Worth Repeating- Lincoln in Peoria 1854

More than 6 years before he was elected president Lincoln gave a famous speech in Peoria, Illinois. The 3-hour speech was largely a protest against the expansion of slavery. Lincoln said, "Little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we have been giving up the old for the new faith. Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a 'sacred right of self-government.' These principles cannot stand together. They are as opposite as God and Mammon; and whoever holds to the one must despise the other." --Let there be no doubt that Lincoln was deeply involved in the question of slavery and that slavery was the central problem and issue around which all politics revolved leading up to, and during his presidency. The current republican party sometimes tries to re-write history, to say Lincoln didn't really care that strongly about slavery. The fact is he came to office as the first "republican" president in the newly founded "republican" party- a party whose central purpose, platform, and reason for being was an opposition to slavery. The "republican" party at that time wanted to hold together the union from separatists in both the north and south. The political parties have changed positions many times since Lincoln's time. The current republican party is lead by the "right" of the party that is strongly 'social conservative' and opposed to progressive social policy and thought. Since the time of Reagan the republican party has also acted on the belief that the national debt does not matter- and can be increased exponentially without concern. Our society seems to have forgotten early 20th century terms like "moderate" republican or "socially liberal" republican. These terms once identified presidents like Eisenhower. But a transition in the parties began in the 50s and then there was a tidal shift in the 60s when the south, once solidly a part of the old stolid "conservative" democratic party, switched party affiliations and formed part of what is now the current republican party. This transition happened over the issue of civil rights (some republicans will say this change happened over the issue of state's rights and that civil rights had little to do with it- but again this is just a distraction to turn attention away from their opposition to civil rights). Lincoln's legacy was not one of opposition to civil rights or even one of support for the so called "states rights". Eisenhower was not a republican of the sort you find in office today. The ideological positions and policies developed by Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, now find their modern expression in today's democratic party. Any question's America? --Oh, yeah, I'm back!

Eternal Vigilante is taking a break!!

I've got to get away from politics for a while. I know that things will continue without me, the same games, the same lies, the same un-informed, under-informed, or simply indifferent and vicious opinions or "myopic" (thanks Bastard) distortions. But I'm going to think about something else for a while. This isn't avoidance of the duty to think and process those thoughts into coherent structures- I will be eternally vigilante– but a brief change of focus in now called for. I'm sure this election will draw me back soon enough.

The July 31, 2008 official report from the House of Representative's Committee on the Budget

Click Here to View PDF file

I've got to say Thanks Mom for inspiring this one!

The Truth about Tax and Spend!!

Clinton raised taxes but worked hard to reduce the national debt and balanced the budget with the extra money he took. He told us all that reducing the budget and spending would take work and sacrifice- do you remember him speaking to the American people and saying these things? I do. Bush has given tax breaks yes, with the biggest tax breaks to the top earners at a disproportionate rate, but he has greatly, hugely, massively increased the national debt. What most analysts are now saying is that more intelligent investment is needed at home to continue to compete in the future. But I think the idea of the tax and spend 'liberal' was largely a republican campaign invention, also at times a rather racist invention based off what whites saw as money unfairly going to blacks through welfare. The fact is this "tax and spend" description has not applied to democrats if you look at the real numbers– but in fact to republicans. Obama is much more conservative economically and has much more serious an economic understanding than McCain. Obama's tax plan actually reduces taxes for more people and he is focused on reducing corporate loopholes- the real reason corporations pay less in taxes. He would raise taxes only on the richest yes- as compensation for all the breaks given by Bush to his "base" of supporters. While we, the lower and middle class, would see more take home income according to every independent analysis I've seen. McCain's plan continues to give bigger cuts than average to the super rich. As far as medicare/medicaid spending go- most cost to benefit studies put these programs at about equal in cost to private insurance companies. The problem I think is expensive medical care in general is costing a lot more, doctors are prescribing more expensive treatments and drugs on average, and more and more people are needing these programs.


National debt: (the amount our government owes to other countries), which undercuts future spending and programs like Social Security, and effects the economy in many ways. It seems it is always increasing but,...

National Debt under George W. Bush has increased by over 4 trillion! Not since Reagan and the first Bush has there been an increase like this. And never before in the history of this country. Clinton nearly held down the national debt and made a balanced budget mandatory but still National Debt under Clinton did continue to increase- just not nearly as much.

Total national debt now at $9,645,755 ,000,000-trillion (4 trillion increase under Bush and mainly from war in Iraq)
at the end of 2000 it was at $5,662.216,000,000-trillion (1.5 trillion increase under Clinton)
Under Clinton:
National debt started at the end of 1994 at $4,177,009,000,000-trillion
Under Reagan and first Bush
National debt started at the beginning of 1981 at only $904,073-billion (nearly 4 trillion increase under Reagan/Bush)

Almost the entire, soon to be 10 trillion dollars of national debt came from the last 3 republican presidents.

The actual national debt records I took this from can be seen here- http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm



What Bill Clinton actually did do in office if you doubt:
-Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
-Earned Income Tax Credit 1994
-The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of August 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers (to offset Reagan cuts). Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years. The bill, which both raised taxes and cut government spending, has been credited as the major cause behind the deficit reduction and eventual surpluses during the 1990s, by sources such as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
--Then in 1994 people like Newt Gringrich came on the scene with the Conservative Coalition's "Republican Revolution" of evangelicals and nothing happened because of stalemates for several years.
-Iraq Liberation Act 1998- Clinton Recognized Sadam Hussein as a problem and sought economic and joint international political means to limit his power and bring about a regime change. (This was way before 9/11 and the Iraq War- remember?)


Here's a somewhat "liberal" biased representation of what I've said above about national debt. The person who made this went a little far in the graphical representation of his point, no doubt trying to graphically counter the prevailing lies of republicans about "liberal tax and spend" presidents, but the numbers are accurate and it makes the point clearly. In his first 4 years in office G.W. Bush increased national debt spending $96 billion more than Bill Clinton did in his entire 8 years!! And don't try and say it was the republicans in congress that held down spending cause that is a load- not a single republican even voted for Clinton's Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993- you know, that policy that Clinton was fighting for that brought the budget down and mandated fiscal responsibility to the tax and spend republicans? Remember that? So what did George W. Bush do in his second term, to make up for his record spending, to reduce spending and national debt? He continued to spend at record levels- while cutting taxes to gain popularity, and so he could say he cut taxes- further increasing our national debt because, well, we are the top dog and he don't have to think about paying our bills so let's run up that credit card debt- just like he ran those businesses into the ground- and our economy!

How they're doing it this time

Taken from Newsweek without permission:

BETWEEN THE LINESJonathan Alter
‘Jim Crawford’ Republicans
The GOP is working to keep eligible African-Americans from voting in several states.
Sep 11, 2008 | Updated: 2:37 p.m. ET Sep 11, 2008


It was a mainstay of Jim Crow segregation: for 100 years after the Civil War, Southern white Democrats kept eligible blacks from voting with poll taxes, literacy tests and property requirements. Starting in the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court declared these assaults on the heart of American democracy unconstitutional.

Now, with the help of a 2008 Supreme Court decision, Crawford vs. Marion County (Indiana) Election Board, white Republicans in some areas will keep eligible blacks from voting by requiring driver's licenses. Not only is this new-fangled discrimination constitutional, it's spreading.

GOP proponents of the move say they are merely trying to reduce voter fraud. But while occasional efforts to stuff ballot boxes through phony absentee voting still surface, the incidence of individual vote fraud—voting when you aren't eligible—is virtually non-existent, as "The Truth About Vote Fraud," a study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, clearly shows. In other words, the problem Republicans claim they want to combat with increased ID requirements doesn't exist. Meanwhile, those ID hurdles facing individuals do nothing to stop the organized insiders who still try to game the system.


The motive here is political, not racial. Republicans aren't bigots like the Jim Crow segregationists. But they know that increased turnout in poor, black neighborhoods is good for Democrats. In that sense, the effort to suppress voting still amounts to the practical equivalent of racism.

In Crawford, the court upheld an Indiana law essentially requiring a passport or driver's license in order to vote. But more than two thirds of Indiana adults have no passports and nearly 15 percent have no driver's licenses. These eligible voters, disproportionately African-American, will need to take a bus or catch a ride from a friend down to the motor vehicles bureau to make sure they obtain a nondriver photo ID. Otherwise, they cannot vote in Indiana this year.

To get an idea of how many African-Americans nationwide lack driver's licenses, recall Hurricane Katrina in 2005, when thousands were stranded without transportation. "Crawford Republicans" could make the old "Jim Crow Democrats" look like pikers when it comes to voter suppression.

Consider Wisconsin, a swing state. Republicans officials there are suing to enforce a "no match, no vote" provision in state regulations, where voters must not only show a photo ID, but establish that it matches the name and number in the Department of Motor Vehicles or Social Security Administration database. (Democrats are resisting the suit.) These lists are riddled with errors in every state, as the Brennan Center has proven in its report, "Restoring the Right to Vote."

for the full article go here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/158392

Finally a major news source prints the truth!

Maybe now I can relax a little- the anger was really starting to get to me.

New York Times:
McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions
WARNING: Reprinted in part without permission!

By MICHAEL COOPER and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: September 12, 2008
Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.

Mr. Obama has also been accused of distortions, but this week Mr. McCain has found himself under particularly heavy fire for a pair of headline-grabbing attacks. First the McCain campaign twisted Mr. Obama’s words to suggest that he had compared Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to a pig after Mr. Obama said, in questioning Mr. McCain’s claim to be the change agent in the race, “You can put lipstick on a pig; it’s still a pig.” (Mr. McCain once used the same expression to describe Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health plan.)

Then he falsely claimed that Mr. Obama supported “comprehensive sex education” for kindergartners (he supported teaching them to be alert for inappropriate advances from adults).

Those attacks followed weeks in which Mr. McCain repeatedly, and incorrectly, asserted that Mr. Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, even though analysts say he would cut taxes on the middle class more than Mr. McCain would, and misrepresented Mr. Obama’s positions on energy and health care.

A McCain advertisement called “Fact Check” was itself found to be “less than honest” by FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group. The group complained that the McCain campaign had cited its work debunking various Internet rumors about Ms. Palin and implied in the advertisement that the rumors had originated with Mr. Obama.

for the complete article go to http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13mccain.html

YOu have made me,..so ve–ry hap-py!! Sing-a-long!!

You have made me– so very happy! La la la la I love Barack Obama!! Unicorns and sunshine and moonbeams, ahh haha haha, republicans can't get me down cause I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love with my wonderful candidate,.. WEEEEEE!!!
(Or maybe I just ate an angus burger from McDonalds and I'm a–swim in brain altering chemicals- either way this is great!)

Un-edited thoughts while watching the RNC

So after letting myself calm down a little from the latest Palin nonsense I've decided to go back and trouble the waters again. Here is the post I self-censored last week after deciding it was only feeding my obsessions. Now, after seeing the disgusting negative ads John McCain is running (see here)– I can say that I no longer care to censor myself. For those who care here are my un-edited, un-censored, thoughts, as they spewed forth while watching John McCain speak at the RNC.




"When you've lived in a box," spoke the deep voice of the narrator... And then emerged John McCain to deliver his speech to literally a few thousand (with the very wealthy in the private VIP boxes above)... Wrapping up an otherwise sleep inducing round of dreary "patriotic" speeches from speakers who seemed to be lacking sleep themselves (and sincerity). Oh, and the one from Cindy McCain actually daring to say that the Republicans of today were the party of Lincoln- ha ha- in name only sister. Try and study a little history please! But, then there was John McCain praising Bush for invading Iraq. Oh, and thanks for the green screen behind McCain again during the first part of his speech- what were they thinking!? I'm sure there will be videos on you tube tomorrow. He does at least say to Obama "you have my respect and admiration- much more unites than divides us- we are fellow Americans and that is an association that means more to me than any other." Of course there was the whole new round of negative attack ads he put out this week but, umm.... Whoa, Whoa, was that an attempted streaker!? McCain said it,.. "Americans want us to stop yelling at each other,"- thanks McCain for at least affirming in your speech how Obama has been running his campaign since the beginning. If only you weren't quite so devoted to the failed ideology and policies that have been the bread and butter of the republican party for 20+ years. Oh, and you say, "I work for you." Well, John McCain, Barack Obama said it first and better- what you didn't get was that this election was never about you- Barack Obama get's it. "I fight, I fight,..I fight," we get it John,.. you fight- go fighting republicans! Woo hoo! Bring out the McCain cheerleaders again they were great! Ouch, McCain just admitted to being a Washington insider- "we lost their (the American people's) trust," but then says, "we are going to change that." And again, "the party of Lincoln," what a load of crap John you should know better! "We believe in a culture of life," just not your life if you are too culturally different from us,... oh and "don't legislate from the bench," please that is all your Supreme Court judges do. Oh God I prey this country will not let this happen again. I prey that people have grown smarter (I know it is a tall order). Next McCain says, and I quote loosely here, "my plans" are better because I lie about them and lie about Obama's plans even though more independent analysis has confirmed Barack has a better economic plan for all except the uber rich like myself- umm that was what he meant to say I guess. Wait what's happening, now McCain is basically mouthing all the same policy Barack talked about in detail, or is that just plagiarism- Oh right, I forgot, it's all in the rhetoric. For McCain "improving schools" means underfunding public schools and offering "vouchers" for private christian schools. And now here is the crux of it- "we will stop sending 700 billion to other countries," [I guess for things like, ohh, humanitarian support, medical aid, food, and national debt payments], and instead spend that money and much more to wage war in other countries. "We'll drill more wells off shore and we will drill them now!" OK, well that's good right?! And then, "It's time for us to show the world again, how Americans lead." Well, if you mean by following George W. Bush 90% of the time "leading" then I guess following Barack never looked so good. "I know how the world works,....I know how to secure the peace [by more war]." "I hate war," says John McCain, but he sure is proud of those scars and the time he spent in the box as he tells the whole story once again with that big grin- cheeky, cheeky McCain. Sounds like maybe he realized early on in his experience that he'd be able to milk that story for a supposed moral high ground for the rest of his life. "I always liked to strut a little after I'd been roughed up," says McCain, but finally they broke him. "No man can always stand alone," a fellow cell mate told him [ except George Bush or Ronald Reagan of course, or McCain if he's president]. "Instead of not using good ideas because we didn't think of them first,.. let's work together." Good idea but,.., um well how about having a few good ideas of your own if you want to be president John McCain!? Is that too much to ask for America?! -- But good concession speech all the same. "Nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself," but then , "I'm going to fight for my cause everyday." What is your cause McCain? "Fight with me, fight with me, fight, fight... Stand up, stand up, stand up," (starting to sound like Kecinich Wake Up, Wake Up). "We never hide from history,"... unless it's the history of the republican party...cut to more country music, oh it's the McCain Vietnam story as a song, "Raising McCain" and whoosh! It's over! -- Well, no tears for this one as there was not really much for inspiration I'm afraid - just more of the same old B.S. But at least McCain is taking notes from Obama- that's a good sign coming from a man who lived in a box right? Enjoy America!

Pure Regurgitation!

Just moving this to its proper home.... you may have already seen this at the Bullshit blog. But I've got to keep organized!!!

Here, as copied from the Brookings Institutions Aug. 15th updated analysis of the candidates economic tax plans- see the trend? The chart shows how much after-tax income will likely go up by income category under each candidates tax plan. This isn't so much about politics as bank! The high bars on the right are the top 1% and .01 percent under McCain's plan. The blue bars on the left show the income increase for the rest of us under Obama's plan. (Click on the graph for a better view) The richest of the rich have been getting disproportionate tax breaks since Reagan (even Clinton didn't stop that trend). McCain wants to continue that trend. For all reading this blog in the middle income "Quintiles" (I love new words) mostly #2 and #3 Obama is trying to help. And I know a few of those #5 quintile top earners who see the wisdom of Obama's plans for our future. We will be the first generation not to afford the "american dream" and do better financially than our parents if trends continue (and they usually do if you do nothing but the same). No! Re-adjusting the taxes on the highest wage earners back to reasonable 1980 levels after decades of disproportionate tax breaks will not mean the end of this country. Obama and Biden are more likely to take less money out of your pocket than the other guy– and they are more likely to do better things with what they do take creating a better environment for us all to make, and keep, more money. Follow the money. Period.