May 072016

Here I am, wide awake at 2 am having gone to bed at 10 pm because I have a very early start Saturday morning.  Young Loliyo has a dance competition and I will babysit her younger brother and sister, Simon and Regina, while Lucia goes to watch Loliyo compete.  I have to be at Lucia's house at 7 am.  OMG!!!  That's too early for this old Sasquatch!  I was up very early Friday because I was originally told that the competition was Friday.  Speaking of Friday, Simon is now officially 2 years old and a little devil.  I would like to take he and Regina for a walk but my knee won't take it so they'll have to be content to have a water fight with a soaker gun in the yard.  The weather is scheduled to be hot today, around 28 C (80F) so hopefully the water will cool the kids off and run off some energy.  Of course I'll have to be careful as we already have water restrictions in force.  Please say a prayer for me that I survive the diaper changes.  I haven't changed a diaper in 45 years!

Short Takes

CBC — No, Donald Trump is not going to be president, or invade Mexico, or deport all immigrants, or disenfranchise women voters, or drop nuclear bombs in Syria and Iraq.

What he almost certainly is going to do, though, is trigger an enormous disruption of the Republican Party, or even its breakup.

As much as the Republican Party establishment loves to hate Donald Trump, he won't be the one to ultimately bring down the party, writes Neil Macdonald.I use the word "trigger" deliberately here, because Trump himself won't actually bring about the end of his party. He's only the catalyst.
But let's be clear: it isn't the hated liberals or the politically correct left that are doing this to the GOP. It's a gloriously Republican self-immolation.

President Barack Obama was wrong when he snarked at the media last weekend, asking us if we're proud of ourselves for paying so much attention to Trump, whose candidacy, according to Obama, was really just an attempt to boost his hotel business and not worthy of constant coverage.

In fact, Trump's run has been democracy in action.

Creative destruction and all that. A perfect free market solution for a party that adores market forces.

How can we not cheer such a thing? You go, GOP.

Isn't that just a great description . . . Republican self-immolationThere are so many divergent factions within the Republican party — the pseudo Christian fundamentalists, the xenophobic white nationalists, the Tea Party, the corporatists etc — and they don't know how to come together.  Trump has said he will unite the party, but his actions and the temperment of the party say otherwise.  It will an interesting and chaotic 6 months.

MSN“I think the real subliminal message Trump is saying is this: The U.S. can afford to survive and prosper without any allies if it was forced to cut off all ties, but the converse isn’t true,” said Chung Min Lee, a professor of international relations at Yonsei University in Seoul. He added that Mr. Trump was forcing allies “to come up with convincing elevator speeches on the key benefits they bring to the U.S., and thus far, none of them have done so.”

There is no doubt that Trump's vague and off-the-cuff foreign policy pronouncements have set tongues a wagging internationally.  And while I might agree that 70% of NATO costs is a bit steep for the US to bear, the US has also, IMO, assumed that cost when it declares itself to be the leader of the free world.  Trump talks about negotiations, but he does not have the temperment for international negotiations.  He has demonstrated that diplomacy is far from being his forté.

Alternet — You’ll recall that after the last shellacking in 2012, the Republicans famously did an “autopsy” of what went wrong. And they identified a very specific list of problems that contributed to their loss, not the least of which were their problems with young people, Latinos and women. The party’s perceived hostility to these groups or simple lack of interest in their concerns were found to be so severe that unless the GOP changed course and found ways to better appeal to them, it would sink into a demographic quagmire from which it could not recover.

It’s obvious that Donald Trump (and, frankly, the rest of the field as well) has gone in the opposite direction. Trump is working overtime to alienate women, at this point sitting on a 70 percent disapproval rate among that half of the population. A recent poll of millennials conducted by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics revealed 61 percent of young Americans likely would vote for Clinton while 25 percent would support Trump. Only 17 percent have a positive opinion of him.

And since Trump’s signature issue is deportation of millions of Latinos and building a wall to keep them out of the country, it goes without saying that the GOP outreach to that demographic isn’t going too well. He has a 77 percent unfavorable rating.

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent pointed out yesterday that despite the best efforts of Speaker Paul Ryan to do the right thing for once, the GOP Congress is helping Trump alienate Hispanics even more with its inane refusal to help Puerto Rico restructure its debt. (This by Matthew Yglesias at Vox is a good explanatory piece on the issue.)

And the party has not learned its lesson.  Go through the motions to identify issues around the 2012 defeat, but Republicans have failed to actively cultivate a change in the party.  Instead, they have set themselves up for defeat again like an out-of-control train.  This time though, the train is accelerating with Drumpf at the helm.  Republicans are going backwards . . . but then, that is nothing new for them.

Alternet — Here are seven things we know about Trump and what his candidacy will likely mean, even as the country heads into new territory led by a crazed super-celebrity billionaire.

1. Trump won’t keep his mouth shut. Any notion of better behavior or a classier act has repeatedly shown itself to be a mirage. His campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has said that Trump will continue to be Trump, because he is “a person who tells it like it is.” That means building himself up by putting others down, whether it’s attacking Mexicans, Muslims, women who question him or his values, and anybody else for any headline-grabbing reason.

4. He’ll split the party into factions. After Trump won Indiana, Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus called for the party to line up behind the presumptive nominee. That will be much harder for Republican candidates running this fall, who, looking at their own futures, will have to decide if they’ll run with him, in spite of him, or against him. All those shades are already occuring, with many longtime party leaders saying never. These fissures are likely to cost the GOP its U.S. Senate majority.

Before Trump’s clinching the nomination, there were predictions the Senate was ripe for a Democratic takeover. Twenty-four of the 34 Senate seats in play this fall are held by Republicans. Democrats only need to pick up five for a majority. The party has strong candidates in states that turn out blue majorities in presidential years, such as Illinois and Pennsylvania. Trump not only weakens these GOP incumbents, his candidacy raises a question of what may happen in the House, though GOP gerrymandering after 2010’s redistricting still deeply favors House Republicans. Nonetheless, there’s little to suggest that Trump is about to become the great unifier, meaning Republicans could face a historic meltdown and defeat this fall.

Click through for the remaining 5 ways Trump Is About to Turn the GOP into a National Freak Show.


Huffington Post — Former Texas Governor Rick Perry has endorsed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and is open to being his running mate, CNN reported on Thursday.  …

In July 2015, Perry said Trump’s campaign was a “cancer” to conservatism.

OMG!  Perry is at it again . . . thinking he is still relevant.


My Universe

cat-eats-raven-birdA poet is born !

ccat24All boxed in!

ccat18Talk about being fenced in!

ccat14Just been shopping and I'm bagged!

Jul 102014

The closer to an election we get, the greater the likelihood that the Republican bubble machine will invent an eleventh hour scandal.  More often than not, Republicans just invent the lies that they present as news.  However, in 2012, it’s possible that a foreign government may have used the Republican bubble machine to propagate a lie that almost cost an innocent Senator his job.


Sen. Robert Menendez is asking the Justice Department to pursue evidence obtained by U.S. investigators that the Cuban government concocted an elaborate plot to smear him with allegations that he cavorted with underage prostitutes, according to people familiar with the discussions.

In a letter sent to Justice Department officials, the senator’s attorney asserts that the plot was timed to derail the ­political rise of Menendez (D-N.J.), one of Washington’s most ardent critics of the Castro regime. At the time, Menendez was running for reelection and was preparing to assume the powerful chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

According to a former U.S. official with firsthand knowledge of government intelligence, the CIA had obtained credible evidence, including Internet protocol addresses, linking Cuban agents to the prostitution claims and to efforts to plant the story in U.S. and Latin American media… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Rachel Maddow provided in depth coverage of the history of political hooker scandals, focusing on the hypocrisy of Republicans, and demonstrating how Republicans create news.


Internationals, for whom MSNBC video is blocked, can see this clip on YouTube.

It’s a shame I lost content on Blogger prior to 2010, because I had some great fun with the Jeff Gannon incident.  A couple old timers might remember me saying that perhaps he gave Cheney poo fun times in an undisclosed location.  Prior to this family-values Republican being outed, Ann Coulter, the Coultergeist, had gone on about how hot he is.

The hypocrisy of Tucker Carlson’s transformation between Diaper Dave Vitter and Menendez is a perfect example of hypocrisy the Republican Party personifies.  And consider this.  If that “former US official” cited in the Post article is a Republican, I consider it quite probable that this source was just trying to deflect blame to Cuba for what was just another Republican attempt to steal an election with an invented eleventh-hour scandal.

Jun 092013

I’m writing early again to beat the heat that will take a day or two to dissipate from the building.  I slept from about 10 PM to 1:00 AM, put up my articles, and slept from 4:00 AM until 12 Noon.  Nevertheless, I still feel quite tired and think it may be a side effect of the Chantix.  Other than sacrificing my next door neighbor to the devil, the drug has caused no mental aberrations. ;-)  It is my hope that I will be able to send out links, as I have been too pooped to do so for the last several days.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 4:45 (average 4:26). 🙁 To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From Alternet: “Right to work” is the most dishonest phrase in American political discourse. It sounds like it’s defending people’s right to earn a living. But as used by its supporters, it means making it impossible for workers to form an effective union, couched in the language of “freedom” and “choice.”

Specifically, it means laws banning “union shops,” in which everyone in a workplace has to join the union or pay a fee to cover the cost of union representation.

The ‘Right to work’ label should be ‘Right to be paid less so the 1% can have more’.  Support Union Labor!!

From Daily Kos: Attention every journalist that is currently trying to write the definitive 2012 presidential campaign retrospective: We finally have the real reason that Mitt Romney failed in his bid to unseat President Obama. In fact, we get the answer straight from the loser presidential runner-up himself.

The answer? His penny-pinching, underdog campaign simply couldn’t keep pace with the cash-fueled machine that was the Obama re-elect…

…It’s a touching story. It is also complete bullshit.

According to a campaign finance study by the New York Times, the GOP’s big three (the RNC, the Super PAC Restore Our Future, and the Romney campaign) actually outspent the Democratic big three (the DNC, the Super PAC Priorities USA, and the Obama campaign) by about $6.3 million in the election cycle…

I would think that CNN should have challenged Little Lord Willard’s lie. Are they trying to goose-step higher than Faux Noise?

From Huffington Post: House Republicans just don’t get it.

That was the message Latinos and immigrant rights advocates sent to the GOP on Thursday when nearly all House Republicans voted to approve an amendment to defund the deferred action program that currently allows undocumented youth to stay and work in the United States.

The amendment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill also restricts DHS from implementing prosecutorial discretion policies that allow immigration officials to delay the deportations of undocumented immigrants who haven’t committed serious crimes and are considered “low-priority.” It was approved 224 to 201, with House members largely voting along party lines. Six Republicans voted against it, and three Democrats voted for it.

Immigration hard-liner Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who offered the amendment, celebrated Thursday, saying his amendment would prohibit the Obama administration from implementing “executive amnesty.” He also warned that the passage of the amendment is “the first test of the 113th Congress in the House of Representatives on immigration.”

“My amendment blocks many of the provisions that are mirrored in the Senate’s ‘Gang of Eight’ bill,” King said in a statement. “If this position holds, no amnesty will reach the president’s desk.”

Fortunately, before this can go anywhere it has to pass the Senate, and I don’t see that happening. However, it should send a clear message to Latinos that Republicans do not represent them at all. The three Democratic pigs (porcine apology here) who goose-stepped with racist Republicans were John Barrow (D-GA), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) and Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV).



He’s frowning, because they were reinstated for the rich in 2011. 🙂

Nov 052012

One of the hallmarks of Willard Romney’s campaign has been the clear and irrevocable stances he has taken on both sides of every issue.  It’s hard to tell what, if anything, he represents.  However, Robert Reich has determined that there are some things we actually can know about him and has formulated a list of his guiding principles.


…The ten guiding principles of Romneyism are:

1. Corporations are the basic units of society. Corporations are people, and the overriding purpose of an economy is to maximize corporate profits. When profits are maximized, the economy grows fastest. This growth benefits everyone in the form greater output, better products and services, and higher share prices.

2. Workers are a means to the goal of maximizing corporate profits. If workers do not contribute to that goal, they should be fired. If they cannot then find other work that helps maximize profits in another company, their wages must be too high, and they must therefore accept steadily lower wages until they find a job.

3. All factors of production – capital, physical plant and equipment, workers – are fungible and should be treated the same. Any that fail to deliver high competitive returns should be replaced or discarded. This keeps an economy efficient. Fairness is and should be irrelevant.

4. Pollution, unsafe products, unsafe working conditions, financial fraud, and other negative side effects of the pursuit of profits are the price society pays for profit-driven growth. They should not be used as excuses to constrain the pursuit of profits through regulation.

5. Individual worth depends on net worth — how much money one has made, and the value of the assets that money has been invested in. Any person with enough intelligence and ambition can make a fortune. Failure to do so is sign of moral and intellectual inferiority… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

There are five more that I have not included, and clicking through to read the rest of them is well worth your time and effort!

To summarize, Romney will push government of, by and for the 1%.  When Romney said he didn’t care about 47% of Americans, he lied.  The truth is far closer to 99%.


Nov 032012

I must have been mighty pooped yesterday, because when my work was done I slept the rest of the day.  Today I’ll be collecting data for my final Election Projection tomorrow.  I’m current with replies.  Tomorrow is a holy day in the Church of the Ellipsoid Orb, and my Broncos will be meditating with the Bengals.  It will be televised here, so I’ll try to get the blog up early.

Jig Zone Puzzle:

Today’s took me 4:13 (average 5:57).  To do it, click here.  How did you do?

Short Takes:

From MoveOn: Bruce Springsteen Is Concerned For American Women


We should all be more than concerned.

From MSNBC: How Faux Noise Politicized the Sandy Benefit


Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I watched most of it, and it was so apolitical that I fell asleep. This is one more example of projection, Republicans accusing Democrats, without cause, for the things Republicans are doing themselves.

From Huffington Post: Republican Mitt Romney has millionaire backers, a huge staff and years of campaign experience, which may be enough to win the White House. President Barack Obama has one asset Romney can’t match, however: Bill Clinton.

The former president is sprinting through battleground states, delivering more speeches than Obama himself and, arguably, carrying much of the president’s re-election hopes on his 66-year-old shoulders.

As secret weapons go, they don’t get much better than Slick Willie!



Nov 022012

I’ve heard some pretty absurd reasons for voting Republican, but that is to be expected.  There are no reasons for voting Republican that are not absurd.  However, I’ve been hearing a new one, that argues, in effect, that folks should vote Republican, because they do not give a damn about the American people, and because Democrats do.  Paul Krugman explained it.

2FilibastardsIf President Obama is re-elected, health care coverage will expand dramatically, taxes on the wealthy will go up and Wall Street will face tougher regulation. If Mitt Romney wins instead, health coverage will shrink substantially, taxes on the wealthy will fall to levels not seen in 80 years and financial regulation will be rolled back.

Given the starkness of this difference, you might have expected to see people from both sides of the political divide urging voters to cast their ballots based on the issues. Lately, however, I’ve seen a growing number of Romney supporters making a quite different argument. Vote for Mr. Romney, they say, because if he loses, Republicans will destroy the economy.

O.K., they don’t quite put it that way. The argument is phrased in terms of “partisan gridlock,” as if both parties were equally extreme. But they aren’t. This is, in reality, all about appeasing the hard men of the Republican Party.

If you want an example of what I’m talking about, consider the remarkable — in a bad way — editorial in which The Des Moines Register endorsed Mr. Romney. The paper acknowledged that Mr. Obama’s signature economic policy, the 2009 stimulus, was the right thing to do. It also acknowledged that Mr. Obama tried hard to reach out across the partisan divide, but was rebuffed.

Yet it endorsed his opponent anyway, offering some half-hearted support for Romneynomics, but mainly asserting that Mr. Romney would be able to work with Democrats in a way that Mr. Obama has not been able to work with Republicans. Why? Well, the paper claims — as many of those making this argument do — that, in office, Mr. Romney would be far more centrist than anything he has said in the campaign would indicate. (And the notion that he has been lying all along is supposed to be a point in his favor?) But mostly it just takes it for granted that Democrats would be more reasonable… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

I urge you to click through and finish reading Krugman’s excellent piece.

The bottom line here is this.  Democrats have been more reasonable, because they have been willing to cooperate to meet the needs of the American people.  Republicans, on the other hand, have been perfectly content to harm the American people to blame Obama for the consequences. The argument that voting Republican will end gridlock is probably false.  If Republicans are successful with this tactic, it will send a clear message to Democrats, that the only way they can succeed politically is to become just as intransigent as the Republicans have been to negate the advantage.

The opposite of this reason to vote Republican is true.  The Democratic Party, that was willing to cooperate, should be rewarded for caring about Americans, while the Republican Party, that was not willing to cooperate, should be punished for the harm they have done to Americans.  The last thing American voters should do is send a message that sabotaging America is a valid way to make political gains.


Nov 012012

When politicians find themselves in the midst of a crisis, it would be unrealistic to assume that they don’t care about how they do politically because of it.  The best way for them to do well politically is to set aside partisan concerns and do their jobs well, working together with others, regardless of political affiliation, to provide the aid that the people need.  Both Democratic President Barack Obama, and Republican Governor Chris Christie are doing very well politically, because that is exactly what they are both doing.  Compare that with the Bush administration response to Katrina.  They did not warn residents to evacuate until after the hurricane hit New Orleans.  They did not preposition rescue workers and equipment.  Neocon Nero fiddled in Crawford for three days while New Orleans drowned.  Instead of taking responsibility, they tried to blame local Democrats, and they favored Republican areas when directing relief.  Bush did so poorly politically that he never recovered.  Now, the absolute worst thing a politician can do is to get caught trying to use the crisis for political advantage, while doing nothing to actually help.  That brings us to Willard Romney.

1RomneyReliefWhile President Obama made the decision to cancel scheduled campaign appearances this week in light of the disaster that Hurricane Sandy has brought to New York City, New Jersey, and a number of other states, including the key battleground state of Ohio, Mitt Romney just couldn’t pull the plug. Instead of doing the respectful thing and canceling his campaign appearance on Tuesday, just after Sandy made landfall in New Jersey, the Republican presidential candidate decided to re-brand his "Victory Rally" and call it "Relief Rally" instead.

The campaign decided that it would stage a photo op of Romney accepting food donations from supporters and loading up a truck with food after the event. But campaign staffers soon began to worry about the last minute nature of the call for donations, and worried that people wouldn’t show up with anything. To ensure that Romney wasn’t left without any donations and an empty truck, BuzzFeed reports that the campaign went out the night before the event and spent $5,000 at a local Wal-Mart. They bought up supplies like granola bars, canned food, and diapers. These items were then used as props to put on display while they waited for the real donations to show up.

For their part, the campaign says that it donated relief supplies, but would not confirm an amount.

What makes it all even more ridiculous is the fact that the Red Cross didn’t even want the items that Romney’s campaign collected. They’d have been better served with a $5,000 donations. Of course that wouldn’t be as nice of a photo op as standing by a table overflowing with canned goods… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Cleveland Leader>

When people came without donations, they were told them they were not allowed into the event without a donation and given a donation from Romney’s purchased stash to humbly present to Lord Willard.

Then Romney went back on the campaign trail, but promised no attacks or excessive partisanship, before Obama returned to the campaign also.  Like everything else he says, that was a lie.  Rachel Maddow contrasted Obama’s and Willard’s responses to the storm.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Did you heat that? An elected Republican official, speaking officially at a Romney campaign rally, said Republicans should tell their children to steal the Halloween candy from the children of Obama supporters to threaten their parents.  Despite Willard’s bogus promise, could anything be more extremely partisan than that?

On a final note, Obama has always been willing to work with Republicans to solve the people’s problems and meet their needs by the way he is working with Christie.  Can you imagine how much better off we would all be, had Republicans been willing to work with Obama from the time he took office, instead if deciding to sabotage America to make Obama look bad?

Nov 012012

Here are the results of our poll on the importance of the last two debates on the presidential election.  While the respondents are not demographically balanced, the poll contains no internal bias.


And here are your comments.

Posted by lucy j. on October 30, 2012 at 1:15 am


debates are really only my opinion against your opinion. The world does not run on debates. When world leaders meet behind closed doors they do not waste time on debates only policy. "Here’s what I’m willing to do and then show me what you are willing to do ".


Posted by Yvonne White on October 28, 2012 at 7:44 pm


The debates are for show – If someone is waiting until the debates to decide, then they’re just lazy probably stupid enough to be a Teabagger.


Posted by Rixar13 on October 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm


Very important –




Posted by Dad4theFuture on October 24, 2012 at 6:56 pm


I think it should be important, but it seems many of our country are now saying only the first was…and not just Faux news or Romneyites


Posted by Lynn Squance on October 19, 2012 at 2:47 am


I said very important for 3 reasons:

1) there are still some undecided voters (which I personally find hard to believe given that the campaign is over a year long);

2) after Mr Obama’s less than stellar performance at the first debate, people needed to see the passion of 2008 standing up for the people against the Reichwingnuts;

3) because of the time limits, all the topics of concern can’t be covered adequately in one debate. It’s foolish to even try.

I hope that Mr Obama will come out swinging again in the 3rd debate. As Muhammad Ali said "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!"


Posted by Patty on October 16, 2012 at 9:39 pm


I still think the debates are important. Tonight Pres. Obama was able to refute Rmoney’s lies and explain how he changed his position on nearly everything since winning the RepublicanT primary. Candy Crowley even called him on one fact he got wrong.

It was priceless!

I voted Somewhat Important, instead of Very Important because so many voters have already decided.  I expected that a strong performance by Obama would stop the momentum Romney gained in the first debate, but not reverse all the gains he made by appearing more moderate than he is to lazy, uninformed voters, and itr appears that I was correct.

Our new poll is appropriate for this time.  I bet you can guess what my vote is!

Oct 292012

When the fascist five trashed the Constitution in an attempt to hand our electoral process to the 1%, they said that there were rules that would prevent Citizens United from corrupting the system.  I strongly suspect that, even when they said it, they knew it was not true, because the Republican Party cares nothing whatsoever for rules.  To understand this, let’s examine what is happening to a state with a history of clean elections.

29CitUniIn 2010, a group now called American Tradition Partnership brought a lawsuit against Montana, seeking to throw out the state’s anticorruption law. It argued that the law, which barred corporate spending on candidates’ campaigns, was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. In June, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority obliged and handed the group a big victory by blocking the state law.

Now a report by ProPublica shows that this group, which supports development of natural resources, apparently misled the Internal Revenue Service when it applied for and received tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” group. It said it would not try to influence elections for public office, yet it has done so repeatedly.

A Montana agency that monitors campaign practices found that the group’s purpose is “to directly influence candidate elections through surreptitious means.” It hides its donors and, as the Center for Public Integrity reported, shields the identities of those carrying out its attacks on candidates who favor alternative sources of energy. As the state agency said, all this deception “raises the specter of corruption of the electoral process.”

The conservative justices waved away the well-documented record of political corruption in Montana that gave rise to its law. Instead, they reaffirmed the baseless theory that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Any review of history would lead to a different conclusion… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Photo credit: FreakOut Nation

If this were the only rule Republicans were breaking in their quest to create a permanent regime of one-party rule, in which elections do not matter, a Republican corporate plutocracy.  Sadly, it is not.  By law, there is no coordination allowed between third party funders and the campaigns they support.  However, there is now evidence that this same group has been running the campaigns of Republican candidates, and doing so from a Meth-house no less.

29KochTooThe boxes landed in the office of Montana investigators in March 2011.

Found in a meth house in Colorado, they were somewhat of a mystery, holding files on 23 conservative candidates in state races in Montana. They were filled with candidate surveys and mailers that said they were paid for by campaigns, and fliers and bank records from outside spending groups. One folder was labeled “Montana $ Bomb.”

The documents pointed to one outside group pulling the candidates’ strings: a social welfare nonprofit called Western Tradition Partnership, or WTP.

Altogether, the records added up to possible illegal “coordination” between the nonprofit and candidates for office in 2008 and 2010, said a Montana investigator and a former Federal Election Commission chairman who reviewed the material. Outside groups are allowed to spend money on political campaigns, but not to coordinate with candidates.

“My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that WTP was running a lot of these campaigns,” said investigator Julie Steab of the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices, who initially received the boxes from Colorado… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Photo credit: ATS

As smoking guns go, this baby is a howitzer.  Now, you may be wondering why a porno picture of a filthy Koch is adorning this article.  I cannot state this as fact, because the donors are kept secret, but I cannot imagine the Koch Brothers attending this group’s meetings were the group not made up of well-bought Koch Suckers.

This is one more way Republicans are working to steal our ability to elect candidates of our choice.  No Republican may be allowed to take the White House, before the extreme Republican ideologues on the Supreme Court are replaced with honest Justices, and effective campaign reform has been accomplished.

Oct 292012

Peter DeFazio (D-OR) is a progressive icon in Oregon’s 4th Congressional District.  He us up against a shill for Banksters, hedge fund managers, and polluters spending more $millions in secret corporate campaign cash than we can possibly match with small contributions.  Peter DeFazio is the only rational choice for Congress in his district.

29DeFazioOne fact remains unquestioned in Oregon’s 4th district Congressional race. Progressive Democrat U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio does not like Conservative Republican Dr. Arthur Robinson. By most accounts, that feeling’s mutual! This political confrontation has become state and national political news.

The record will indicate that the candidates’ claim foul as to their opponent’s undermining campaign tactics. Robinson is currently suing DeFazio for defamation of character, claiming that the DeFazio campaign erected misleading billboards along Oregon’s roadways.

Congressman DeFazio is currently endorsing a harsh radio ad that ties Art Robinson to Wall Street interest. The spot claims that Robinson is in the pocket of hedge funder Robert Mercer. 2010 political campaign contribution records show that Mercer funded Art Robinson’s effort to unseat incumbent Peter DeFazio in 2010; by running a negative media campaign that would effectively hold DeFazio to a modest 2 % win.

While many voters will consider these tactics to be politics as usual, what’s going on here may have little to do with Oregon politics, and more to do with DeFazio’s effectiveness as a legislator in Washington D.C.

Candidtate [sic] Robinson, and previous politically undermining tactics indicate that Wall Street traders do not like Peter, nor do Conservative Oregon farmers and timber-land owners.

In 2009 DeFazio sponsored the Financial Transaction Tax Act. The act proposed a 1/10th of 1% tax paid on all stock or bond transactions traded in the United States. Wall Street doesn’t like the idea, nor does Art Robinson. According to today’s Atlantic Journal Constitutional, Mercer and others’ spent $360,000 defaming the congressman. While the initiative didn’t make it out of committee [sic], there is new interest in the proposed tax as we near 2013… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Examiner>

This not the first time I’ve taken on Art Robinson.  Two years ago, I wrote Art Robinson’s Secret Funding Exposed!  Everything I wrote then still applies. and DeFazio is not alone.  Republican are pulling out the stops throwing their filthy money into the ring to put their corrupt lackeys in power.

If you are an an Oregonian, I urge you to support and vote for the Democratic Congressional Candidate in your district.  They are Suzanne Bonamici, Joyce Segers, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, and Kurt Schrader.