A Slut, By Any Other Name, Would Still be Rush Limbaugh

With the recent flap between the male members of Congress (Republicans) who decided women didn’t need to testify about birth control and Rush Limbaugh calling women who use birth control “sluts,” I’ve decided that, as Americans, we need to stop putting up with this.

The fact is that birth control pills are used for many life-threatening issues for women.  Sandra Fluke herself, the woman Rush Limbaugh lambasted, calling her a “slut,” brought up the issue of a friend of hers, who had needed birth control pills to keep her ovarian cysts from growing.  Unfortunately, the woman couldn’t afford her meds and instead ended up losing an ovary.

Translation: the woman needed major surgery to fix that which a simple birth control pill prescription could have solved without anything invasive.  To say it’s perfectly fine for a person to be cut open because you want to preach what they can and can’t do because it offends your delicate sensibilities goes so far beyond disgusting and reprehensible, it isn’t funny.  To take it farther and say you don’t want such a woman to get her meds—not because she actually needs them for a life-threatening issue, but rather, because she may have sex and not get pregnant from it—is downright depraved and proves where Limbaugh’s mind really is.  In the gutter.

Now let’s take a look at ED meds.  What life-threatening illnesses do ED meds prevent?  If a man had, say, testicular cancer, would he take Viagra?  Would his doctor prescribe Cialis?  No.  Absolutely not.

What purpose does a medication like Viagra or Cialis actually fill?  Well, each of these meds help men get erections when they can’t.

So what do these medications do?

They allow men to have sex.

It seems to me that if we’re talking about “sluts” here, then Rush Limbaugh, who was once caught returning from the Dominican Republic, carrying a prescription for Viagra (not even in his own name—which means, what, he stole it?), when he wasn’t married at the time, could only have had one purpose for this Viagra.

To get an erection.  To have sex while unmarried.

Rush Limbaugh has proved—by his own reasoning—he is, indeed, a slut.

Laughing in the face of women everywhere, who—for pure health reasons—need birth control pills they can’t afford and will suffer perfectly preventable surgery and even death because the majority of Republican men in Congress don’t give a rat’s ass about women getting access to quality health care, are the same men who think it’s perfectly fine for health insurance to cover ED meds for those sluts like Rush Limbaugh to take them.  And don’t forget to check the fine print.  Because ED meds are actually covered under Medicaid, too.  What is Medicaid, you ask?

Beyond Medicare, Medicaid is the only form of US public health care that exists, a very limited plan for people on welfare to get the tiniest modicum of health care.

So in effect, we are paying these men to have sex, and not for a necessary medication.  Just like Limbaugh.  Let’s forget that insurance covers Limbaugh, because that wasn’t his point in his tirade.  His exact words in his tirade were, “What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps.”

While I don’t necessarily disagree Limbaugh is a pimp, as well as being a slut, right there, he proved how little he knows.  Because Sandra Fluke isn’t taking a taxpayer handout or suggesting the federal government cover either contraception or contraceptive meds used for medically necessary purchases.  To the contrary, Fluke was asking for nothing more than what Limbaugh takes for granted: that, when a woman pays for health insurance, that insurance should be required to pay for her needed health care.  And insurance isn’t paying out “taxpayer money,” so much as it’s paying out the tiniest percentage of customer money paid into said company.

Not to mention, the fact is that making a point (as the thankfully ill-fated Blunt-Rubio did) of allowing insurers to have the ability to turn down anything that goes against their “morals,” when insurance companies cover far too little as it is, can only lead to worse problems down the line.  Today, it’s contraception.  Tomorrow, it’s heart medication.  “Oh, well, Mr. Jones, I see you’ve had a heart attack.  I know these meds your doctor prescribed will keep you from having another, fatal, heart attack, but frankly, it’s against my morals to see to it that you get your meds covered by your insurance policy, because I know you’re overweight and eat a lot of fatty foods.  Sorry, Mr. Jones…request denied.  Drop dead.”

It would be utter chaos, particularly now, when health insurance companies have caused American health care to be downgraded in quality beyond that of third world countries.  It says something when a Communist country like China can cover a hell of a lot more of its citizens with some kind of health care than a big, rich country like the US can, and still, the percentage of people who do without here, compared to in China, points out how inadequate this system of paying a middleman to pimp out our health care really is.

Now, back to the slut/pimp, I mean, Limbaugh.  We all know he started losing his advertisers and getting flak from the Republican party after what he said.  And Limbaugh, the product of his many years since Reagan disastrously repealed the “Fairness Doctrine,” giving us one point of view in the media and little chance of the truth getting through, decided he didn’t want to lose any more advertisers, so he came up with the perfect non-apology apology.  The apology that says it wasn’t the personal attack it really was for him to make those incendiary remarks against Ms. Fluke and the majority of women, but rather, it was a “poor choice of words.”  A very anemic apology, followed by an excuse of why he actually uttered those words, an explanation which actually negated the half-apology he had somewhat made and turned it into the non-apology apology:

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week.  In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Yes, he “chose the wrong words.”  Not that he used words that labeled Ms. Fluke as a piece of crap undeserving of health care, but rather, that these were the “wrong words.”  Heh heh.  “Yeah, dad, I know you hate me using the F word and I’m sorry I chose to call you by that wrong word, so I’m sorry I picked that particular one.  Next time I’ll be sure to call you a bastard.”

Instead of stopping there, however, he proceeded to actually defend the indefensible, to actually double down with an extremely poor rationalization of why he said what he did.

So let’s pull this apart sentence by sentence.

“I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress.”

Well, Rush, who the hell asked you?!  We are not discussing anything.  Congress called for this discussion.  To say that it’s “absurd” is to actually censure the men who put that discussion into action.  The same discussion to which Ms. Fluke and no other women were invited to speak at all.

It’s like if I were to call Rush on the phone, where we’d have an hour-long discussion, and then later I were to say, “You know what?  That dickhead Limbaugh made me call and speak to him for an hour!  Oh, it was absolutely horrible!  The nerve of that guy, making me do such a thing!”

Next:

“I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities.”

What “American citizens” is he talking about?  The insurance companies?  The insurance companies, who get away with paying out so little, their CEOs make millions of dollars in a very short time…so who is subsidizing this?  You mean…the people who are paying for said insurance?  Insurance plan subscribers?  Such as…Sandra Fluke?!

Wow.  I had no idea that insurance was actually supposed to mean that they were allowed to take my money and turn down anything they wanted to turn down that related to my health.  I know this is what they get away with doing, but thanks for putting it into words, Limbaugh, “Health insurance is one big scam.  Stay away!  The little they cover is what we’re going to make absolutely sure they won’t cover, anyway.”

In addition, Rush here is once again doubling down on his comment that this so-called insurance is actually subsidized by the government.  Because this is the only way a “taxpayer” can pay for someone’s health insurance, and whatever “social activities” that insurance may or may not cover.

Next:

“What happened to personal responsibility and accountability?”

Of course, there’s no bigger bingo in the Republican BS factory than the old “personal responsibility” and “accountability.”  Those words mean, “Be responsible for yourself, but I can do whatever I want.”  It’s the reason why married Senator David Vitter, caught having sex with a prostitute, can still keep his Congressional seat, but Anthony Weiner, who didn’t actually have sex with any woman other than his own wife, had to resign.  It’s also why Joe Walsh, owing his ex-wife over $100,000 in back child support, isn’t in jail for not paying same, but “personal responsibility and accountability” certainly don’t come into question over the fact that he received an award for being such a “good family man.”  Oh, no, when it comes to “personal responsibility and accountability” for Republicans, they can do whatever they please.  Um, remember Rush and his Viagra-laced Dominican Republic vacation…when he was unmarried?!  Having sex without the benefit of marriage?!  Surely, if we’re speaking of people needing to behave puritanically here, why in the hell did Rush go off on a sex bender in another freaking country?!

I’ll skip over the next couple of inane comments, as pulling each of those apart is superfluous, so let’s go on to more of the real issue here:

“Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?  In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.”

So here we get to the crux and the craziness in Limbaugh’s claims.  For one thing, he keeps pushing the issue, really driving that total nonsensical claim home, saying “we the taxpayers” are literally paying for something we’re not.  I’ll say it completely clearly, for those, like Limbaugh, who apparently don’t understand this…we did not get any version of universal health care granted by Congress.  We have no socialized medicine for the citizens who completely lack health care.

Socialized medicine is the process whereby everyone pays into the system for health care, via taxes paid to the government for said purpose, and then we all get unfettered access to health care, not just Rush Limbaugh.  The government ensures doctors get paid and people don’t have to prove they have insurance when they’re writhing in pain in the emergency room or a doctor’s office.  And in the case of socialized medicine, citizens also aren’t giving up life-saving treatments so an insurance CEO can buy his 15th yacht or vacation home.  The payments that everyone pays into the system subsidize all health care.

And this is exactly what we don’t have.  So when Mr. Limbaugh talks about “taxpayers” paying for this in his non-apology, what he’s saying is, “Screw facts.  I can get people a hell of a lot more upset when I talk about how it’s you and me paying for this woman to have sex, but if I admit I was wrong because this is insurance we’re talking about, a product that is paid for by individuals, then people won’t be quite so upset.  Instead, they’ll tell me, ‘But Rush, if she’s paying for it, then you’re telling me the insurance company can choose what they want to pay for, and if that’s the case, then they can deny my son’s leukemia meds, because they’re allegedly morally opposed to this?’  So I need to say this in a way that will completely anger people, to think their tax dollars are literally covering birth control…and they’re actually not.  I’m talking about it as if it’s socialized medicine, but nothing like that in the US exists, and I’m counting on the fact that my listeners are too dumb to know the difference.”

So here Limbaugh has purposely, knowingly characterized US health care as if it’s socialized medicine, when it’s not.  And you know what, Limbaugh?  The fact is that you can’t change the facts to suit your purposes whenever you want.  You can’t tell us we have socialized medicine that we don’t have and that taxpayers are paying for socialized medicine we don’t have.  You can’t tell me that, on top of the little teeny-tiny bit of money insurance companies actually cough out on claims, letting people die from lack of health care rather than inconvenience the poor, hapless CEOs of said insurance companies, it’s perfectly fine to now allow insurance companies to cover even less, to make so-called “moral” decisions as a reason to deny still more claims.  Damn, Limbaugh, just how much Viagra did the insurance industry give you to practice your utterly depraved lifestyle, which you’ve been doing since you were single?!  Oh, suddenly there’s an exception for Rush himself to have sex outside of marriage, but if any woman is taking birth control pills for ovarian cysts or endometriosis, she’s nothing but a “slut.”

Next:

“In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.”

Now Limbaugh is going back to a second grader’s mentality.  Well, maybe he’s not actually going “back,” since he’s been there all along.  “Mommy, Bobby poked me!” knowing full well he poked Bobby first.

Who started the conversation?  Um, wasn’t that the Republicans?!  The very same Republicans who chose not to have a single woman speak about women’s health?!

Limbaugh, if it’s “not our business,” then please tell me…why in the hell are you going on about this?!  You specifically said it’s “not our business.”  So butt the hell out!

And I was going to say that, while I do appreciate your concern for President Obama’s delicate sensitivities…frankly, I don’t.  Because President Obama himself is obviously not concerned about them.  And last I heard, he can take perfectly good care of himself.  He’s not holding his “virgin ears” and singing “la la la la la” the way you want us to think you are, because President Obama is actually an adult.  He’s not a stupid little kid screaming, “Mommy, Bobby poked me!” when in all actuality, Bobby was the one who got poked first.  Nobody asked you to suddenly go from harshly and unnecessarily criticizing the man practically 24/7 to claiming you suddenly care so much about his “virgin ears.”  After all, Limbaugh, where was that “concern” about our “poor dear” President when you were claiming his birth certificate was fake?  Where will that loving concern be the next time you find some other stupid falsehood to bitch about, the next made-up story dreamed up out of your sick mind to please your Tea Party masters, the people who actually own you and pimp your voice out to the American people?

Frankly, Limbaugh, if we want to have the President sound off on something, the American people don’t need you acting as his proxy.  In case you haven’t noticed, the President is fully capable of speaking for himself, and until he actually says the topic offends him, I know it doesn’t.  Let the President speak for himself, because if you’re going to tell me what he does and doesn’t want to hear, I’m going to start speaking for you.  And Limbaugh, you’re not going to like what I say for you.

Then we get to the final nail in Rush’s coffin:

“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

This is not an apology.  The previous paragraph proves this, but in case Rush’s meaning isn’t crystal clear…it’s not that he’s actually apologizing.  He’s saying that his “choice of words” was meant humorously, but it was “not the best.”  In other words, he really did mean it, but it was stated with a bad choice of words.  “Yeah, too bad, I called you a filthy slut who is having way too much sex on the fantasy socialized ‘taxpayer dime,’ but it wasn’t me, it was just a ‘bad choice of words.’”

My significant other has that very same way of attempting to non-apologize, too, when we’re in the heat of an argument.  “I’m sorry if you took whatever I said offensively.”  In Rush’s case, it wasn’t he who was at fault, it was that “choice of words.”  It was just “bad.”  Maybe if he’d called her a “tramp” or a “lady of the evening” instead of a slut, this wouldn’t have “created” such a “national stir.”  In other words, he meant what he said, he just said it too insultingly, and the resulting media circus is now hurting Limbaugh’s feelings.

The fact remains that creating that “national stir” is what’s really bothering Rush here.  Truthfully, I’m sure he couldn’t give a rat’s ass about hurting Ms. Fluke’s feelings, because if he did, he would have made an apology more along the lines of, “I said something wrong.  I implied Ms. Fluke was using birth control to turn tricks.  I realize this was an extremely hurtful thing to say.  I’ve incorrectly implied in the first place that birth control pills are provided by the taxpayers; thus, the government.  I know we don’t have socialized medicine, and Ms. Fluke and all women have even more of a right to have their private insurance companies pay for their prescriptions than I do for my Viagra, which is completely medically unnecessary.  My words were not only hurtful, but the things that I meant by using them were terribly hurtful.”

Unfortunately, this is not the apology Ms. Fluke received.  Instead, she received a carefully crafted non-apology apology, designed to quell the “national stir” and perhaps welcome those advertisers who jumped ship over his remarks back into the fold of the Rush Limbaugh slut/pimpshow.  As for humor…I’m sure I’m not the only person who considers Limbaugh to be not humorous, and certainly, by making hurtful remarks and shrugging them off as “humor” is insulting to not just women, but to every citizen of the US who understands the inflammatory nature of Limbaugh’s remarks at all times, not just now.  So now he happened to get caught and he crafted the kind of apology my significant other makes when we’re both hotheaded, not a truly heartfelt one, but rather, “I’m sorry if you took whatever I said offensively.”

Well, Limbaugh, you’re not only a pimp and a slut, you’re also a flaming pile of crap, a douchebag, a sphincter and a dickhead.  What?  Oh, that’s just my silly little attempt at humor.  It bothers you?  Gee, I’m sorry if you took whatever I said offensively.  It was a “bad choice of words.”

Mitt Romney, Crap Job Creator: “No Excuses,” Mitt

Mr. Romney,

In your recent interview with Soledad O’Brien, you indicated that you didn’t care about the poor, because they have a “safety net.”  You also indicated, when pressed, that you would “fix” it if elected President.

Click here to watch a clip of Mitt Romney telling Soledad O'Brien he's "not concerned" about the poor 

Sir, when you’re poor, there is no social safety net.  The social safety net is an antiquated idea that has been put to rest for many years now.  The so-called “safety net” that you think is in place with just a few “holes” is like the Costa Concordia…in case you haven’t heard, a few measly dollars from food stamps when you’re 6+ months behind on rent due to lack of adequate income is about as useful as patching the holes in the Costa Concordia…truth is, by then you’re already taking on water and sinking fast.

The only way to patch up that social safety net is to offer jobs.  And Mr. Romney, I’m not talking about the kinds of “jobs” you “created” at Bain.  I know you’re so full of yourself and proud about having been a “job creator,” but frankly, all you did was contribute the water to sink quite a few of those sinking ships.  Because I have to ask you, Mr. Romney–how many of those “jobs” you “created” (you know, like the ones at Staples and Sports Authority) pay 6 figure salaries or even high 5 figure salaries?  How many of those “jobs” you “created” were paid at substantially more than minimum wage, at least three times as much, particularly after you and your partners at Bain took your huge chunk for making the taxpayers pay the pensions and other expenses for what you and your cronies decided not to pay, to take those numbers off of the company balance sheets and say the company was now healthily swimming in cash?

Hey, it’s only a few bucks, right?  We’ll just call that “taxpayer responsibility.”  Which means that when you get around to doing like the rest of your party, you know, that “cut, crap and balance” bunk, you’ll cut out the pensions, because why should we be rewarding people for doing a good job for years and years?!  You’ve gotta figure that if they’re not working anymore, why should we pay them (who cares if they’re 70 or 80 years old and unhealthy?), and all of the money they’ve paid for those pensions over the years is perfectly fine for “wealth redistribution” to your rich friends.  Because your rich friends are “successful,” right?  Sitting around on their asses, picking apart companies for sport and profit, having money in Swiss bank accounts and the Cayman Islands, but hey, work is work to you rich guys, particularly when it’s not.  But not if you’re poor, because then you have a “safety net” to save your sorry ass, that magnanimous government check that lets you have all of the luxuries like a few dollars toward a dilapidated apartment in a dangerous section of town, and if that’s the case, then you’re just too damn lazy to make good money at your minimum wage crap job, courtesy of good old Mitt Romney and Bain.

And let me ask you another question, Mr. Romney.  Since you’re so good with figures of all of those wonderful jobs you created in your years at Bain, I wonder if you’ve ever really looked into how many of those you’ve “employed” over the years have lived at or are living at or below the federal poverty level?  I would think that since you’re so quick to talk about how many “jobs” you’ve “created,” you would want to convey the pride you feel in not just “creating” jobs that keep people dependent upon the government for those silly little “extras” like food, but also that you’re taking so much pride because you’ve created the types of jobs that are contributing to the economy by keeping people independent?  The types of jobs that pay well enough so people can afford the very basics…food, rent or mortgage, utilities, car payments, gas for said car, maintenance for said car so it doesn’t become a falling-apart craphole, carfare if said employee can’t afford a car (though we know your salaries are so generous, people are at least able to obtain decent used working cars, right?), plus health insurance?  Maybe a little extra, so if junior has a health problem and the health insurance company decides not to cover it, the family doesn’t have to think about pimping out their oldest daughter just to cover the extra expenses?

I’ve seen your ads, looking for money to “hold Obama accountable.”  Well, before you go spending that money on holding Obama accountable for seeing to it that corporations are encouraged to hire people right here in the US, rather than supporting overseas nations and saving themselves boatloads of money with cheap labor, I’d like to make a suggestion.  Instead of holding Obama “accountable” for some meaningless drivel, Mitt, please hold yourself accountable.  You should be sure you’re holding yourself accountable for good business practices.  The quick, easy solution of just sending jobs overseas, dismantling companies and pocketing the lion’s share (which is what makes your collection of donations onerously laughable indeed, as you could at least fund it yourself—why, Mitt, don’t you have enough money already that you don’t need to take more from the American people?) is creating an onus for the already overtaxed taxpayer (who would be lucky to pay the measly 13.9% in federal taxes that you yourself pay, less than half of what most people pay) and furthermore, creating crap jobs isn’t taking people off of the food stamps and other assistance they so desperately need.  I would think that instead of raising money, money, money for smear campaigns and boring old rhetoric about the big, imaginary and extremely harmful things you will do if you become President, surely you would want to instead spend that money wisely.  Not on stupid crap like smear campaigns, which help no one but yourself and already-rich television stations, but on things that really help the economy, like providing good, decent-paying jobs to hardworking people, who really don’t want to go on food stamps, but would actually, gasp, prefer to pay their own way, only there’s always some rich person who just wants them to earn minimum wage, so that every corporation bigwig can make ever more money.

So Mitt, which side are you on?  The side of the American people, who deserve a little bit of that money in salary for doing a good job, which you’re instead throwing around to other rich people, or are you on the side of the rich people, because screw the poor, since (somehow, while working at their minimum wage crap jobs created by the likes of Mitt and Bain) they’re just sitting around on their asses waiting for those hedge funds—I mean, hefty government food stamp checks.  After all, a little goes a long way, right?  It might be illegal, but if you’re receiving food stamps while behind on rent, you can just find a way to cash in those food stamps, pay your rent and then starve.  If you get caught, hey, they have to feed you in jail.  Simple solution, huh?  “No excuses,” right, Mitt?  So then why are you making excuses for doing an extremely lousy job—when, despite your aspirations, you’re not even President and haven’t done a damn thing for the American people?  I say you should definitely apply your own motto to yourself: No excuses.  Because there's no excuse for collecting money from and then irresponsibly blowing tons of money on everything and everyone but the majority of your own fellow citizens, the ones whose lives you don't even try to understand.

It's completely shameful.  "No excuses," Mitt.

Your Lack of Faith is Astonishing…

It’s amazing how “big” the GOP (Greedy Old-fart Party) is on faith, but when it comes to true faith, they have none at all.

Case in point: their machinations with Israel and desire—make that desperation—for war with Iran.

Nobody wants to see countries go to war.  In our case, we’ve gone to war, fighting battles that aren’t even ours, not for good reasons, but for bad ones.  Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on for years, and the one in Afghanistan still isn’t over.

On top of this sorry state of affairs, this conflict that hasn’t gained us a damn thing, except to impoverish our country so badly, most are struggling for survival, now the Republicans actually want to go to war with Iran.

Why?  Well, first, Iran has oil.  The Republicans don’t want to develop alternate sources of energy, they want to go with what has made them filthy rich and continues to do so: oil.  The thing that costs terribly for those who don’t have much, but for them, it’s a cash cow.  After all, every single large oil company that operates in the US gets their much-needed (cough, cough) handouts of corporate welfare every year.  Taxpayers are struggling, millionaires are trying to get their taxes to be lower than ever and to pawn off more taxes on the poor and middle class…but here comes big oil with their hands held out, and we just cross their palms with billions.

That’s allegedly supposed to keep the prices down…but it doesn’t.

The second reason they want to go to war with Iran?

Because of the Bible.  Yes, the Bible has warned of end times, particularly the “Rapture,” Israel is involved, and the Republicans aren’t trying to protect Israel because they don’t deserve to be attacked, but rather, because they want to force Biblical predictions to occur.

Does anyone besides me see the irony and stupidity in this?  Either the Bible is true or it’s not.  It doesn’t matter where you stand on this issue, whether you’re strictly religious and really, really believe it’s all going to come true, or you’re an atheist who thinks it’s all crap…or you’re somewhere in between.

The point is…do you really, truly believe?  Because if you do…

Do you believe God is so addle-brained, he can’t figure out how to make his “own” Biblical predictions come true? After all, those “religious” are quick to point out, the Bible is “God’s word.”

I’d like to ask every idiot like Michele Bachmann just what in the hell they think they’re going to accomplish Biblically by going in and starting a war with Iran.  The practical considerations aside (spending trillions on more war), the fact is, either the Biblical predictions are going to occur…or they’re not.  It doesn’t matter what your shenanigans are, it doesn’t matter what you believe, the fact that you’re trying to force it means you don’t believe.

Let me say that again.  IF YOU TRY TO FORCE BIBLICAL PREDICTIONS TO COME TRUE, YOU DON’T REALLY BELIEVE THEY’RE GOING TO COME TRUE.

Faith is simple.  It means having faith. It means believing in the unbelievable.  It means that regardless of what anyone says, you believe because you believe.

If you try to force it to happen…you don’t believe.  Because if you believed, you wouldn’t have to force it to happen…because you know it will happen!

So the more idiots like Michele Bachmann and the rest of the Greedy Old-fart Party try to push their Biblical agenda, the more they prove how little they do believe, how little faith they actually have.

Matter of fact, I daresay they have none at all.

You can’t force a Biblical prediction, because then it proves you have no faith.

Stand with Warren Buffett

It's nice to see there's a wealthy American who actually has some common sense.

As most of you know, Warren Buffett recently wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, titled, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich":
"Stop Coddling the Super-Rich" by Warren Buffett

While most of America is smart enough to know what our politicians are too stupid to figure out, while there are too many wealthy people bankrolling said politicians, there are millionaires who do care, who do understand that raising taxes on people who are struggling and giving tax breaks to those who can afford it the most is economic suicide for America.

The fact is, like it or not (and for most of the wealthy, that's "not"), the government still runs on revenue.  You can cut all you want, but eventually, it's like your car...you can refuse to change the oil, the tires, leave all of the problems unfixed because you're "cutting spending," but eventually, even if it becomes a total clunker, you've got to at least put in some gas, or that thing isn't going anywhere.

Our economy is going nowhere, because the wealthiest insist they should be completely subsidized by those who have the least.  Those who have the least end up with higher taxes, which they can ill afford to pay.  It means these are people who can't afford food, rent, mortgages, utilities, transportation and anything else one needs to survive.  That meager income, subsidized by their higher taxes, has to cover the entire country's needs, including things wealthy people also use, such as highways, fire departments, police departments, etc.

Do you think the money to even keep up your state's legislature comes from the sky or is growing on a tree?  Nope.  It comes from tax revenue.  Do you think your state legislators would want to work in a building with crumbling floors and ceilings?  Of course not.  Do you think that's on the table for "cutting spending"?  No way.

Someone has to subsidize every last thing the government pays out.  Who do you think pays the salaries of those such as Speaker Boehner, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Eric Cantor and any of the GOPers who are quick to say tax increases or even closing of loopholes for the wealthy must be off the table...but do you think they've decided they're making too much money and should sacrifice good portions of their hefty salaries?  Do you think they might give up their expense accounts in the name of belt tightening?  Of course not.

These are things they can personally afford to do...but they won't do it in the name of "cutting spending," when they can afford it more than someone who was laid off of their now-outsourced job and can't find another that pays even half as well as their previous job.  Needless to say, even raising taxes on the person now making $15,000/year (as opposed to that same person previously supporting his family of four on $80,000/year) not only hurts that person, but even as the percentage of that fairly minuscule amount of money taken by the government increases, it definitely doesn't give the government the healthy revenue that person once paid into the system.

Our government is corrupt and broken, backed by the interests of the wealthy 1% at the top, the Koch brothers and those of their ilk, who would prefer to see Americans starve than to themselves pay the tiniest bit, the least painful extra tiny percentage of taxes, not because they don't have it to spare, not because they really need it, but because holding onto it gives them power and prestige.  It's not burning a hole in their pockets, they're certainly not spending everything they've got...instead, they're sitting onto it, like the goose that laid the golden egg.  That golden egg sits in the nest, they keep it warm, but it remains there, doing nothing, not hatching, not contributing to anyone in any purposeful, meaningful way.

As citizens, we need to let our government know this is unacceptable.  We need them to know we understand basic economical principles: without income, without revenue, the government can't be solvent, no matter how much spending is cut.  Just like you can't get blood from a stone, without income, the government won't be able to pay the equivalent of its rent, mortgage, utilities, food, etc.  A tiny income from the few who are underpaid isn't enough to pull us out of this: it will take true dedication and patriotism, not bogus flag-waving, from the wealthiest in this country to share the sacrifice, to contribute that income to the government in a way that is painless to them and mighty painful for everyone else, not to mention dangerous to the very survival of those who are currently expected to sacrifice, in order to save the wealthy the trouble.

As part of the Rebuild the Dream movement mentioned in an earlier post, we need to stand with Warren Buffett and demand the wealthiest, who are doing better than ever, despite an economy that's hurting everyone else, give their fair share to a system that has been very, very good to them.
I stand with Warren Buffett

This is what America needs, not a crazy economy based on a few dollars from the poorest and a fictionally-based economy.  America needs real numbers, not fictional math as imagined by an author (rather than a mathematician) with no expertise whatsoever in economics.

If corporations are people and fetuses are people, why are corporations getting away with murder?

Here in the US, you are a taxpayer.  Which means you have the right to work hard, be underpaid, lose your job to someone an ocean and more away, you get no right to health care…but there are two new things that are just as certain as death and taxes: Increasingly, a fetus is given as many rights as a person—and more so.  Should an unborn fetus have a health problem, it must be provided with the finest health care available, often saved at the expense of the mother’s life, not to mention the medical expense itself, which shall fall upon the hapless, unwitting family.  It doesn’t matter if said family loses their home over these expenses or anything; as people, their rights are limited to working, paying taxes, paying their own way through health issues, whether or not they can afford it, and screw everything else.  Worse, the family has zero right to health care, even if they’ve paid all of their taxes faithfully up to date.

Then we have the other side of the coin…corporations.  Which are people.

Except for the fact that corporations don’t have health expenses, they can’t get pregnant, they don’t bleed, they don’t think for themselves…so for all intents and purposes, corporations are inanimate objects, yet have been given the rights of people.

They’ve been given the rights of people, but not the responsibilities.  Therefore, they make plenty of money…but if they don’t pay taxes on that income, no big deal.  (A person, on the other hand, must pay taxes.)

So I propose this.  We have “personhood” amendments popping up everywhere, to deter women from getting abortions.  If corporations are people, too, then “personhood” applies to them, as well.  When a corporation decides to lay off or fire a lot of people, that is akin to abortion.  A CEO calling for these workers to be summarily dismissed is akin to an abortion doctor.  In other words, a “person killer.”  “Murderer.”

We know what the penalties are for abortion in many states.  We know corporations were given personhood by the US Supreme Court.  In this case, the personhood laws should apply just as well to corporations.  I see a lot of future arrests of CEOs, hefty fines paid by corporations for “aborting” said “persons.”  They already oddly get a pass on paying taxes, where the government can’t stop tripping over its own feet about getting that money.

Why are we letting corporations getting away with murder?

Stuck with them for now...but perhaps not for the long run...

Are the members of Congress who didn't try to fight at all for raised revenues or jobs or anything to help the majority of Americans going to be welcomed back with open arms?  Perhaps not:
The poll figures are pretty revealing...

Now, it could be that people will forget by the time elections roll around, although this time, I have to say I doubt that will happen.  While people do tend to have notoriously short memories at times, the kind of behavior from the Republicans, particularly that displayed by the Tea Party, is totally unforgivable to most.  They were willing to throw grandma under the bus, for crying out loud.  When grandma is worried about whether she's going to have to eat cat food in order to be able to afford her expensive medications, when she worries about keeping the roof over her head, the very people who have made her worry aren't exactly at the top of grandma's warm-fuzzies-I-want-to-bake-cookies-for-them list.  Actually...they're a lot lower than that.  It's also something that's pretty hard to forget when it affects your very survival.  People can overlook only so much.  They can overlook the promises of a party that conveniently "forgot" about their lofty promises of jobs after over half a year in office, but what they can't overlook is something that affects them directly.  That's a whole different problem, and there's no way someone struggling can't take it personally.

So for the politicians, particularly GOPers and Tea Partiers (but also Blue Dog Democrats) who are staunchly standing for their right to gut the social safety net, to appease puppet masters like the Koch brothers and the dead author who made up a fictional economy on which they're attempting to gamble base the entire economy of the US, they may find that all of these things they're doing in a bid for re-election will totally fail them, anyway.

Let's hope so.