Twinkle Twinkle Shining Star: How Republicans will gain Latino voters

RNC Chair Priebus

According to John Boehner, Republicans have made great progress at their RNC Summer meeting in finding ways to convince Latino-American voters to think Republican.  The details of that particular session was not open to the public, but I was able to glean the following tidbits of information from an insider.

Reince Priebus opened the discussion, complementing the members for representing the best of America and introduced the idea of finding converts to Republicanism in those less fortunate souls from the immigrant and other minorities.  He acknowledged that Republican values are sound and it was more a matter of convincing minority voters of that, than trying to change the Republican party platform.

With that, Republicans began collecting ideas from the audience. 

Iowa Republican Steve King was the first to offer a suggestion.  "We could show them drug mules with the melon calves how to start a small

Steve King

business for their illegal activities and then we could give 'em government subsidies to not bring drugs across the border."

The crowd cheered.  "Yes, yes."  "That's the ticket."  "Republican policies can make job creators out of the little bastards."

Just weeks earlier all Republicans in the House voted for Steve King's amendment to deport all immigrant young people that were brought to America by their "illegal" parents. 

Representative Don Young of Arkansas was quick with the next idea.  "My Daddy used to hire 30 to 50 wetbacks to pick "ta-ma-tas"

Don Young

on his farm every season and none of them had health insurance.  Maybe we can tell 'em if they vote Republican, they can get health insurance.", he said. 

A unanimous roar of "Nooooo!" and "Boooo!" rose up from the crowd.  Obviously a bad idea since Republicans are not only against the Affordable Care Act, they are also against any government  program that would benefit non-Republican voters.

Herman Caine shouted out that Republicans should promise to 

Herman Caine

electrify the fence along the border unless Latino-Americans vote Republican.  Although many Republicans took this suggestion seriously, what finally developed was that Republicans would promise to post a double fence along the Mexican border and not grant amnesty or any path to citizenship to illegals unless they voted Republican.

In the past, Republicans have attempted to reduce minority voting participation by increasing voting requirements and placing new obstructions to voting access that more greatly restrict non-Republican voting minorities.  This was one Republican attempt at "stacking the deck" against Democrats in elections.  Now Republicans are changing the strategy so that Latino-American voters don't feel as ostracized by voter suppression.  Their new approach is to pass legislation that would prevent the Spanish language from being spoken at the voting precincts in Republican controlled states.

On the contrary, Reince Priebus suggested that Republicans hire Spanish speaking translators so that they can translate the Republican platform for the benefit of Latino-American voters.  Rand Paul, the one scientific Republican in the crowd, suggested that if this was done then an amendment should be added to the immigration bill that requires a labotomy for all illegals.  His thought was that this might be more conducive to convincing someone that Republican policies are good for them.

The RNC coined the phrase "Shining Star" to identify anyone who is of Latino-American descent and also a member of the Republican party.   As it turns out,  if you are a "Shining Star" Latino of the Republican party, then you are most likely someone whose family has yet to be insulted by a Republican leader. 

Hang in there "Shining Star", whoever you are.  We'll catch you on the flip side.

The case for an Obama impeachment

Rand Paul and GOP accusations

Rand Paul and Republicans in Washington are drooling at the thought of feasting on the blood of the President and are hastening the call for impeachment trials by assembling a host of unproven facts and speculations which they are sure will sway the tone of public sentiment against the President.  Assisted by the mud-slinging of the most watched television network in the world and other right wing media personalities, the straw-man case against President Obama is getting to a fever pitch.  One can feel so caught-up in the moment that facts can't stop this train, as long as it means saving America from the bad black man.

Republican perception of a fair trial

According to the Tea Party leader Michelle Bachmann, already half of America wants President Obama impeached.  She explains that Dick Cheney's comments citing how Obama lied to America about Benghazi absolutely prove that Obama led the coverup carried out by the White House.  Bachmann enumerates on President Obama's criminal acts by describing how Rand Paul heard about a memo circulated through the IRS, instructing them to target "people who were opposed to the President".  Now it's up to Republicans everywhere to enrage the populace, pass out pitchforks, shovels and burning torches and lynch the monster.

Former President Nixon

As former Republican President Richard Nixon said just prior to his impeachment for the Watergate break-ins, "in America a man is guilty until proven innocent."  Republicans are certainly carrying out that heart-felt emotion and contradiction to American common law in dealing with President Obama.  

Although facts cloud the evidence in the Benghazi and IRS incidents, Republicans have found it easy to overcome the proven innocence of the White House and President Obama.  They favor a different reality that leads to the downfall of President Obama and the Democratic Party. 

Not being able to win the majority of the vote in the last election, and failing miserably in the latest approval polls, Republicans in Washington have shown by their continous obstruction what a bad President we have.  

Who but a bad President would have introduced an affordable health care act that would become law only to have to be voted on for repeal 37 times by Republicans?    

Who but a bad President would suggest that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes to pay down the deficit while Republicans realize that the recovery should only rest on the backs of the middle class and the poor?  

Who but a bad President would suggest that Congress work towards fixing the economy to avoid sequester when all Republicans know that sequester was the best thing that has happened to America?

Who but a bad President would give a long winded American Jobs Bill and then when rejected by Republicans would suggest that it still be worked on for the benefit of Americans?

Who but a bad President would rescue America from economic disaster and not let American banks and auto companies fail when the Mitt Romney Republicans understand that it would have been better to let them go bankrupt?  

Who but a bad President would take a stock market with values that had dropped nearly 50% after the financial collapse and return it to the highest levels it has ever been in history when Republicans have preached that the President's actions will do nothing to restore stability to the economy?   

Who but a bad President would cut prescription drug costs for Medicare patients by 50% when Republicans have worked hard to position Medicare as an economically damaging program that should be revamped into a voucher system?  

Who but a bad President would provide $12.2 billion for people with disabilities education when Republicans know that government spending for the handicapped must shrink no matter who is affected?  

Who but a bad President would have extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees when Republicans preach that dirty homosexuals should be banned from society?

Who but a bad President would have created more private sector jobs in 2010 alone than in the entire Bush years and then lead America to a job recovery each consecutive year when Republicans claim it is their number one priority to create "jobs, jobs, jobs."?

Who but a bad President would have appointed the first Latina to the Supreme Court when Republicans know that Americans of Latin American ancestry are lazy?

Who but a bad President would sign the START Treaty Nuclear reduction Act with Russia when Republicans know that Obama secretly colludes with Russian politicians?

Who but a bad President would support the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act for women so Republicans would have to knock it down?

Who but a bad President would urge Congress to approve the Prevention of Violence Against Women Act when the Republicans would only be forced to reject it?

Who but a bad President would provide travel expenses to families of fallen soldiers so they could be present when the bodies of their loved ones arrived home causing Republicans to look unsupportive of veterans just because they vote against aid to veterans?

Who but a bad President would sign the Child Heath Insurance reauthorization Act which provides healthcare to 11 million kids, 4 million of whom were formerly uninsured, especially when Republicans have insisted that free medical care is not economical?

Who but a bad President would have issued Executive orders to repeal Bush era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research when Republicans have opposed it?

Who but a bad President would end the Bush Administration's CIA program of "Enhanced Interrogation Methods" by requiring that the Army field manual be used as a guide for interrogation of terrorists just because torture was a Republican idea?

The list of how Obama is a bad President goes on and on.  And now we have him trapped in a web of hypothetical speculation and Republican fabricated circumstances.  I would much rather have a mentally challenged representative of an angry mob of blood thirsty do-nothing Republicans as President any day.  Obama is done for.

Everyone knows that legitimate rape can't cause pregnancy...don't they?

Todd Akin before he resigns

Representative Todd Akin's assertion that legitimate rape can't cause pregnancy must have been recollected from his own experience.  He tells us that his Doctor told him that it would not cause pregnancy, so I'm thinking he must be referring to a personal experience of not becoming pregnant after his doctor entered him from behind. Don't fret, it was just a proctological exam.

Sorry for that.  The subject of rape is not laughable and I am not directing my dry humor at that horrible violent act.

But Todd Akin is not the only Republican to have such false and damaging ideas.  Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association defended Akin, citing that John Willke, MD also suggested that there is some biological way that a woman's body can defend against "legitimate" (read forcible in Republican circles) rape.

And when it comes to legislation opposing women's rights, do you know who Todd Akin's partner in crime is?  Why Paul Ryan, of course.

Paul Ryan after he loses the election

Although he spoke out against it today, Paul Ryan is a champion of voting against issues concerning women's rights.  He even helped define varying degrees of rape in Republican legislation co-sponsored with Todd Akin.  These gradations of rape were considered important to Ryan and Akin in order to determine when the right kind of rape was committed so that their legislation could specify when to allow an abortion.  According to them, all rape is not the same and by their legislation a woman will not be allowed to get an abortion in all cases of rape.

Republicans know that Todd Akin's statements are damaging to their Party and a number of them have asked Todd Akin to withdraw from the Senate race in his home state of Missouri.  Mitt Romney also believes the statements may have an impact on his own chances in Missouri and has suggested that Akin resign.  Karl Rove's Super PAC has already pulled funding from the Missouri Senate race and other Republican campaign funders have threatened to do the same.

But Todd Akin so far has remained steadfast, stating that his Missouri supporters would want him to continue on, but unless he has a lot of cash on hand to pay for his campaign expenses, it only seems a matter of time before he caves.

Although the Republicans would like you to believe that the actions of Todd Akin are those of a lone loon speaking out of turn, you can believe that Akin's views are very much a common belief of Republican politicians.  And it even pervades the Romney ticket.

Two wild and crazy guys

     

The guy that called Rush Limbaugh about Obama's bad grades at Harvard...let me tell you what he told me about Romney's taxes

As luck would have it, the same person who called Rush Limbaugh to divulge damaging information about President Obama's poor performance at Harvard also called me to report on the fiasco that is Mitt Romney's taxes.  To give this person a name while protecting his identity, let's call him "Deep Throat".  (Please don't take that out of context...although Jenna Jamieson does support Mitt for President, it was not her.)

Briefly the explanation told to me supports the claim made by Senator Reid that Romney paid no taxes for a decade.

"He (Mitt) used every tax loophole in the book and stretched so-called "business" expenses for personal property like his houses, his horses, his boats and his castle moats.  He found new interpretations of the  legalese surrounding tax law.", reported Deep Throat. 

When I asked if there was anything specific he could tell us, Deep Throat gave a litany of tax avoidance schemes for many of the ten years in question.  Here it is as it was explained to me.

Year 2000:

Romney used the millennium bug threat as a business expense to reduce his tax burden by $1,000,000. He used his house (really his castle) in Utah as a business expense, deducting $54,000 from his tax burden while he lived there during the Olympics.  He also claimed his 1999 income tax payment as a bad investment.

Year 2001 through 2007:

Romney had his accountants place all of his capital gains into offshore accounts prior to paying taxes on them.  Romney explained that it was not a violation of Federal law because he firmly believed that America was literally a land of untold wealth.  Trips to Switzerland were written off as business trips since he had sheltered money there.

Year 2008:

Mitt claimed his failed 2008 political career as a business deduction since he had invested $15,000,000 of his own money into it.  He claimed the campaign was intended to benefit Corporate America so he felt justified in claiming it as a business expense.  Pleasure trips to Grand Cayman were written off as  business expenses since he had off-shore account money there.  

Year 2009:

Mitt claimed his wife's hobby horse as a $74,000 business expense.  The offshore accounts were still actively being invested into and yes he still took deductions for (business) trips to visit his money.

I asked Deep Throat what happened in 2010 that caused Mitt to actually pay income tax that year?

And I quote, "Well, in 2010 Romney was planning to run for President.  He figured he could repeat the ploy he used when running for Governor of Massachusetts to avoid making his taxes public, but he knew he would have to show something to the public to get by.  It was a calculated risk that may have back-fired."

I asked if Mitt Romney had any feelings of guilt since not paying his fair share of taxes placed more of a  burden on the rest of America.

"Perhaps." said Deep Throat.  "But I think it was more likely because he was afraid he'd get caught.  It may explain the note he filed with his 2010 tax returns  though."

What note? I asked.

The note he attached to his return said "I am enclosing 13% because I am having a hard time sleeping lately.  If I find I can still not sleep after this, I will send you the balance of what I really owe."

Well how about that!

Human Brain cells in Mice

In Transylvania today, stem cell scientists have announced that they have been able to grow human brain cells in newly born mice. Mice are greater than 97% identical in genetic composition to humans. The percentage of human brain cells grown appears to be only 0.1% of the mice's total brain cells.

When asked how the human brain cells affected the mice, scientists responded by saying "Don't worry. They are not very smart. You'd be surprised what dumb things they said to us."

Scientists believe that growing the human brain cells in mice will help them resolve unknowns related to human brain diseases. One interviewer asked if the brain cells were from parkinson's patients or from the general population. Igor Nrgtun, chief of neurological sciences indicated that they were from a patient called Abby Normal.

This pioneering research could lead to new industries as well as new cures to disease. Representatives from the technology industry were very interested in utilizing the technique to make computers that think using human brain pathways. Representatives from Sony indicated that the technique could be useful in their robotics division.

Walt Disney Productions representatives greeted the news with quiet assuredness. "We've had talking mice for many years. Why do you think we froze Walt?"

We'll see what the future will bring.

Scientists believe human brain still evolving

When I was young, my father used to tell me the older I got, the stupider I got, but I think his conclusion was more emotional than scientific. Now we have scientific proof that my father was wrong.

For many years, it was thought that the human brain had evolved as far as it could. More intelligent scientists now believe they have found this to be incorrect. The old gang of scientists that reported the earlier belief seem to have not evolved to the point that the new scientists have. In a study of their own brain development, scientists with highly developed and newly mutated brains have discovered new mutations in two brain related genes that they believe may cause enhanced brain activity or new personality characteristics. One of these characteristics, they believe to be increased modesty.

Scientists report this news simply as a new benefit of evolution. This leaves me puzzled. Shouldn't we be concerned about why this is occuring? For example, if beneficial gene mutation is the result of evolutionary adaptation to adversity, does this finding mean that our brains are telling us that we need to think differently? Humans are already the most intelligent species of all living creatures. Most of us don't use the brains that we have. Why else would our brains be trying to change?

Maybe these genes are really the morality genes that we all seem to be lacking lately. Maybe they are the empathy genes that we seem to be short of. Maybe they are the common sense genes that are getting more sensible. Maybe they will specialize to conform to our professions. I'd love to see an honest used car salesman. A reasonable judge. A business owner that can be trusted. A movie producer or media mogul that doesn't contribute to the perversion of society.

So to the future reader I say, if this blog stays posted for the next 10,000 years, let me know how it turns out in 12005, by leaving a comment!

Chavez says "Even my french fries are trying to kill me."

According to a recent editorial published in the California Kronical, Venezula President Hugo Chavez is now claiming that contrary to his earlier belief, it is not President Bush or US Evangelist Pat Robertson that want him dead. It is his french fries.

Chavez, along with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed a lawsuit to force manufacturers of french fries to include a warning about potential cancer causing agents present in cooked french fries.

Chavez explained to the press that if the french fries killed him, Bush would be to blame. Although french fries are one of Chavez's favorite foods, Venezuela's government has temporarily suspended sale of french fries in the country. Persons found carrying french fries into the country are subject to arrest for attempted assassination.