-choice/

Jonathan Saenz: Pflugerville ISD Power Grab Breaks Texas Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional Amendment

To contact us Click HERE
Op-Ed by Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values Published in the Statesman: 
The Pflugerville power grab
In Texas, government officials are not above the Texas Constitution. In addition to defining marriage as only a “union of one man and one woman,” the Texas Constitution states “this state, or a political subdivision of this state, may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.” Efforts by the government to legally recognize “domestic partnerships” are a clear violation of the Texas Constitution.

The Texas Marriage Amendment was passed in 2005 by an overwhelming majority of over 76 percent of Texas voters after having been passed by a bipartisan supermajority in the Texas Legislature. The reason was and still is as clear as the text of our Constitution itself: Texans support the definition of marriage as it has always been and reject all other legal statuses seeking to undermine our most basic and important social institution.

But that hasn’t kept the homosexual lobby and their enablers in various parts of government from trying. The most recent example: Pflugerville Independent School District Superintendent Charles Dupre made an executive policy change to create a “domestic partnership” category, similar to marriage in several ways, that will allow the district to provide benefits to same-sex partners. The district’s “affidavit of Domestic Partnership” requirements include not being married to someone, being at least 18 years of age and not a blood relative, to name a few.

Sound like marriage? This was done without the approval of the elected school board members, without any evidence of a financial impact analysis or without even a public hearing. This power grab by an unelected government official looks more like what we expect from Washington, D.C., than how things get done in Texas.

The people of Pflugerville were clearly not happy about being ignored and dismissed as irrelevant. Residents responded by overwhelming the next school board meeting, with outraged residents forced to stand as every seat was filled. One after another, members of the community showed up to voice their opposition to the substance and process of this anti-Constitution decision by Dupre. Is this how the government works in Pflugerville — govern by force and might, and shut the people out? Has Dupre forgotten that his salary is paid by the taxpayers?

With the outrage building, state Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, has sent a letter to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, requesting an opinion on whether the Texas Constitution’s definition of marriage precludes any governmental body in Texas from recognizing a domestic partnership legal status by allowing the government to provide benefits to same-sex partners. As Patrick stated, “The will and the respect of the Texas people is being trampled, and I cannot sit by and watch this any longer.” I agree.

This reckless and poorly planned decision is a prime example of why we must demand accountability from our government. If nothing else, government officials are at least expected to follow the law. And now that the Texas attorney general’s office is involved in investigating this matter, we expect this clear violation of the Texas Constitution to be exposed, laying blame squarely at the feet of Dupre. But the elected Pflugerville school board is also at fault. The people of Pflugerville had been emailing and calling the school board about this matter long before their meeting on Oct. 18th. In fact, the district was presented with a specific letter at the board meeting from state Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa and House author of the Texas Marriage Amendment, on how this new policy violates the actual words and intent of our Texas Constitution.

The district’s refusal to address this matter, in light of the outcry of Pflugerville residents and the concerns about the constitutionality of this policy, shows they must approve and support the actions of Charles Dupre, the new King of Pflugerville.

Yes it’s true. It seems a monarchy has arrived in Pflugerville, and King Dupre is accountable to no one, except maybe to the ACLU and the homosexual lobby. Is this how we want our local government run — by Washington, D.C., groups and unaccountable government officials? I suspect that our elected attorney general and other state lawmakers will see this issue differently, and they should. And so should you, the Texas voter and taxpayer.

Texas Man Pulls Gun on Black Friday Line Cutter who Punched Him - Gun Rights Work

To contact us Click HERE
This is great! A line cutter on Black Friday decided to get violent (he must have really wanted that new TV or something)

Anyways, he punches some guy in the face. Things were about to get bad. Then all of the sudden the guy who got punched pulled out a gun to defend himself. The bad guy ran off and no one else cut in line or got assaulted. The man with the gun had a Texas concealed handgun carry permit and was not charged.

See, in Texas we allow people to have guns to protect themselves and it works!

story below from NBCDFW.com

Man Pulls Gun on Rowdy, Line-Cutting Black Friday Shopper
Impatient line-cutter had allegedly punched man in face. Police say man had permit to carry gun and won't be charged.
Black Friday got off to a rowdy start at a San Antonio mall where police say one shopper pulled a gun on another who punched him in the face while they were waiting in line at a Sears store.Police Sgt. Rob Carey tells the San Antonio Express-News a man rushed into the store when it opened Thursday night to get to the front of a line, started arguing with people and tried cutting in front of them.One man who got punched pulled a gun and that scattered shoppers, including the impatient line-cutter who took cover behind a refrigerator. Then he fled.Carey says the man with the gun had a permit to carry the weapon and isn't being charged with a crime.

 

Texas Church Nativity Scene Vandalized - National Liberal Media Doesn't Care When Christians get Vandalized

To contact us Click HERE
If some liberal/gay person/Democrat/Obama supporter had a rock thrown at thier house it would probably make national news as a hate crime. But if a Christian Nativity Scene at a Church gets run over by vandals, who cares right? It is only hate if the person you are hating is liberal. If the person you are hating is a Christian, Conservative or Religious person then it is not a hate crime right? There is so much hypocrisy in America:

story below from KBMT Channel 12 News Beaumont, TX:


Church nativity scene is destroyed by drive-by vandals

A Nederland church congregation wants to know who vandalized their nativity display.

It happened at the Wesley United Methodist Church on the 3500 block Helena Avenue. Church members believe it happened late Friday night.

The set was used for "live" nativity re-enactment. They believe a driver ran over it.

There are tire marks showing what may have happened.

The church plans to rebuild the set and have it ready just in time for the live nativity starting December 7th.

Read full story here: http://www.12newsnow.com/story/20176189/church-nativity-scene-is-destroyed-in-nederland

Texas Bill Proposed to Allow Open Carry of Handguns - 2013 Legislative Session

To contact us Click HERE
I had no idea so many other states allowed some form of Open Carry but Texas of all places does not!

from article on Dallas Morning News by Wayne Slater:

The Legislature passed a law in 1995 allowing Texans to carry handguns concealed under coats, in purses, or in glove compartments. But it’s still against the law to carry pistols where people can see them.

Rep. George Lavender, a Texarkana Republican, wants to change that. When the Legislature convenes in January, he says, he will push for an “open carry” law. His plan is to give the more than 500,000 Texans who hold concealed-weapon licenses the option of carrying holstered pistols out in the open.

Lavender said he finds it ironic that freedom-loving Texas is one of just six states not to allow some form of open carry. The others are Illinois, New York, Arkansas, South Carolina and Florida. An open-carry law went into effect in Oklahoma on Nov. 1.

Lavender and other gun rights advocates argue that law-abiding citizens openly carrying pistols in public places pose a deterrent to criminals.

“This is Texas, and we should be the leader,” said Lavender, who was re-elected without opposition on Nov. 6. Support for his proposal, he said, “is very wide and deep. I think we are fixing to get there.”

read rest of the article here:
http://pushjunction.com/l/CTM

Veep Pick Ryan Makes Plutocratic Ticket; Ryan's Wealth Sources

To contact us Click HERE
Paul Begala: With Ryan, Romney Has the Plutocrat Ticket[scroll down: Ryan and his wife's wealth, includes a trust fund]by Paul Begala Aug 11, 2012 8:47 AM EDTBy choosing Paul Ryan—the guy who wants to slash taxes on the rich and gut the government—Romney shows he’s decided to go nuclear in the class war.

In selecting Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has doubled-down on the one thing he has never flip-flopped on: economic elitism. Romney, born to wealth, has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who was also born to wealth. As the former University of Oklahoma football coach, Barry Switzer, once said of someone else: both these guys were born on third and thought they hit a triple.There's nothing wrong with inherited wealth. Lord knows great presidents from FDR to JFK came into their fortunes through the luck of birth. But there is something wrong with winners of the lineage lottery who want to hammer those who did not have the foresight to select wealthy sperm and egg.Finally, we have peered into Mitt Romney's core. It is neither pro-choice nor pro-life; neither pro-NRA nor pro-gun control; neither pro-equality nor antigay. But it is pro-wealth and very anti–middle class. Mitt Romney has decided to go nuclear in the class war.Paul Ryan, the darling of the New York–Washington media elite, is almost certainly not the most qualified person Romney could have picked. Unlike governors like Chris Christie or Tim Pawlenty, or a former high-ranking White House official like Rob Portman, Ryan has never run anything larger than his congressional office or the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. The elite love Ryan because he speaks for more cowardly members of their class; his stridently anti–middle class policies are music to their ears.You will often hear people who ought to know better dress up Ryan's savage economic priorities with euphemisms. Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare. No, he doesn't. He wants to kill it. Saying Paul Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare is like saying the vet wanted to "fix" my dog Major; that which used to work very well no longer works at all—and Major is none too happy with the procedure.Think about that. As my buddy James Carville has said, what would all the Best People say if Nancy Pelosi made her staffers read, say, Margaret Sanger? Or if Barack Obama made interns study Das Kapital? Sure, a few months ago, facing Catholic protestors at Georgetown University, Ryan said he renounced Rand. But as the national Catholic weekly, America, wrote, he did not change the substance of a single policy. Some renunciation. It seems to me Ryan has renounced Rand's politically incorrect atheism, not her morally bankrupt philosophy of Screw Thy Neighbor.Politically, the choice does the one thing Romney needed least of all: it shifts the focus of the 2012 presidential election away from the soft economy and onto the Ryan—now, Romney-Ryan—budget. The most radical governing document in a generation, the Romney-Ryan budget would dramatically alter America's basic social compact. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich called it "right-wing social engineering".Don't be fooled. Ryan is no deficit hawk. He voted for all the policies that created the current ocean of red ink: the Bush tax cuts for the rich; the war in Iraq; the Bush Medicare prescription-drug plan, the first entitlement without a dedicated revenue source. Ryan cloaks his brutal budget in the urgent rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, but that's a Trojan Horse. As the Center for American Progress has noted, under the Romney-Ryan budget, "the national debt, measured as a share of GDP, would never decline, surpassing 80 percent by 2014, and 90 percent by 2022."Ryan's real goal is to destroy the ladder of opportunity for the poor and the middle class. Look at his budget: Medicare would be shattered and replaced with a voucher system wherein seniors would be given a stipend and told to negotiate with the health insurance goliaths. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ten years after the Ryan plan was enacted, seniors would pay $6,400 per year more for the same health care, as the stipend would fail to keep up with projected cost increases.And that's just for starters. One out of every four dollars spent on transportation—which is already underfunded—would be cut. Veterans' benefits would be cut 13 percent from what President Obama says is needed. Young men Paul Ryan voted to send into combat would suffer once more on the home front. Education would be cut, food safety, air traffic control, environmental protection—almost everything that makes us safer, smarter or stronger—would get hammered.How can a budget so brutal not make a dent in the debt? If you have to ask you have not been paying attention. What is the holy grail for princelings like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan? Of course: tax cuts for the rich. The Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers and found that under Romney's proposal, 95 percent of Americans would see their taxes go up by an average of $500, but millionaires would receive an extra $87,000 tax cut. The net result: an $86 billion annual shift in the tax burden away from those making over $200,000 a year and onto those making less.And so Romney Hood has his Friar Tuck. And somewhere in hell, Ayn Rand is cackling with glee. Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.Paul Begala is a Newsweek/Daily Beast columnist, a CNN contributor, an affiliated professor of public policy at Georgetown, and a senior adviser to Priorities USA Action, a progressive PAC.For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.Ryan's budget is the fiscal embodiment of the deeply evil, wholeheartedly selfish so-called philosophy of Ayn Rand. In fact, Ryan has described Rand as "the reason I got involved in public service," and reportedly makes staffers read her works.

Ryan has family business connection to earth moving industry. A mini-Dick Cheney II in some senses: In recent years, he has significant investments in Oklahoma mineral industries. Read on in Politico.

Unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan’s personal wealth is no mysteryRead more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23KjyOcVT By DAVE LEVINTHAL | 8/11/12 11:46 AM EDTThe details of Paul Ryan’s personal wealth are no mystery — unlike those of Mitt Romney.And while Ryan is nowhere close to the nine-figure wealth Romney boasts, he isn’t exactly hurting, either.Latest on POLITICO Hirono, Lingle prevail in Hawaii Meet Janna Ryan Ryan is liked by friends and foes Is Ryan just Mitt squared? 8 Dem slams against the Ryan budget Mitt hugs Ryan, not budgetRyan’s overall net worth falls between $927,100 and $3.20 million, making him the 124th wealthiest member of the House, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics of the new Republican vice presidential candidate’s 2010 personal financial filings.(PHOTOS: Scenes from Romney's running-mate announcement)Additional personal financial disclosures by Ryan, who by law has each year filed such reports since entering Congress in 1999, indicate that the Wisconsin congressman has maintained well-above-average wealth for the duration of his congressional tenure.Ultra-wealthy Romney, in contrast, has largely occluded his recent personal financial history.He’s refused to release his recent tax returns before 2010, and unlike Ryan, is under no obligation to release annual personal financial disclosure reports.While running for president in 2007, Romney did file a federal public financial disclosure report that listed hundreds of assets across numerous financial categories.Ryan, meanwhile, has to date been under no significant pressure or obligation to release his personal Internal Revenue Service filings, although calls to do so will likely begin immediately.“It’ll be very, very interesting to see if Ryan releases his tax returns,” said Kathy Kiely, managing editor for the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, which tracks political money.Ryan’s latest personal financial disclosure report, which covers calendar year 2011, lists several dozen stocks and mutual funds he or his wife, Janna, own.Ryan’s individual investments are generally modest, ranging in value from $1,001 to $15,000. (Federal law only requires lawmakers to report their assets and liabilities in broad ranges.) These include stock in well-known companies that run the gamut from tobacco and oil interests to fast food and athletic wear.Among them: Amazon.com, Air Products Chemicals, Accenture, Berkshire Hathaway, Estée Lauder, McDonald’s, Kraft Foods, Nike, Praixair, Ralph Lauren, Starbucks, Priceline.com, Mastercard, Google, Wells Fargo, Procter & Gamble, IBM, United Technologies, Visa, General Electric, ExxonMobil, Apple, Bristol Myers Squibb, Citrix Systems and tobacco companies Altria and Phillip Morris.Ryan also reported a holding in the Ryan Limited Partnership worth up to $250,000. He reported no financial liabilities.(PHOTOS: Paul Ryan through the years)Janna Ryan also individually reported a living trust fund worth $1 million to $5 million, that ranks as the largest asset they collectively reported for last year.She also individually reported up to $250,000 in assets tied to gravel rights with Blondie & Brownie LLC, $100,000 in mineral rights holdings, as well as up to $100,000 worth of holdings in the Little Land Co. All are located in Oklahoma.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79611.html#ixzz23Kk7jtXC

Tom Smith, Speaker of Misogynist Nonsense, Pennsylvania's Verbal Cousin of Todd Akin

To contact us Click HERE
Just when you thought Missouri Congressman and Senatorial candidate Todd Akin takes the cake,meet Tom Smith, Republican Senatorial nominee from Pennsylvania who talks about women like it's 1952.From Daily Kos:

Fri Aug 31, 2012 at 08:25 AM PDT
Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote
by Joan McCarter

Why, oh why, aren't Republicans doing better with women? I mean, they've got guys like this:
[ Then there's a link to this 48 second Youtube video of dumb utterances by Tom Smith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1MhN8F7L7FI ]

That's Tom Smith, anachronistic Republican Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, the guy who said earlier this week that "having a baby out of wedlock" was pretty much like rape. That's a guy with six daughters, so he's got great insight to women.

He's generous, he "allowed" his wife to get a new dress for the event he was speaking at. He's relatable, making a point of talking to the little ladies.

A video released Thursday by the Pennsylvania Democrats shows Smith, who introduced Ryan at an event last week, greeting two women in the crowd and asking them what they're talking about.

"We're talking about the power of petite women," one of the women says.

"Oh," Smith responds. "My guess would have been you were talking about shoes."

"Hahahaha! You women and your shoes. See how well I know your concerns?!"

And he also understands the problems of the economy, and can express it in terms everyone can understand.

"Perhaps where we're making our mistake is that we are asking President Obama and Senator Bob Casey to do something they have no knowledge of. They've never been in business, they've never ran [sic] businesses, they don't have that knowledge," Smith said. "It would be like, your wife wrecks your car. You're gonna take it to the beauty salon to get fixed? No."

"You women and your bad driving and beauty salons. Aren't you precious!"

Ladies, and gentlemen too, that's your 2012 Republican Party. It's hardly a wonder that they don't think we're capable of making our own decisions about our health care and our bodies. We're too busy wrecking cars and thinking about shoes.

Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, courting the lady vote



August 28, 2012, Philadelphia Inquirer: No abortions for rape victims, says GOP Senate candidatehttp://articles.philly.com/2012-08-28/news/33425906_1_abortion-missouri-candidate-gop-senate-candidate
Plus, it looks like he's trying to compaign for the Todd Akin voter in his own state, as columnist Karen Heller wrote on August 30, 2012 in Philly.com:

Specifically, his daughter's unintended pregnancy to rape, after a Harrisburg press luncheon in front of a group of reporters.

Mark Scolforo of the Associated Press asked Smith, "How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will?"

Smith answered, "I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But fortunately for me, I didn't have to. . . . She chose the way I thought. Don't get me wrong; it wasn't rape."

Scolforo: "Similar how?"

Smith: "Having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: "That is similar to rape?"

Smith: "No, no, no. Well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smith, incidentally and like Akin, is not attending the national Republican confab in Tampa, joining the Romney campaign's ever-expanding list of untouchables, ne'er-do-wells, foot-in-mouthers, and don't-even-think-about-its.

Let's give Smith his due. He's a self-financed, wholly inexperienced candidate who isn't particularly savvy with the press.

Then again, he's a self-financed, inexperienced candidate who, because he's a multimillionaire, hasn't bothered learning the ropes while attempting to launch his elective career in the U.S. Senate, the Augusta National of politics. No baby steps, if you'll pardon the expression, for this guy.

The reason Smith was asked such an indelicate question is because he and his fellow conservatives are on a crusade to outlaw a procedure that's been legal for four decades. They would prohibit abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger, because that's how much they care about women.

Powerhouse Mother Jones site with Romney's 47% comments

To contact us Click HERE
Here's the powerhouse lode of Mitt Romney videos slamming the 47 percent

by David Corn at Mother Jones:

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.
—By David Corn | Mon Sep. 17, 2012 1:00 PM PDT3149

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:



At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, "Had he been born of Mexican parents, I'd have a better shot of winning this." Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, "I have inherited nothing." He remarked, "There is a perception, 'Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.' Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America."

More MoJo coverage of Mitt Romney:

The Mystery of Romney's Exit From Bain
Exclusive Audio: Inside the Koch Brothers' Secret Seminar
Documents: Romney Invested in Medical-Waste Firm That Disposed of Aborted Fetuses
Romney Invested Millions in Firms That Pioneered High-Tech Outsourcing
6 Things Mitt Romney Is Hiding
Romney told the contributors that "women are open to supporting me," but that "we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we're in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation." When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, "Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars." He added, "The fact that I'm either tied or close to the president…that's very interesting."

Asked why he wouldn't go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:



We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, "Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?" they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, "Are you disappointed that his policies haven't worked?" they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don't want to be told that they were wrong, that he's a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he's corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn't up to the task. They love the phrase that he's "over his head." But if we're—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don't agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he'd keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn't been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can't get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won't graduate from high school. What're they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, "Yeah, I think you're right." What he's going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who's been successful, or who's, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.

(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)

To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:



I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn't realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I'd tell them to you, but I'd have to shoot you.

When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn't attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:



Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don't think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, "Being right early is not good in politics." And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn't win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of "hope and change."

Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:



They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

Advertise on MotherJones.comAt the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney "sparingly…so that people don't get tired of her." And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance "has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential."

Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

COMING SOON: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn't believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is "almost unthinkable," and that he would merely "kick the ball down the field.")

Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger

Research assistance: James Carter

This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here.