Herman Cain Lies & Misleads Again

These conservatives lie and mislead their "flock" every step of the way.  Not surprising though.  Liberals are "sick" and "racist"?

Here's the latest from Herman Cain (Remember him?  He was on the Republican Clown Car back in 2012.) 

A screenshot of a post from Herman Cain's Facebook page; early March 2015.

Does Cain still have followers?

It seems as if Cain shouldn't have many followers anymore, but he still has hundreds of thousands, including a friend of mine, someone I worked with for many years and basically respect. The above post came across my newsfeed a few days ago, shared by that friend. 

Of course, Cain is trying to make liberals out to be "sick", "crazy" and racist. This is classic Republican propaganda: The LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS are racists, not the crazy Republicans, especially the Tea Party people.

The Situation is really much more complex..

The information below makes it clear that the situation, both the desire to get women on the $20 bill and the truth about Margaret Sanger herself, is much more complex than Cain's quick sensationalizing, rabble-rousing Facebook post would have you believe.

We need to remember that our conservative friends have been lied to and misled by people such as Cain every step of the way.  Not sure if there is any way we can "get" to so many of these people, including my friend.

The real story...

There is a group of women that wants to "banish" Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replace him with a woman.  No, "they", a group named Women on 20's, are not insisting that Margaret Sanger and only Margaret Sanger should be on the $20 bill.  She's one of several women that the group is SUGGESTING might be honored on the twenty dollar bill.

The Washington Post reports:

The new group has come up with a list of 15 women it would like to see on the $20 bill instead, including Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt and Harriet Tubman.  Campaign organizers are targeting the 20 because 2020 will mark the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

Of course the righties zeroed right in on the name of Margaret Sanger on the list.

First of all, as I just mentioned, Margaret Sanger is one of 15 people women on the list, and saying that "liberals want to put HER on the twenty dollar bill" as if she is the only name proposed, and as if the women's group speaks for all "liberals" is just a big lie.

Secondly, it's hard to reduce her contributions to women to the words "racist eugenicist". Anyone who reduces her to a "racist eugenicist" knows nothing about the woman, her work, or the time she lived in.  She was the daughter of a woman who went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49.  This was not atypical of women who lived just a few generations before us.

Wikipedia has a good article about her HERE which highlights both the good and the problematic of Margaret Sanger.

Some highlights:

• She wanted to curtail immigration.  She apparently did make a comment or two about "mongrels".  As my grandparents were immigrants in the early 20th century, she might have considered them "mongrels".  
• Though she was a great champion of birth control, as most of us know, she did have some ideas about pushing "birth control" for those who were unfit.  She did advocate coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" having children.  But she did denounce the Nazi's approach to eugenics.
• She apparently expressed racist thoughts; however, "such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities."  She opened a birth control clinic in Harlem in conjunction with the Urban League.  She earned praise from Martin Luther King.  More information on this at Wikipedia. 

So, as usual, the right-wingers lie, misrepresent, and turn good into bad.. and blame liberals.

It's always good to know what these people, people like Herman Cain, are thinking...  Their ascendancy in American life is a threat to all of us.

Hillary Clinton: She's all that stands between you and Republicans in the White House

Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton?

Most of the Facebook groups of which I am a member, many of the liberal sites and blogs I regularly follow, and many of my Facebook friends are pro-Elizabeth Warren Progressives. (Of course, Elizabeth Warren has clearly and emphatically and repeatedly denied that she is a candidate for the Presidency in 2016.)

Hillary Clinton

WS
Some of them insist that Hillary is no better than Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, or Scott Walker; and some of them insist that they will refuse to vote for her.  She is too "Wall Street" for them.  (They think that Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker AREN'T "Wall Street"? Not sure I really understand that complaint in view of the opposition.)   

Well, I WILL vote for Hillary Clinton, though with reservations, and for a couple of very good reasons; the first one is of utmost importance:

 She will probably win.

Remember Watergate?

Let me put this in context:

I've been watching the movie about Watergate, All the President's Men, over the past few evenings. The movie was released in 1976 with Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as the young reporters.  If you don't recall or you are too young to remember, the Watergate scandal was not about a minor league break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters in the run up to the 1972 election; it was about Republican dirty tricks to knock off the strongest Democratic opponents; the opponents that actually could have BEAT Nixon and deprived the Republicans of Nixon's second term.

The Republicans WANTED to run against a Progressive in 1972. 

They went after Senator Ed Muskie, a Democrat from Maine, because apparently there were some polls in 1971 that showed that Muskie was the guy who could beat Nixon. Their campaign "operatives" wrote memos on Muskie campaign paper that seemed to portray Muskie as a bigot regarding French-Canadians in his home state of Maine.   They trashed his wife.  This contributed to the breakdown of the Muskie candidacy.  But we all have to remember that, what came out during the Watergate investigations, the Republicans WANTED Nixon to run against the progressive/liberal McGovern because they knew Nixon would beat McGovern.       

The 2016 version of Dirty Tricks

"Dirty tricks" are probably worse now with the unfiltered Internet; with talk radio, bloggers, and even Fox News free to say whatever they want to say about somebody, even if those statements are outright lies.  Every time I see someone portraying themselves as a liberal or progressive and insisting that Hillary is too "Wall Street" for them, I think about those dirty tricks; I wonder if anyone is funding this or that "Progressive" attack on Hillary Clinton.

They WANT Progressives to Stay Home.

The Republicans KNOW that Clinton can beat anybody now on the Republican clown car.  She continues to lead all comers in every poll.  So they will pound on her from every side and from the top and the bottom... and they will feed Progressives (or faux Progressives) anti-Clinton stuff as well.

They are hoping the Progressives will stay home and will allow Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, or Chris Christie to move their conservative Republican war-mongering anti-people legions into the White House.  (And they would love to see Elizabeth Warren run in opposition to any of those now on the Republican clown car, because, as much as Progressives love her, she would probably lose.  As great as she is, she is fairly unknown and she never gets more than 15% on polls among DEMOCRATS!)

Actually, the second reason I would vote for Clinton is also of utmost importance:

Remember the Supreme Court!

No, Both Parties are NOT the Same, particularly when one party or the other is in the White House and nominating Cabinet officials and federal judges....  especially Supreme Court judges.

So my bottom line:  Even if you think Clinton is not progressive enough, defend her wherever you can with your life.

For Hillary Clinton is all that stands between all of us and Nixon/Bush/Reagan CPAC conservative types in the White House - and on the Supreme Court.

And if you really think that a Democratic administration headed by Clinton will be "no different" than a Republican administration headed by Jeb Bush or one of those other guys...  well, wake up, for heaven's sake.  Pull your head out of your ass. 

Related reading:

• March 18, 2015:  Allen Clifton at Forward Progressives just published  There’s A Reality About Hillary Clinton That Many Liberals Need To Face
• March 13, 2015:  Jim Wright at his Stonekettle Station site talks about Republican war-mongering and mentions the election of 1968.  

A Mass Shooting In Texas County, Missouri: More Guns Are Needed!

"I remember thinking that I had to listen very carefully and remember everything because, if someone got shot, I would have to be a witness." 

Eight people in four different residences were killed in unincorporated Texas County, Missouri, last night and earlier this morning.  The shooter then killed himself.

Crime scene investigators gather, from Local Fox tv

Too Common            

These stories are unfortunately very common in these United States, even though eight people killed in a house-to-house shooting is somewhat extreme.

My first thoughts were:  Why do we have so many guns in this country?  And:  This is probably an area in which people have many guns.  The guy killed people in four different houses in rural Missouri.  What are the chances that there were NO GUNS in those four homes?  We don't know for sure, but if some of those people had guns, those guns did not protect them from this guy who was intent, for whatever reason, on killing people.

They were family.

OK:  It now appears that the people that were killed were COUSINS of the shooter. Good chance they allowed this man into their home... because they knew him. So how does having a gun (even if that gun is right by your side, loaded and ready) prevent a relative or a friend, someone you know, from walking into your home, engaging you in some kind of conversation, and then, without warning, pulling out a gun and shooting? We don't know the details yet, but it is unlikely that the victims saw this man as an intruder... He was family.

The Gun Nuts square off against the Gun Control people...

The short first comment to the MSN story made reasonable sense to me, as I felt the same way: 

Have we had enough of this? Or do you NRA nut jobs still want your guns?

Of course, her comment was answered by dozens who insist that these kinds of events show that we need MORE guns, and that somehow the more guns, the safer we will be:

News like this only reinforces why law abiding citizens should have the right to bear arms.  If you want to be an easy, vulnerable target, be my guest, but I like to be able to protect myself.

If this man walked into your house, would you want to be an NRA nut job and protect your family and self, or be as it appears you are and stand there and watch the person kill your family and then you. No offense, but I am glad your not the mother of my children or grand-children.

And then a barely legible comment claiming that more people were killed with hammers than assault weapons.  (That might be true... but we're talking about GUNS here, not necessarily assault weapons.  And I still don't believe that more people intent on inflicting harm on others did so with hammers vs. guns.)

up yours moron in 2010 more people were killed with hammers than assault rifles. Its horrible when it does but if you look at countries that have outlawed guns the rate of violent crimes has increased. We are a country of 300 t0 330 million with about 300 million guns yesterday 299,999,999 were not used in this act. As for reality I have my guns and I will use them in self defense or offense if the need arises. Bottom line if you don't' like it just post a sign on your house saying, " no nasty guns in this house ", see if that makes you sleep any better.

There's not much more to say about this polarizing issue. Few people who insist that guns make this a safer country will ever change their minds.  The people who believe that easy access to guns make this a more dangerous country will probably also not change their minds.

The bottom line to me is always this, however:  

Unless you have that gun loaded and right at your side at all times and you are a trained (and good) marksman, you will not be protected against an unexpected home invader.  

Unfortunately, if that gun is loaded and right at your side, there is a much better chance that you or a family member will die from some kind of gun accident. And if you are not a trained (and good) marksman, even if you manage to get that gun into firing position, you will probably not be able to either pull the trigger or shoot the intruder... if indeed you have the time to figure out if the intruder is really an intruder and not just your drunken neighbor who somehow accidentally blundered into your home in a boozy fog.

I know men with guns.

My father was an auxiliary (volunteer) policeman when we were kids.  He was required to undergo regular and vigorous training in the use of his gun to continue his work.  He always had a gun in the house.  As soon as he came off of duty, he'd empty it and lock it into its case.  He did not feel safe until that gun was unloaded and locked away.  Only then could he relax and tell us what went on while he was on duty.  

My husband was a Gunner's Mate in the military.  He owned guns during much of his life, and he was trained in their use.  He hasn't had guns in his home for a long time, and we have no guns here.  He had a few bad dreams from which he awoke...and found himself, still half asleep, with a gun in his hands, about to off an enemy that existed only in his nightmares.  He got rid of his guns.

Fun With a Gun    

The closest I ever came to a gun "event" was back in the 70's.  A few friends and I were out in the clubs (we were young), we met another group of young people, and decided, after the clubs closed, to go back to the apartment of one of the young women to continue partying.  The young woman had told us earlier that she had recently broken up with her boyfriend who was a cop.  What we didn't know is that he was still staying with her and hadn't moved out.

So when we came trooping in, loudly, about eight people, in the middle of the night, in various stages of intoxication, he was in the bedroom sleeping, with his gun on the coffee table in the living room.  We were stunned when he came screaming and storming out of the bedroom, not in a good humor.  Most of us scattered out the door; party over.....  but his drunken (ex) girlfriend picked up the gun and aimed it at him.   "I'm going to shoot you," she said.

The next half hour was spent with the cop and another friend talking her into putting down the gun, which she eventually did.  I remember sitting outside her door on the steps, in a still-slightly inebriated haze, thinking that I had to listen very carefully and remember everything because, if someone got shot, I would have to be a witness.  (We didn't call the cops because:   1. No cell phones back then and no access to the phone in the apartment. 2. The guy was a cop and there was some concern that he would get into trouble... or that our friend would get into trouble for threatening him with his gun.)  

So...  I don't like guns very much.  If people want them for target-shooting or even hunting, that's fine... But the idea that somehow you are going to save yourself or a family member if you have an arsenal in your living room is ..... silly.  And the idea that background checks or controls that keep mentally ill people from having firearms will somehow interfere with your right to be a member of "a well-regulated militia" is... absurd.

Meanwhile, eight more people are dead in Missouri.  

    

The "Left" and the "Right": Living in Two Different Realities

Two Different Realities?

I know that some people attempt to purge their pages and friends lists of conservative/radical Republican/Libertarian types, but I think it is important to know what these conservative and libertarian people are thinking and talking about -- as long as they are not insulting or annoyingly repetitive. 

Unfortunately, it often seems as if we live in two different realties, perhaps even two parallel universes. To be honest, most of the stuff I find shared by my right-leaning friends from rightie blogs and news outlets is incomplete, misleading, oversimplified and/or outright wrong. But a glance through something like the Washington Examiner or a blog like "The GOP Daily Dose" is like taking a walk in a nightmarish hell that doesn't fit the reality in which most of us live. 

Found HERE.  I lightened the image so that the people cheering their Fearless Leader were more obvious.

It's easy to say that all of this is foolishness and it should be ignored by better-informed people, but millions of people believe the stuff that these right-leaning blogs spout.  They accept these writings and memes at face value and don't bother to even follow links or do some basic investigation.

And, of course, the rightie press and media has done such a complete job villainizing President Obama that those who "lean right" accept, without a second thought, anything that portrays the President as either an "incompetent who spends most of his time playing golf" or a totalitarian Big Brother.

Let's take the image above, found at a right-leaning blog HERE. It took me a lot of searching to try to put the whole story together, and I'm still investigating.

Now, there are two different stories here: 

The first is the absolute disconnect between the articles that Democrats/progressives/liberals post and publish and the articles that Republicans/righties/libertarians post and publish.  If you look at stories coming across your Facebook newsfeed from right-leaning friends or you look at articles on these right-leaning blogs and news venues, you won't even recognize that these right-wing authors are writing about the same issues in the same country.

The second is the story about the Federal Election Commission and what it is actually trying to do or not do.  Whether you agree with the Democrats or the Republicans on the FEC (and it is always an evenly divided commission in an attempt to be non-partisan), it should be ultimately clear that this is not about some kind of tyrant Big Brother Obama keeping people from reading whatever it is they want to read on the Internet-- Nor is it about Big Brother Obama getting ready to round up people who don't agree with the "Government" into some of those non-existent FEMA camps that some on the right like to promote.

I'm going to publish this article now, encouraging people to actually spend a few minutes (if you haven't recently done so-- and only if you have the stomach for it) looking at the articles published in right-leaning venues.  It's an important first step in understanding why our country is so divided.. and so divided on EVERYTHING, every issue it seems, more so than in the past.

Free Speech or Oligarchy?

Meanwhile, I'll track down the issues involved in the FEC controversy...  The Democrats on the FEC want to do SOMETHING to protect our democracy; while the Republicans on the FEC rail about "free speech" and feel that any kind of restrictions on the Fat Cats may interfere with our rights to "Free Speech".

How has the takeover of our democracy by the richest among us turned into an argument about "Free Speech"? Just ponder that for a minute or two or more.

And, for the record, I'm not getting a penny from anybody, right, left, or middle, to write this blog.  I do make some money from the ads and that's it.          

Congratulations Non-Voters Who Believe That "Both Parties are the Same"!

Found somewhere on Facebook.. I'll be happy to credit this if I can find the original.

On the occasion of the first week of the new, completely Republican Congress (January 2015):

In the first week of the new, completely Republican congress:

The Republicans Attack Social Security

On Day #1 of the new Congress:

(First written early January 2015.  Updated late April 2015.  See note at bottom of page.) 

While many of us were occupied by the horrendous terrorist attacks in France:
 

...The Republicans made a move that will hurt the disabled and the elderly more than any terrorist attack: They are playing games with Social Security that could result in an average cut of about $250/month to disabled former workers who now depend on Social Security (SSDI) starting sometime next year.

The Trust Fund for SSDI (not the Trust Fund for regular Social Security) will be emptied by the end of next year.  What has happened before when one of the Social Security Trust Funds has been emptied is that benefits have been paid from the other fund until the funds have been recouped.  This has happened almost automatically several times in the past without causing any recipient consternation or sleepless nights.  The Republican Congress passed a regulation to disallow this; you know, "fiscal responsibility", etc.   

Now that decrease of $250/month may be the difference between medications and no medications, between eating adequately and not eating, between keeping a decent roof over their heads and losing their homes or apartments.

It's YOUR fault!

Let's not forget Republican thinking: If you haven't been able to save enough for retirement and you need Social Security to live, it is YOUR FAULT and you deserve to live in abject poverty in a hovel.

If you haven't been able to save enough for retirement because you became disabled sometime before you retired, it is YOUR FAULT and you deserve to live in a hovel in abject poverty while you are disabled.  They've also been successful in some circles with promoting the idea that most disabled people are collecting fraudulently.  It's a long, hard process to get SSDI, as anyone who has had to turn to this program knows,-- despite what Republicans and Fox News try to tell us.

A scary portent of what is to come:

This should be very disturbing and frightening indeed for any of us who are (or soon will be) living on SS or SSDI and have very few additional resources.

Update 4/27/2015:  No update actually.  This is the way things stand.  This is not a bill; it is a change in a regulation pertaining to Social Security over which Congress has authority.  As a result, the Democrats cannot block this nor can President Obama veto it.  I have heard nothing about this for months now; no movement on it, no complaints about it.  It will stand until the last minute before it is to go into effect and then become an issue in the 2016 campaigns.  Meanwhile people living on SSDI are going to experience unnecessary misery and anxiety.   Thanks Republicans in Congress!

Ebola! ISIS! And the United States Senate..

What Really Cost the Democrats the Senate?

People are finger-pointing and complaining, complaining, and complaining MORE; threatening to leave the Democrats (as if to teach those Democrats a lesson... while THEY wind up suffering under Republican control, which is what happened in 2000.)  The abysmal voter turnout was a huge factor, of course.  But why was the voter turnout so abysmal?  

But I've been looking at poll numbers over the past few weeks until my eyes are ready to fall out of my head... After reading dozens of articles on the election results, I STILL believe the BIGGEST (but not only) factor in the Democratic loss of the Senate was the sensationalism of the ISIS and the Ebola crises.  These twin crises pushed the Republicans over the top to control of the Senate. 

From a cartoon copyright Lalo Alcaraz.  Found on Facebook

I