Thursday, August 30, 2012

What Is Wrong With This Romney Photo Op?

What Is Wrong With This Romney Photo Op?
The teapublicans yell TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK! If only they weren’t so ignorant they would realize what that would really mean… The Corporatehood (with Romney and the other super rich at the helm) would force them to live under a Totalitarian Plutocracy.
When I saw those hard working men still stained with the soot of their backbreaking labor, I thought… something is wrong with this picture. I was right something was wrong with the picture; these poor miners already know how it feels to live under tyranny.  Being forced by their wealthy bosses to stand in back of a well-heeled, arrogant blaggard, and pretend to admire him. Absolutely disturbing and quite alarming! Not to mention SICKENING!  

EXCERPT: WASHINGTON -- Employees of a major coal industry donor to Republican causes have raised complaints about their participation in an event earlier this month organized for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the crucial swing state of Ohio.
Several miners at Murray Energy’s Century coal mine in Beallsville, Ohio, contacted a nearby morning talk radio host, David Blomquist, over the last two weeks to say that they were forced to attend an Aug. 14 rally for Romney at the mine. Murray closed the mine the day of the rally, saying it was necessary for security and safety, then docked miners the day's pay. Asked by WWVA radio’s Blomquist about the allegations on Monday’s show, Murray chief operating officer Robert Moore said: “Attendance was mandatory but no one was forced to attend the event.”

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Mitt Romney's Ad Infinitum Right-wing Buffoonery

I am fed up with hearing the Right-wing’s same old redundant BOBBEMYSEH… Why can’t they get a new SHTICK? I guess they are just too uninformed and blasé to do that! So their leaders keep feeding them the Red Meat they OH SO ENJOY and so on and on and on ad infinitum we will hear the right-wing buffoonery uttering the same ole, same ole worn-out material. Example: POOR PEOPLE ARE LAZY!
Ad infinitum is a Latin phrase meaning "to infinity" or "forevermore". In context, it usually means "continue forever, without limit"

"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."
Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth
Prim and proper, with a cool demeanor
Origin: The allusion in this expression is to people who maintain such a cool demeanor that they don't even have the warmth to melt butter.
PS: Mitt Romney is a liar, a bully and a greedy SOB who has no empathy for anyone not in his class. He is so cold and calculating that butter wouldn't melt in his mouth; what a disgusting excuse for a human being. (That also goes for his running mate Ryan.) I will admit, he hides his meanness well behind a false shyness and oodles of fake smiles but his boldfaced lies give him away. Martin Bashir’s show gave an account of Romney’s bullying to let us all know the true deep down mean and pettiness of this man called Mitt who has the character of a devil. Those Of Us who are brave enough to face reality will relate to this video, those who are too afraid to view things as they really are and prefer to live in LA-LA LAND will not be able to understand it because it’s full of facts, you know those pain-in-the-neck details that verify certainty.
Click Link Below To Watch:
Mitt Romney - A Meanness At His Core
Romney’s claim about Obama’s welfare plan ‘ugly slur.’
EXCERPT: Gov. Mitt Romney continues to repeat the lie that “Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.” gave that whopper a “Pants On Fire” on their truth-o-meter. The Washington Post Factchecker offered a similar denunciation, awarding Romney’s claim “four Pinnochios.” also rated Romney’s comment as completely false.
The truth is that Republican governors in Utah and Nevada asked the Obama administration for some new flexibility on welfare standards because they had new ideas on how to move folks from welfare to work. The President agreed. Existing work requirements are still in place, but states now have some flexibility.
So, why does the Governor continue to lie about the President’s plan? It’s what the people of his conservative base like to hear. Romney is feeding the historic fires of resentment among extreme right-wing Republicans who refer to the poor as “the moocher class,” “parasites” and “welfare queens.”
Romney is trying to damage President Obama’s reputation by connecting him with long-standing disparaging, derogatory and belittling stereotypes which paint recipients of government aid as able-bodied people who are lazy, indolent and unwilling to work. It’s a patently false claim and an UGLY SLUR. (
More Here:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Paul Ryan Believes Rape is Just Another Method of Conception.

Yesterday, I created a YouTube video from a clip a good friend sent to me showing Paul Ryan during an interview where the Vice presidential candidate said that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions. Upon first viewing this startling interview, I felt a disbelief in hearing his words. "No, no I didn't just hear him say, Rape is a Method of Conception!" I watched the video several times and yes indeed that's what the man said.
 I set upon using what little skills I have in making YouTube videos because I wanted this man's image and words to become a part of my ‘thethinkingblue YouTube channel’. Once the video was uploaded, I distributed it around to my other blogs, one is on Current.
Today, I opened my email and there was a comment from another blogger on CurrentTV. His negative response to the video at first set off alarms inside my head. Say what? He calls me angry and this anger has made me sound unintelligent. My fingers began typing and I couldn’t get out my thoughts fast enough, to this Paul Ryan type mindset. I let loose with the liberal way of thinking that I've cultivated through the years.
Below is a print-key of the Current member's comment and my response back to him. I am sharing this not out of anger toward, just another fundamentalist attitude like that of Paul Ryan, I'm sharing this controversial word exchange so that perhaps it will be distributed by those who possess common sense and would like to fight against our country (and our human rights), from being taken over by a group who cannot in any way, shape or form, understand what critical thinking is all about. thinkingblue


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 27, 2012

Paul Ryan’s New Euphemism for Rape “Method of Conception”

Given the demands for Akin’s resignation from a mere Senate race when his musings on “legitimate rape” were publicized, what do you imagine the reaction would be if people were as familiar with VP wannabe Ryan’s stunning statement? Might there be a cacophony of outrage? Might there be calls for his resignation from the ticket? Might there be a focus on how fundamentally oblivious these people who would make our laws are to not just women’s but humans’ rights and dignity? Sure, there might, but then of course people would have to have heard about it.
According to the man who would be the proverbial heartbeat away from the White House, and who in any event would — given Romney’s utter hollowness — have an inordinate influence on the judicial appointments that will determine how much freedom our children get to live under, RAPE = “METHOD OF CONCEPTION.” And yet, unless you’re a frequenter of one of a dozen or so lefty blogs — or my friend on Facebook — you probably knew nothing about it.
I truly despair for the country my 14-year-old daughter is inheriting. That a remark this intensely revealing of the danger posed by this ticket can go basically unreported is as nauseating to me as the quote itself.
Paul Slansky
More Here:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Voter ID Law 2012 or Jim Crow Rides Again

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

The Great White Backlash - A New Civil War

A Startling Look At What Is Really Going On In America
Within The Republican Party
I just came across this article The Great White Backlash, The Dog Whistle, and a New Civil War
By John Reed and TRUTH kept jumping off the screen as I read it. Anyone possessing a critical THINKING mind, who feels very bewildered by the GOP CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN TEA PARTY's behavior and perhaps wonders why they appear to be committing political suicide with all their assertions about slashing programs for the poor and how wonderful that would be for our country. Oh yes, America (according to them) should be known Worldwide as a cruel and uncaring nation. Also, their War on Women which makes our nation look as though we are competing with Afghanistan (and others) on who can oppress their female population more. This article gives you a look behind the scenes (or minds) of the GOP base’s ideology and it ain’t pretty. The author conveys, it’s not a conspiracy theory... it's a blatant and frightening reality that many within this despicable group have, rattling around in their heads. Please read the entire article, an intense read that is aimed to inform and enlighten, not scare (We’ll leave the scare tactics up to the GOP CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN TEA PARTY. thinkingblue
The Great White Backlash, The Dog Whistle, and a New Civil War
By John Reed

A new phrase recently wormed its way into American political discourse, introduced, apparently, by our very own liberal talking heads, because they believe it impolitic to tell the ugly truth about a certain large sect within the Republican Party; a phrase meant to reference all of those "good ole' boy" Republican synonyms for the deeply, abiding racism the Republican party invited into its ranks with hugs and kisses after the Democratic party took the issue of civil rights away from the Elephants.

That profound racism has had many expressions before: calling a man a boy or a monkey, Willie Horton, the Southern Strategy, birtherism, Jeremiah Wright, the poll tax, the literacy test, lynching, lunch counters, fire hoses, fire bombs, buses, viscous and growling dog fangs, being called uppity, federal troops, assassinations, voter fraud, voter suppression, finger wagging, shouts of "You lie!" etc.. To be nice to the Republicans, we now call the collection of these epithets and symbolic actions "the dog whistle," and that phrase refers to race, or "otherness," particularly regarding African-Americans. It implies black Americans are somehow less American, less patriotic, less hardworking, and less-deserving of an equal chance for success in America than are white Americans. It implies that whites do the work in America while blacks and Latinos abuse the social safety net by living off of benefits provided by white tax dollars. As Rachel Maddow pointed out on her news hour on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, the "dog whistle" is always the last resort of a losing Republican presidential candidate, with the possible exception of John McCain.

Maybe. But maybe the dog whistle is always used by Republicans. Maybe we just now need a euphemism for the wide ranging forms Republicans express their solidarity with the Caucasian race because only now have we elected an African-American as President of the United States. Maybe the election of 2010 was "The Great White Backlash" against the 2008 election of President Barak Obama, putting the House in Republican hands, and many states in absolute Republican control. As a result, President Obama looks ineffective, and the states have been able to pass legislation that virtually guarantees no African-American will be elected to the White House for many years to come. Maybe America remains a ferociously, racist country and the Obama presidency a fluke of historical coindence: the growing senility of a senior Senator's candidacy, the absurd choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate, and the economic crash on the eve of the 2008 election.

The "dog whistle" is an appeal to the white voter's fear that former minorities will someday rise up and control the machinery of power in our country--the state, with all of the brute force it commands. It is the same fear once felt by white South Africans when they refused to end apartheid in a world that had proved their fear to be unfounded. The dog whistle raises fears of paying reparations for slavery, and of final accountability for the physical, social, economic, and political crimes that nearly every white voter secretly knows or intuits has been committed against minorities in the long and violent rule of the white majority in America. The specific phrase "dog whistle," apparently refers to talking over the heads of minorities, in a manner beyond their intelligence to grasp, so only white people understand the message, just as a dog whistle can only be heard by dogs.

The metaphor is apt, to the extent those whom use the dog whistle are comparable in intellect to the dullest of dogs, but fails when it presumes minorities cannot hear the whistle too; unless, for some reason, the whistlers do not care if they offend minorities, liberals and progressives. In that case, we live in dangerous times indeed, and the whistlers whistle a deadly tune. In that case, once again, civil war may threaten the Union. We all feel something big is coming, something electric hanging over an imperiled nation, like we feel an obscene clarity in the air just before a horrible storm, as daily the Right batters the electorate with lies and distortions about the Obama presidency and its supporters, and those who call themselves "progressives."

Liberals, however, give the metaphoric dog whistle too much power when they allow Republicans to sanitize their racism with such rubrics. The Left cannot allow the reactionary Right to define the terms for this debate. In truth, unwashed by the political correctness of "dog whistles," the reactionary Right is seen in all of its naked glory, free to say the dirty words of the sum of its fears: "The niggers, Jews, and spics are taking over our country." Or, those who fear the battle already lost cry out, "We're taking back our country!"

The Right's hostility to Barak Obama distorts its ideology so profoundly that it cannot even acknowledge a black man, particularly one more refined, educated, and intelligent than than the best of the Right, legally holds the Office of the Presidency. The public display of firearms around his personal appearances would never be accepted by the Secret Service, or even occur, were Obama white. And that public display, coupled with the rapidly increasing sales of firearms, viewed with the daily repetition of the theme that Obama is a bacon eating, beer drinking, non-praying, church attending, foreign born Muslim,illegitimately holding the Office of the Presidency, yet contradictorally, raised in Red diapers, has American progressives tongue-twisted as to just what to say about the hatred for Obama on the Right.

We know violence will soon erupt. We know that each new example of disrespect sharpens the crosshairs pinned on the President's back. We have not reached the shooting stage yet, although there may have been some skirmishs, but that fact is not through lack of effort by those who inflame the public airwaves every day with the latest lies about Obama's record, and the newest conspiracy theories about how Obama serves as President illegally. Except for Rush Limbaugh, who sings with impunity on public airwaves, "Barak the Magic Negro," the rest of us try to fake nice, to be fake polite to one another, no matter the real message of the other, no matter the danger aroused by the inflammatory rhetoric of the Right.

We know full well the intent of de-legitimizing the President, of portraying him as a Muslim practicing communism in America, and of whipping up hysteria over these false accusations. We know full well that those who engage in these practices talk as much to that few, imbalanced individuals who might actually take violent action against the foreign, communist, Muslim usurper illegally living in the White House as they do to their millions of somewhat normal listeners. We must remember when dealing with the reactionaries that they in fact seek to murder the President by proxy, escaping that way the guilt and the legal consequences of their intent. The same tactics have worked against doctors who provide abortion services. After raising emotions to a fever pitch, some lone gunman shoots the newest target of the "pro-life" forces who then quickly raise their hands in wonder over allegations they created the conditions for the murder, asking, "Who, me?"

Nonetheless, the polite version of letting the voters know a candidate is racist has devolved to noting that a candidate used "the dog whistle." Anything stronger and the MSM will treat us like they have treated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for announcing on the Senate floor that he has a source with Bain Capital telling him Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in the last ten years. Reid has been criticized more roundly for this little bit of theater than Joe Wilson was criticized for screaming at Obama during his first State of the Union address, "You lie!"--basically more strongly than any of the abundant weirdness coming from Tea Party activists elected to the House such as Congressman Allen West from Florida's 22nd District, who asserts there are over 80 secret card carrying members of the Communist Party on the Democratic side of the House, probably referencing the Progressive Caucus.

The media expects such nonsense from the Republicans and dutifully reports it, but it also expects the Democrats to be wimps, and when they are not, it pounds them back in their wimp hole without mercy.

So we sanitize our criticism of Republican racism with phrases like "the dog whistle." We hear the dog whistle successfully employed when someone accuses President Obama of being the food stamp president, implying that African-Americans are the majority of Americans on food stamps, instead of white Americans, meaning that Obama throws tax revenues away supporting his lazy kinfolk. Using this whistle, originally employed by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 "Southern Strategy" campaign using the image of the black "Welfare Queen" driving her Cadillac through the local McDonalds in the very city, Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were brutally murdered by the KKK with the help of the local police during the struggle for civil rights in the sixties.

We hear the dog whistle when we are told that this President, perhaps, can only be understood from the perspective of an anti-colonial, Kenyan mindset, which, for those not historically inclined, refers to the exceedingly bloody Mau Mau revolt in Kenya based upon British imperial ownership of the prime agricultural land,leading to the forced resettlement of Kenyans on reservations where they could not raise sufficient food to survive. Led by the Kikuyu and the Masai, the latter being among the most famous warriors in history, the Mau Mau nationalists were brutally suppressed by the British Conservatives using false flag attacks, concentration camps, torture, rape and mass murder in the 1950's, all learned from the Nazis in WWII, condemned as inappropriate for Jews, but considered quite appropriate for black Africans. In this context, we are to understand Barak Obama.

We hear the whistle again when this moderate to conservative President is labeled a communist, socialist, Marxist, Nazi, big spender, anti-American sell out, apologist-in-chief, when he, in fact, hardly manages to represent what precious little remains of the middle-class American dream, and speaks more eloquently about American freedom and exceptionalism than any President since Abraham Lincoln. Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls on the nation; read that again---wage and price controls---on the entire country, and dared open relations with the Communist giant, China, but no one called him a socialist.

Ronald Reagan entered into secret negotiations with Iran, pre-election, to get the Americans held hostage in the American embassy there; held even longer, throughout much of the presidential campaign and through the lame duck period, until his inaugural day, so that although President Carter had reached an agreement with the Iranians for the hostages' release, the Iranians would not sign it, making Carter look weak in the period leading up to the election. When Reagan's mere taking of office appeared to terrorize the Iranians into releasing the hostages that very day, the myth of Reagan's fearsome, international strength was born. Those pre-election negotiations broke many laws, but chief among them was the law against treason, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, one of the narrowest of definitions used by any country in the world. Yet, Reagan was never called a traitor, or a Muslim, even when he ran secret, illegal wars in Nicaragua and El Salvador, wars Congress specifically forbade, and wars paid for with weapons sold to Iran for cash and to the reactionary forces in Nicaragua and El Salvador for drugs. His defense: "Shucks, it slipped my mind." No treason here; no impeachment, gotta love the old geezer. He's the Teflon President, said the press.

George W. Bush ran up the most massive federal debt in American history after being left a surplus by Bill Clinton, a surplus Clinton wanted to use to shore up Social Security and Medicare for the next century. Bush stole the election of 2000 through his brother Jeb, the Governor in Florida, and almost certainly in 2004 by manipulating the count in Ohio. The Ohio case was going to trial when its main witness suddenly died, a trait common to foes of the Bush dynasty. According to the Downing Street Memo, Bush and his entire Administration lied to get us in the Iraq war. They also outed an undercover CIA agent, just for personal payback, leading to an unknown number of deaths in the pro-American intelligence community. Yet, no one called Bush a traitor, openly bore arms at his appearances, or questioned his legitimacy as President, when his legitimacy was in fact questionable. It was better for the country not to do such things. So even though progressives had every reason to question the legitimacy of Bush's presidency, they did not do so on any sustained basis.

Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as intended by Bush but only on the wealthiest Americans, has enacted a health care plan using the private sector to provide health care, and made loans to America's automobile manufacturers, all of which will help lead to a balanced budget. Yet, Obama is the "communist, Marxist, fascist, etc."

Rachel Maddow raised two interesting points on her show a few Friday nights ago related to the use of the dog whistle in this presidential campaign. She did an in-depth analysis of Donald Trump's deep entanglement in Mitt Romney's campaign. Trump recorded robo-calls to be used all over the nation, and plans to host a number of fund raising dinners with Mitt Romney in addition to those he has already hosted with Ann Romney. He also plans to make numerous public appearances with Romney. Of course, Donald Trump, politically, is best known as the birther-in-chief of the reactionary fringe, refusing to acknowledge that the President hails from Hawaii, refusing even to examine the President's long form birth certificate, at least on camera. Trump has told on national television more out and out obvious lies about the birth certificate than he has told about his net worth.

The second point Maddow explored was the history of Dick Cheney's career. She demonstrated the overwhelming corruption involved in his entire private and public service---he used his political career to advance his private wealth and his private wealth to advance his political career--and noted that, notwithstanding such a record, Mitt Romney actively sought Cheney's public support while avoiding any mention of George W. Bush. Put Cheney on any search committee for the best person to do a prestigious or prosperous job and you can be certain he will recommend himself.

Romney's appearance with Trump, his active partnering with Trump on this campaign, is more than the poor taste of taking the stage with someone willing to use "the dog whistle." Moreover, Romney should run from an endorsement by Dick Cheney as if he were fleeing a charge of polygamy---not actively seek it out. Cheney has poll numbers as low as Congress and is considered the world over a war criminal, except in places like Saudi Arabia where Cheney's brand of politics, barbarism, is part of daily life. Yet, here in the U.S., the man stubbornly brags about the war crimes he committed, where he is yet in danger of just the right prosecutor to take him at his word.

When Gabby Giffords was shot in the mass murder within her district, Sarah Palin had crosshairs over her district as if Giffords were seen through the scope of a long range rifle. While most MSNBC hosts noted the coincidence on air, all were quick to state that, of course, Sarah Palin was in no way responsible. This is progressives gone wild with political correctness. Is there any doubt that the talking heads on the Right and certain Right-wing politicians have been amping up the hatred in their base against progressives, yelling, as the saying goes, "fire" in a crowded theater? Of course not. And Sarah Palin shoulders some of the blame for what happened to Gabby Giffords and her supporters. We should not rush to absolve when we know there is guilt to be shared. We are not the ones using language to bring the country to the brink of civil war, nor the ones carrying guns to civil protests, nor the ones advocating Second Amendment remedies if we do not get our way. The Right is guilty.

But yet, as progressives, we should no longer adopt the pleasant language of the MSM, and call that which is clearly racist a "dog whistle." Whoever states that President Obama is the food stamp president is a racist, and is playing to racists, and should be unmistakenly labeled as such, because that candidate or pundit is lying about known facts and using racial stereotypes and fears to foul the electoral soup with rage and fear and hate. He or she is no different than a George Wallace or a Bull Conner getting on the stage and pledging, "there will never be any mixing of whites and Negroes in my state." Anyone who uses any type of "dog whistle," like Donald Trump using birtherism, or Joe Wilson screaming, "You lie!" at the President during the State of the Union address, or Palin suggesting the President is secretly a Muslim or a terrorist, is also a racist, because they willingly and knowingly give vent to their racism to kindle the fire of division and racial violence in their political followers. They are rogues, trying to bring this country to the brink of civil war with lies. They are traitors, both to their nation and to the public.

If Mitt Romney took the stage with a white robed and white hooded Klansman, we progressives would shout in unison our outrage that a candidate for the presidency openly embraced racist supporters with a history of lynching, murder, and cross burning. Why, then, should we not be equally outraged when Romney embraces those supporters who continually blow the "dog whistle?" The issue is one of dress and language, but not one of substance. The Tea Party and the Republican base are no different in substance than the KKK or the early Nazi party.

Every time some two-bit hustler of a politician or pundit suggests that President Obama holds the presidency illegitimately, the odds that some wing-nut will attempt to assassinate the President grow. Whether one refuses to acknowledge his Christianity, or claims he practices Islam, or alleges he pals around with terrorists, or calls him a Nazi, a Marxist, a communist, a socialist, a Kenyan nationalist, or just a black man out of place in the White House, to that extent the accuser contributes to an atmosphere more likely to result in an assassination attempt.

We know this to be true. We know the result were it to happen: riots on a scale never imagined in America. Yet we coddle these verbal terrorists with safe language like "the far right," the new Republican base, the Right fringe, or the Tea Party. And we legitimize their racism with the cover of "the dog whistle."

When Mitt Romney takes the stage with Trump we should see only Romney alongside a white-sheeted, white-hooded, cross-burning racist, because that is the character Trump currently plays. When Romney takes the stage with Cheney, we should see only the images of mass torture and murder standing beside the candidate. We should see a narcissistic sociopath who managed to manipulate his way into the vice-presidency to control American energy and foreign policy for his own profit through stock options for most of the eight years of the George W. Bush administration. We should see beside Romney not Cheney, but Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, or SS and Gestapo head, Heinrich Himmler, for Cheney's crimes differ only in the numbers of millions tortured and killed but not in substance, and we should remember that Romney seeks to lead with Cheney's endorsement and probable advice.

There is no reason to be nice about such things any more, to call evil deeds by words that seem reasonable, but merely put a veneer of respectability over ageless iniquities. The Tea Party moved the Republican Party so far to the right that candidates with connections to openly fascist and white power organizations make serious bids for state and federal offices. We cannot afford to dance around with polite terms for racists when one of our two major parties chooses to jump into the deep end of the pool. This march to the right may not stop. We must call out the fouls with the full force of the English language, lest we follow eventually the rest of society off the precipice. The point of the Nuremburg trials was that it never happen again. We must not allow misleading language to let it happen here.

Some may argue that raising our rhetoric will only increase the conflict. That is true. However, conflict comes, whether we engage at the level of truth or not. As George Orwell wrote: "Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." We need revolutionary acts in America. They may start something. Something like a courageous stand. Above all, unlike the Germans, we must not "go gently into that good night...but rage, rage against the dying of the light." Apologies to Dylan Thomas.
(about the author John Reed)

I am a retired criminal defense attorney who has also held many different positions from carpenter, teacher, short order cook, land-man, and corporate attorney.

I am also a husband and father, both roles, I suspect, do more to change a person than one's choice of profession.

I am a passionate reader, particularly of non-fiction, and attempt to keep informed on developments in the major disciplines, such as history, physics, political economy, economics, theology, linguistics, sociology, etc., through reading books, rather than the INTERNET, although the net certainly has its place. I believe the decline in reading books in the last decades is responsible for the lack of critical thinking skills reflected in the American electorate, both left and right, but that this decline was planned after the near revolution of the 1960's and early 1970's, and obtained by changes in the curriculum at the various Colleges of Education around the country to emphasize the "self-esteem" movement and the "tolerance" ideology. The latter misused the word "tolerance" to mean that all ideas, cultures, religions, ideologies, etc., are equally valid and true, rather than equally to be respected. The difference led students to believe their feelings, as opposed to empirical facts, made their opinions true.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 20, 2012

Have You Moseyed Over To Facebook Lately?

A Liberal Social Gathering Is Going On!
Facebook is the place to express your opinion, no matter your political persuasion. I am enjoying the folly, especially from some of the GOP Tea Drinkers who possess such false or unrealistic political beliefs or opinions (actually voting against their own best interests); I find it hard to pull myself away from the likes of their laughable comments but also the liberal political placards are a hoot. I am not endorsing facebook but if you have an urge to LOL once in awhile give it a try. thinkingblue
First Off A Peek At This Facebook Group:
This (BELOW) is the type of mail we get....
Thethinking Blue Good Grief, Fox News or Rush Limbaugh couldn't have put it better... The problem we have in America is there are too many naive, gullible and very scared little people who have the POWERFUL RIGHT TO VOTE.
[[A democratic republic is a country that is both a republic and a democracy. It is one where ultimate authority and power is derived from the citizens. However, in practice countries that describe themselves as democratic republics do not always hold free or fair elections.]]
* Plutocracy, rule by the wealthy for the wealthy:
* Democracy, rule of the people by the people for the people
* Totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people.

(Sound familiar? - WAR ON WOMEN)
* Dictators usually resort to force or fraud to gain despotic political power, which they maintain through the use of intimidation, terror, and the suppression of basic RIGHTS.
If this is your cup of tea Mr. or Mrs. 110% against President Obama, then cast your vote for Mitt Romney, but if you happen to like living in a Democratic Republic, a vote for the reelection of Barack Obama is in order to maintain our Democratic Republic Government.
Because I believe we all deserve basic rights and freedoms, he’s got my vote!

Thethinking Blue I know Bill, it is so perplexing maybe there is something in the tea they drink that turns them into brainless zombies! :(

Chuck Woodhams The fact is I am a hardworking middle class stiff who would rather be part of the 53% (those who actually pay taxes because they work, including the 1% that pays nearly 40% of all personal income tax collected) than the 47% (which includes much of the so-called 99%). Find the math confusing? You are in good company. So does your president.
Thethinking Blue (responding to the above tea drinker): FUZZY MATH - Anyone can pull numbers out of their behinds and spout out statistics as to the integrity of the Right-Wingers who vote against their own best interests. I see it all the time and I am saddened by it. The likes of Karl Rove who learned how easy bamboozling was and did a number on the low information people who have a vote ( a vote that has been laced with indoctrination) this along with disfranchise the GOP hacksters hope to win an election that should (and the GOP knows it) HANDS-DOWN go to Barack Obama and the Democrats!
One more facebook picture placard from ME:

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Voter ID Law Is Disenfranchisement

And Laughs In The Face Of Democracy!
Travel on down to Philadelphia Pa. and knock on some row-house doors in a few of the low income neighborhoods and ask the "People" (you know those real flesh and blood hard working human beings who are American citizens which entitles them the RIGHT TO VOTE in national elections) “Do you possess a driver's license (which is used as a ‘Voter ID?’); many will answer NO and the reasons will vary, from not needing a drivers license due to abundant access to public transportation, or being too old or disabled to work or young people, still in school which happens to be within walking distance. The reasons for not having a driver’s license should NOT MATTER; there are many sources of ID which were always considered legitimate and easy enough to check, allowing one to cast their vote.
{The best official data available suggests that as many as 280,000 voters in Philadelphia may need to get an ID between now and November to have their votes counted.}
(This is so outrageous; it laughs in the face of a free and just society. The only purpose, up the sleeves of the GOP/TP legislators is DISENFRANCHISING -- anyone who is likely to vote a Democratic ticket--.)
**Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through LAW, or implicitly by intimidation or by placing unreasonable requirements. **
Like I said this is OUTRAGEOUS and every damn one of us should be infuriated! thinkingblue
Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Startling Urban Dynamic in Pennsylvania's Voter ID Law

Something big is happening in Philadelphia ahead of this fall’s presidential election – the first in the state since a stringent new Voter ID law was passed earlier this year – although people there concerned about it are having a maddeningly hard time putting their finger on the precise size of the problem. The city has just over 1 million registered voters. About 800,000 of them are considered "active." "And about a third of them are on one of these two lists as potentially having ID problems," says Tom Boyer. He's a former journalist and computer scientist living in Philadelphia who has gotten involved in analyzing the potential impacts of Pennsylvania’s controversial law, which is now in the throes of a legal challenge. Boyer suspects that something historically bad could happen if the law isn’t overturned, and not enough people are talking about it. The Pennsylvania Department of State recently released two lists of the Pennsylvania residents whose state IDs have expired since last November (and thus can’t be used to verify their identity at the polls this fall), as well as a list of the active voters whose names don’t match up with the PennDOT database as currently having an ID. This second list is terribly sloppy (one database spells names like McCormack as “Mc Cormack,” and there's all kinds of chaos with hyphens and apostrophes). But nonetheless, the best official data available suggests that as many as 280,000 voters in Philadelphia may need to get an ID between now and November to have their votes counted. MORE HERE

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Paul Ryan, "Hey Girl"

Rachel Maddow's research team brought us alarming information on her August 15, 2012 show on what Paul Ryan is really all about when it comes to a woman's rights over her body. Hey Girl, Guess what? According to Paul Ryan YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS. I knew this pathetic little minded man would be horrible for our country but until Rachel let the elephant out of the bag I didn't know HOW MUCH! Hey Girl View the Video and get the startling facts. Now when I see Paul Ryan's face I think North Korea, Absolute Leader, HERE WE COME! thinkingblue
Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan's America is UNAMERICAN!

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 13, 2012

Romney/Ryan Ticket

Outwardly they look like righteous people, but inwardly
their hearts are filled with hypocrisy and indifference.
Is that what America needs?

60 minutes Romney/Ryan First Interview

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Paul Ryan's Violence.

Tell Us Paul Ryan,
How did the war on poverty become the war on the poor?

Well, the suspense has ended and we all know who Mitt Romney’s pick for VP is. Lo and Behold… It’s Paul Ryan, who would have guessed? Now the stage is set, these two draconian ideologues haven’t a clue as to what it’s like to be born into poverty (or for that matter, windup in poverty due to unforeseen circumstances). They speculate, theorize and guesstimate what it’s like and come to a conclusion… They’re poor because they are lazy, or foolish, or they rather take hand-outs, than work. This plays well to their low information base but how can they truly believe the crap they spew? IMAO, I believe they half believe it because they’ve never experienced being poor in any shape or form. Their motto is… HEY LOOK AT ME, I’M ON TOP AND I DID IT ALL BY MYSELF. TOO BAD FOR YOU, IF ONLY YOU WERE LIKE ME AND NOT LAZY YOU WOULD BE ON TOP TOO!
OK, maybe that’s a bit farfetched but if they know better, even if it's only a half-assed "guesstimation" their base does not. On Facebook, I see this a lot… Soon as a Liberal image is posted the comments always circle around the worn-out THEY’RE POOR BECAUSE THEY’RE LAZY. THE POOR RATHER RELY ON HAND-OUTS THAN WORK.
These opinionated right-wing cruel comments are tragic, from a societal view, the bashing of poor and working poor people for society's ills is so cowardly and is downright bullying. I am so sick of hearing their nasty rhetoric of how "certain people" want to depend on hand-outs. Why don't they do a little research before they spew forth their hatred of people who find themselves in situations not of their choosing? Oh, I know that’s too difficult it’s better to offer up rationalizations that point judgmental fingers that in turn triggers derogatory name calling of people who do not fit their right-wing idea of “respectable, pulling up bootstraps, Americans”. One of Ghandi's memorable quotes sums it all up perfectly: "Poverty is the worst form of violence." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

Well anyway, maybe the right-wing hate to research the truth but I don't… Here is a bit of fact checking on POVERTY and Paul Ryan's heavy-handed budget plan: thinkingblue
EXCERPT: Hurricane Katrina rolled over the Gulf Coast and unearthed an unpleasant truth about the state of poverty in this country: concentrated poverty still exists. Isolated deep in inner-city neighborhoods were hundreds of thousands of poor households that lacked the means to evacuate or weather the storm. But even without hurricanes, the problems associated with concentrated poverty affect more than 3.5 million poor people – 8 million total, if you include the non-poor – who live in such neighborhoods.
As of the year 2000, about one-tenth of the nation’s poor lived in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 40 percent and higher. Among poor minorities, the share was an even greater 15 percent, including 19 percent of poor African Americans. The problems that arise from concentrated poverty are not just limited to those that occur after natural disasters. A number of economic and social ills prevail, including the ABSENCE of quality education and work opportunities, which can lead to high rates of unemployment, crime and school dropouts. From a housing perspective, high poverty areas are more likely to have deteriorating and/or abandoned properties, which discourage investment in the area. This leads to a downward spiral for the neighborhood, from which it is costly and difficult to recover. Thus, it is not just the poor who live in concentrated poverty that suffer, but all households in these neighborhoods.
Residents of high poverty areas often earn incomes so low that they cannot afford even the rents and housing costs on the dilapidated units in their neighborhoods. In 2000, almost a third of households in these areas still paid at least half their income for housing, in spite of living in some of the worst housing conditions.
While still high for residents, these rents are often not enough for many landlords to cover the maintenance and operating costs on their properties. A number of property owners in these neighborhoods neglect their buildings, leaving them to deteriorate to near-uninhabitable conditions. Spread over an entire neighborhood, such abandonment of property can destabilize an area, by discouraging other owners and would-be investors from spending money to improve and bring services to the area.
PS: If you care to read more truth about poverty click here or forever go on bashing those who may need help and hope one day it won't be your right-wing self or one of your loved ones.
Idea for image came from

Weingart Center | Homeless nonprofit charity

A little Paul Ryan 101
EXCERPT: A $5.3 trillion cut from essential social programs that effect everyone from the working poor to senior citizens. While at the same time, Ryan’s plan gives a total of $4.3 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy 1% in America. In other words, if you’re not as fortunate as Paul Ryan and his fat-cat handlers, then you are royally screwed.

And what is Paul Ryan’s defense for such drastic cuts to the poor while giving additional handouts to the rich? He wants to help the poor by stomping on them…

“If we have a debt crisis, then the people who get hurt the first and the worst are the poor and the elderly.”

That’s all you need to know to understand how and why Ryan came up with his budget plan. But here are the specifics.

After recalling his family’s immigration from Ireland generations ago, and his belief in the virtue of people who “pull themselves up by the bootstraps,” Ryan warned that a generous safety net “lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency, which drains them of their very will and incentive to make the most of their lives. It’s demeaning.”

HOW VERY KIND OF MR. RYAN: To protect poor Americans from being demeaned, Ryan is cutting their anti-poverty programs and using the proceeds to give the wealthiest Americans a six-figure tax cut.

The Ryan budget plan is full of holes and missing key explanations for his wacky math. In one instance, Ryan proposes putting financial aid for college on “a sustainable funding path” instead of admitting that he completely slashes most financial aid for higher education. His plan states giving average workers “the tools to thrive in the 21st century” instead of saying that he’s cutting most job-training programs.

Other highlights of Ryan’s budget plan:

Cut 25% from transportation and infrastructure spending (including cuts to Air Traffic Control
Cut 13% on spending for Veterans
Cut 6% on spending for “general science, space, and basic technology”
Cut 33% on spending for “education, training, employment, and social services”
Cut 14.6% on spending for protecting the environment (including cuts to weather forcasting related to emergency warnings and hurricane response)
Cuts to EPA and Food Safety

It’s estimated that Ryan’s plan would grow the national debt by $4 trillion over his 10-year plan. That’s because he’s going to give additional tax cuts to the wealthy, lower the already basement level corporate tax rate, and allow all those corporations and wealthy individuals to bring their money home from offshore and foreign accounts without having to pay taxes.

Why Is There Poverty?

Following the course of major social problems such as poverty, drug abuse, violence, and oppression, it often seems that nothing works. Government programs come and go as political parties swing us back and forth between stock answers whose only effect seems to be who gets elected. If anything, the problems get worse, and people feel increasingly helpless and frustrated or, if the problems don’t affect them personally, often feel nothing much at all.
As a society, then, we are stuck, and we’ve been stuck for a long time. One reason we’re stuck is that the problems are huge and complex. But on a deeper level, we tend to think about them in ways that keep us from getting at their complexity in the first place. It is a basic tenet of sociological practice that to solve a social problem we have to begin by seeing it as social. Without this, we look in the wrong place for explanations and in the wrong direction for visions of change.
Consider, for example, poverty, which is arguably the most far-reaching, long-standing cause of chronic suffering there is. The magnitude of poverty is especially ironic in a country like the United States whose enormous wealth dwarfs that of entire continents. More than one out of every six people in the United States lives in poverty or near-poverty. For children, the rate is even higher. Even in the middle class there is a great deal of anxiety about the possibility of falling into poverty or something close to it – through divorce, for example, or simply being laid off as companies try to improve their competitive advantage, profit margins, and stock prices by transferring jobs overseas.
How can there be so much misery and insecurity in the midst of such abundance? If we look at the question sociologically, one of the first things we see is that poverty doesn’t exist all by itself. It is simply one end of an overall distribution of income and wealth in society as a whole. As such, poverty is both a structural aspect of the system and an ongoing consequence of how the system is organized and the paths of least resistance that shape how people participate in it.
The system we have for producing and distributing wealth is capitalist. It is organized in ways that allow a small elite to control most of the capital – factories, machinery, tools – used to produce wealth. This encourages the accumulation of wealth and income by the elite and regularly makes heroes of those who are most successful at it – such as Microsoft’s Bill Gates. It also leaves a relatively small portion of the total of income and wealth to be divided among the rest of the population. With a majority of the people competing over what’s left to them by the elite, it’s inevitable that a substantial number of people are going to wind up on the short end and living in poverty or with the fear of it much of the time. It’s like the game of musical chairs: Since the game is set up with fewer chairs than there are people, someone has to wind up without a place to sit when the music stops.
In part, then, poverty exists because the economic system is organized in ways that encourage the accumulation of wealth at one end and creates conditions of scarcity that make poverty inevitable at the other. But the capitalist system generates poverty in other ways as well. In the drive for profit, for example, capitalism places a high value on competition and efficiency. This motivates companies and their managers to control costs by keeping wages as low as possible and replacing people with machines or replacing full-time workers with part-time workers. It makes it a rational choice to move jobs to regions or countries where labor is cheaper and workers are less likely to complain about poor working conditions, or where laws protecting the natural environment from industrial pollution or workers from injuries on the job are weak or unenforced. Capitalism also encourages owners to shut down factories and invest money elsewhere in enterprises that offer a higher rate of return. MORE HERE:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 07, 2012

An Abominable Mitt Romney, Mother of all lies, Lie!

Am I reading this correctly? OPPOSE OBAMA'S LAWSUIT AGAINST MILITARY VOTING RIGHTS! This has got to be one of the most abominable lies to EVER come from the right-wing HATEFULS! (I've refrained from calling them people because they are not people any longer, they have disqualified themselves from the human race) This is so ignorantly mendacious even for despicable Teapublicans. Here's the truth but of course many followers of the Teapublican Bigots don't want to hear the truth they prefer to be in the dark, and wallow in HATE, DECEIT, SCORN and VENOM. But for anyone with some common-sense left (you know that word or words that mean – SOUND PRACTICAL JUDGMENT!) who may question whether or not the Teapublicans tell the truth, HERE IS A BIT OF REALITY TO CHEW ON! thinkingblue
The most recent controversy between the Obama and Romney campaigns concerns the key swing state of Ohio. The Obama campaign filed a lawsuit that seeks to force the state to open up their early voting period to all Ohioans, while the Romney campaign claims that the Obama team is trying to deprive military service members of their early voting rights. Below are the facts and fiction behind the story.
What is early voting?
Early voting is a process adopted by many states that allows voters to cast their ballots in the days or weeks before Election Day. The process is designed to make it easier to vote, since many people work shifts that prevent them from voting on a Tuesday. Some states have very open early voting procedures that allow any voter to vote early for any reason. Other states have adopted more restrictive procedures that only allow certain people to vote early for certain reasons (i.e. being out of the country on Election Day). Democrats generally favor early voting since a larger turnout benefits their candidates. In Florida, for example, Democrats have opposed Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) attempt to not allow early voting on Sunday. Democrats argue that many African-Americans, who tend to vote for their candidates, go to the polls after church on Sunday.
What did Ohio do?
In the past, Ohio set a policy that allowed voters to cast their ballot three days before the election. In 2008, 93,000 Ohioans took advantage of these rules. Republicans, who control the Ohio state legislature, passed a law that restricted early voting rights to only those in the military.
What did the Obama campaign do?
The Obama campaign subsequently filed a lawsuit, a copy of which can be read here, that seeks to reinstate the three-day early voting period for all Ohioans. The lawsuit argues that the new law adopted by the legislature will cause voters to “suffer direct and irreparable injury” by depriving many of them of the opportunity to vote. The lawsuit also claims that the distinction between other Ohio voters and military service members is “arbitrary.”
What did the Romney campaign do?
The Romney campaign argued that the Obama campaign was trying to deprive military service members of their voting rights through the lawsuit, issuing the following statement,
“President Obama’s lawsuit claiming it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges during the state’s early voting period is an outrage.”
Even some conservative publications like Hot Air have cast doubt on the Romney campaign's claim.
How did the Obama campaign respond?
The Obama campaign called the Romney campaign’s argument a lie. The Obama campaign points out that the lawsuit does not seek to deprive anyone of any voting rights, but instead seeks to reinstate the early voting rights for all Ohioans.
Why it matters
Ohio is a key swing state with 18 electoral votes in the upcoming election. Early voting tends to benefit Democrats. As was proven in Florida in 2000, a few thousand votes in one state can effectively decide which party occupies the White House over the next four years.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 06, 2012

The Cat Speaks Out On Bigotry

The Cat Speaks Out On Bigotry

The predominately Evangelical, Tea Party has been gloating these past few days with news of, a successful “National Chick-Fil-A Day”. Claiming fundamentalist sales have skyrocketed and many Chick-Fil-A restaurants ran out of chicken. Well, these lockstep minds can rejoice all they want in their supposedly triumphant attempts at marginalizing a whole group of American individuals while giving it their best shot to also strip away their civil rights; the same rights that they, American Tea Party members have, not only enjoyed but have been guaranteed, ad-infinitum. Let them celebrate but it will be a short-lived victory because civil rights cannot be dished-out according to ones religious belief-system, not in a free state; rights are guaranteed to EVERY citizen and those who wish to have a pick-n-choose type of government, where (holier than thou) dogma decides which group (or individual) qualifies for fairness and which does not, will never survive.  We-the-thinking-people will not stand for it, so go ahead and eat your chicken sandwich, with a side order of bigotry and drink your mind numbing tea because Justice and Fairness For All can be the only winner! thinkingblue  

Thursday, August 02, 2012

Chick-Fil-Hate Day

Chick-Fil-Hate Day
Where Chicken Little Is Served Up With a Side Order Of Hate

A restaurant serving up hate and marginalizing a whole group of people; Actually, encouraging their patrons to feel hatred and claiming that bigotry is GODLY. It's not only priceless, it’s mind boggling. thinkingblue
Chick-fil-A day: Don’t boycott. Infiltrate.   
EXCERPT: Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and former Republican presidential candidate had declared Wednesday, Aug. 1, as “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” in support of the company “whose executives are willing to take a stand for Godly values.” He wants people to celebrate those values “by simply showing up and eating” at the fast food restaurant.

(TAKE A STAND FOR GODLY VALUES!!! SAY WHAT? If there was a supernatural MAN IN THE SKY do you honestly believe he would approve of HATE and BIGOTRY towards HIS prized creation, MAN? I doubt it! thinkingblue)

Exactly what are those values, which have not only been espoused by Huckabee, but Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty (maybe not such a smart move as he’s being vetted for veep by Mitt Romney)?

EXCERPT: Bishop Gene Robinson, the first gay Bishop in the Episcopal Church, has a new book,”God Believes in Love: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage.”

“What would Jesus think about two men and two women getting married?” he asks in his book. “According to the accounts of the life of Jesus as recorded by the Gospels, Jesus never said anything about sexually intimate relationship between people of the same gender. Nor did he comment on sexual behavior between people of the same gender. Period.”

According to the president of the company, Dan Cathy, “We don’t claim to be a Christian business. But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles.

{{{{{ The question is, what are biblical principles? }}}}

Bishop Robinson points out that Jesus was “consistently on the side of those who were outcast by society and bore the unfair burden of disdain, discrimination, and prejudice.”


I can't believe it... lines and lines of people supporting bigotry and hate. They all ought to be ashamed. thinkingblue
Chick-Fil-A Has 'Record-Setting Day' While Embroiled In Anti-Gay Controversy
EXCERPT: Equality Matters published a report on Chick-fil-A's charitable work that found that the chain donated nearly $2 million to anti-gay groups in 2010. Among those to reportedly receive donations include the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization that has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

A Safe Haven For Intolerance from thinkingblue on Vimeo.
2 New Videos
Voice of reason Rachel Maddow and Bob Herbert sit down and talk about the GOP fringe and Intolerance.

A Safe Haven For Intolerance from thinkingblue on Vimeo.

Voice of reason Rachael Maddow and Bob Herbert sit down and talk about the GOP fringe and Intolerance.

Rachel Maddow espouses the many benefits from the Affordable Healthcare Act

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Presenting The GOP's Evil Obamacare

Presenting The GOP's Evil Obamacare

Labels: , , , , ,