tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-90602183803741576492024-02-21T00:33:04.729-08:00Heeling To PortMy thoughts on Politics, Religion, and other silly things.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-77612539358344840892011-10-21T08:14:00.000-07:002011-10-21T08:16:44.355-07:00Congress is a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Wall StreetThat's it. I think the title says it all. Enough said.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-68062839847772590392011-02-25T07:03:00.000-08:002011-02-26T06:12:03.517-08:00GOP Pressing Ideology over Jobs and EconomyThe GOP made Jobs and the Economy their #1 talking points during the 2010 elections. However, now that they've won sweeping victories through much of the nation, they have instead put Ideology in the forefront. They are attacking on three major fronts: Middle and Lower Class entitlements and jobs; Killing Regulations/Funding that Protect Americans, but will help Corporate Interests; and Women's Rights.<br /><br />On the Entitlements and Jobs front, their #1 goals seem to be Social Security and Union Busting, as seen in Wisconsin, New Jersey, and other places. However, their attacks on Health Care and the Environment will kill jobs also.<br /><br />On the Regulations/Funding front, the republican held U.S. House passed H.R. 1 (the appropriations bill) that cuts $64 million in non-defense discretionary spending, but actually adds $5 Billion in defense spending. The cuts are basically social in nature (EPA, Education, etc.)<br /><br />And on Women's Rights, they are doing all they can to cut funding (Planned Parenthood, etc.) and create new laws that will be a detriment to Women's Health and Reproduction Rights.<br /><br />Non of the above items have anything to do with jobs (except to destroy them), and will have little impact on the economy (with the exception of making it worse).'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-31841425666745867772011-02-21T04:16:00.000-08:002011-02-22T05:34:41.566-08:00Pro-Life or Anti-AbortionAh, the abortion debate (or debacle)! The button issue created by the Christian right to fire up their base to try to slowly turn the U.S. into a theocracy and turn the clock back so women are once again second-class citizens. They claim to be 'Pro-Life'. Yet, I find that most are just 'Anti-Abortion'.<br /><br />What, you say you are protecting the sanctity of life? Well, here area few simple questions to think about and to help determine where you or others stand:<br /><ol><li>If fetus is 'life', should the mother be able to get free prenatal care, if she can't afford it, to ensure the health of the fetus/child?</li><li>If the mother's life is in danger, should she be allowed to abort?</li><li>-- <span style="font-style: italic;">If not, what if she has other children</span>?</li><li>-- <span style="font-style: italic;">Should her other children be forced to loose their mother by not being able to abort</span>?</li><li>Once the child is born, should the mother and child get free medical care, if they can't afford it, to ensure a healthy childhood?</li></ol>If you answered 'No' to any of the above questions, you are just 'Anti-Abortion', <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">not</span> 'Pro-Life'. These questions can be expanded to include, but are not limited to:<br /><ol><li>If approx. <a href="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/">45,000 people died each year from lack of medical insurance</a>, should they get free medical care?</li><li>With the U.S. having <a href="http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html">over 9100</a> (or <a href="http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html">67%</a> of all) murders by firearms in 2009, should we have more gun control to help save lives?</li></ol>You can add other questions also: Old Age, War, etc. These all deal with 'Life'. Yet, it seems the so-called 'Pro-Lifers' think that these other preventable deaths are nothing more than mere statistics.<br /><br />Oh, and if someone is thinking 'We believe in those things, but we just don't want the Government to intrude in- or control- our lives', then why is okay to have the Government control whether I can have an abortion or not?<br /><br />Let's call this group by their proper name: 'Anti-Abortionists'.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-37537971113833999152011-02-20T10:01:00.000-08:002011-02-20T14:26:58.038-08:00The Madness of the 112th Congressional HouseThe new republican held House of Representatives is off to a smashing start. In their first month and a half (as of Feb. 20, 2011), they have managed to pass a whopping <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">4</span> bills.<br /><br />H.R. 1 - Appropriations Bill<br />H.R. 2 - Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act<br />H.R. 359 - Termination of Taxpayer financing of Pres. election campaigns and party conventions<br />H.R. 514 - Extending the Patriot Act till Dec. 8 2011<br /><br />You can search for all these bills at<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BSS&c=112"> http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BSS&c=112</a><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Overview:</span><br /><ol><li>H.R. 1 - Appropriations Bill. A Slash and Burn Bill that cuts $60 Million of expenditure by drastically cutting social/environmental departments/agencies and adds no income to the budget. This cuts programs from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - the people that inform you <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">and</span> your news channels of everything from sunny or rainy days, to tornadoes and hurricanes), the EPA (those that keep your water clean and drinkable, and the air around you clean and breathable), along with many other positions, departments, and programs. [<span style="font-style: italic;">I am waiting for a report from the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/">CBO</a> (Congressional Budget Office) to be able to give more details</span>, especially about defense spending]<br /></li><li> H.R. 2 - Repeals the Affordable Health Care Act. This is a truly partisan bill from the far right to placate the Tea Party and others. The <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/">CBO</a> estimates an additional <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12069/hr2.pdf">$200 Million added to the debt</a> over the next 20 years. [<span style="font-style: italic;">This bill is a waste of taxpayers money and congressional time as it will doubtfully pass the senate, and will definitely be vetoed by the President</span>].<br /></li><li>H.R. 359 The option on your tax return to voluntarily set aside a portion of your taxes to fund the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. All funding will cease, and the current balance of approximately $195 Million will be transfered to the general Treasury fund. Saves approx. $617 Million over 20 years - does <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12049/hr359.pdf"><span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> increase tax revenues</a>. [<span style="font-style: italic;">So much for the little guy to even have a chance to run</span> - this just reinforces the two party system, with corporate backing.]<br /></li><li> H.R. 514 - Extends the Patriot Act to Dec. 8, 2011. Renamed the FISA Sunset Extension Act. (Passed in the Senate) [<span style="font-style: italic;">Need I say more?</span>]<br /></li></ol> Not to mention the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has granted an excellent working <a href="http://www.house.gov/house/House_Calendar.shtml">schedule</a>: one week vacation for every two weeks worked, plus all their other holidays and days off. Yes, they call that week off 'constituency week', but it is still time away from actually governing. And at a minimum of $174,00/yr, plus perks, I certainly want my legislators legislating!<br /><br />There has been nothing fiscally responsible here, nor are there any new jobs (one of the mantras of the conservatives this past election cycle). Both HR 1 and HR 2 cuts jobs, adds no income to the federal budget, and either kills or cuts parts of the government that actually protect and enhance our lives. H.R. 359, while it saves a small amount over a 20 year period, does nothing more than to force presidential candidates to be backed by big money, which, on the heels of the 'Citizens United' fiasco, deteriorates the entire election process even more.<br /><br />Fiscal responsibility is not enacting draconian legislation, but trying to get the most from our money that actually improves American's lives. We are still waiting.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-1821020442219566492011-02-20T06:27:00.000-08:002011-02-20T06:55:28.954-08:00Back AgainWell, it's been several years since I last blogged here. However, with my frustration level with the U.S. Government at an all time high; the vitriol of politics sinking lower and lower into the abyss of fear and hatred; and the increasing pandering to special interests, corporations, and far right-wing ideologies; I can no longer sit back without voicing my concerns.<br /><br />I will try my best to always link to facts and figures to backup my columns.<br /><br />As to the frequency of actually blogging, well, that will depend on time and health constraints, but hopefully enough to stay timely and keep everyone interested. Stay tuned, and I hope you enjoy the ride.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-70852267998922818722008-06-27T11:13:00.001-07:002008-06-27T12:40:13.479-07:00Muskrats are new Terrorist ThreatThe U.S. today has announced that Muskrats are now part of the 'Axis of Evil' nations. The president announced that the 'Muskrat Nation' has been under secret surveillance for years, but that after the harrowing attack by <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/27/floods/index.html">muskrats that caused the levee in Missouri to break</a>, a new public crusade against these monsters will begin.<br /><br />Secretary of defense Robert Gates said 'We will send in the Navy Seals to decimate these terrorist Muskrats'.<br /><br />The coach of the Miami Dolphins was heard to say that 'we would go in ourselves to help, but we only like salt water'.<br /><br />The Department of Homeland Security has called a special session to include a new 'rodent' level to the department's current 'terror threat level'.<br /><br />The Joint Chiefs of Staff have stated 'We will do all we can to thwart this new danger. We can <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> afford to have a Muskrat Gap!'<br /><br />In the meantime, the clothing store 'The Gap' has announced they will start carrying Muskrat Fur clothing in the near future.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-7233009740084863232008-06-25T10:47:00.000-07:002008-06-25T11:01:59.842-07:00Damn the QueenI can't believe it. Queen Elizabeth is going to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7473243.stm">revoke President Robert Mugabe's honorary knighthood</a>. Here I was, packing my bags to go to Zimbabwe to seduce Sir Robert. Could you imagine me being Lady Mugabe? The honor and prestige? How could she do this to me? Here's a man who is a self-centered, power-hungry, ruthless, megalomaniac. I mean, what else could a girl want? But now his knighthood is being revoked. I guess I will just have to unpack and start looking for someone else. Sigh.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-88836168372435517722008-06-24T09:49:00.000-07:002008-06-24T11:14:00.758-07:00GOP + Religious Right = TheocracyThe Texas GOP have adopted their <a href="http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/FINAL_2008_PLATFORM.pdf?docID=5841">2008 Republican Platform</a>. The Texas GOP and the Religious Right have been merging for many years, and by the look of their platform, they are almost one in the same.<br /><br />Reading through their platform sent chills down my spine. Here is just a sampling:<br />1> teaching of creationism/intelligent design and downplaying evolution and science,<br />2> teaching only 'abstinence until heterosexual marriage',<br />3> stripping courts of their authority to uphold the First Amendment’s prohibition against government officials promoting and endorsing religion,<br />4> Legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians, etc.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.tfn.org/">Texas Freedom Network</a> has two excellent posts on this:<br />1> an <a href="http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2008_TXGOP_Platform">overview</a> and<br />2> a <a href="http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2008TXGOP_Brief">briefing paper</a>.<br />Both are must reads.<br /><br />I find it amazing that the GOP will proclaim 'less government intrusion' (let corporations and [Christian] religion run amok), but then try to add laws that would force their theocracy down the throats of others (constitutional amendment against all marriages but heterosexual, etc.).<br /><br />They claim religious freedom for all faiths, but after reading this platform, it is obvious that what they mean is for all Christian sects. But that won't last either, as each sect (Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Fundamental, etc.) all have their own agendas and beliefs.<br /><br />What is the worst case scenario if this platform spreads? Simple, we become the Christian version of the middle east. Throwing science away, teaching [Christian] religion in the schools, massive censorship, witch hunts against gays and lesbians, burning Muslims at the stake, civil war between [Christian] sects, and in the end, probably Armageddon as we nuke everyone that are not Christians. In other words, the second Spanish Inquisition (but with much more powerful weapons).<br /><br />God Help Us All!'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-35081929579162453582008-06-20T06:23:00.001-07:002008-06-20T06:35:12.266-07:00Economy LinksBefore I change subjects and leave the economy behind for awhile, I thought I would give out a few more links.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.gao.gov">Government Accountability Office</a><br /><a href="http://www.cbpp.org">Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</a><br /><a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/">Tax Policy Center</a><br /><a href="http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/">Economists For Obama</a><br /><br />Happy Hunting.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-19249428524135692542008-06-17T06:23:00.000-07:002008-06-18T07:33:35.080-07:00Political Economics - Part IIOr, 'How to respond to right-wing pundits/morons/officials on the Economy'.<br />This was basically covered my last post, but here I'll use specific items and do some recapping with updated numbers. My previous post also has lots of links.<br /><br />GNP = Gross National Product ($14 trillion)<br />Budget = what congress has authorized to spend ($3 trillion)<br />Receipts = actual tax revenues received (approximately 18.5% of GNP - $2.7 trillion)<br /><br />One of the ways politicians like to muddy up the waters when it comes to the economy, is to compare one item to the GNP, then comparing another item to the budget. Of course, these comparisons become talking points that are handed down the line, and no one seems to question them. Why? Well, they <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> valid facts, and they've been used so often. The right wing will compare military spending to the GNP (giving it a very low %), while comparing domestic spending to the budget (giving a high %).<br /><br />These are some of them:<br />Item ------ % of...... GNP......Budget...... Receipts<br />federal deficit......... 1.5%....... 10%..........11.3%......($300 billion)<br />federal debt ............ 35%...... 176% ........ 200%......($5.4 trillion)<br />military spending... 3.6%...... 16.3%....... 18.5%......($500 billion)<br />middle-east war..... 1.2% ....... 5.6% ........ 6.3%......($170 billion)<br />military+war.......... 4.8% ..... 21.9% ...... 24.8%......($670 billion)<br />subsidies................ 0.3%........ 1.6%......... 1.8%......($ 48 billion)<br />scienc/tech/space... 0.2%........ 0.8%......... 0.9%......($ 25 billion - estimate)<br />As you can see, 25% of current taxes (22% of the budget) goes to the military/war. This does not include homeland security, retirement benefits, etc., so my tables may be different than others.<br />The latest gov. tables can be found <a href="http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=85&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2008&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid">here</a> and <a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/fct.html">here</a>.<br /><br />The crux of this is that comparing anything to the GNP, is nothing more than a 'red herring'. The government does *not* pay its bills from the GNP, it pays them by it's receipts. The GNP is used as a measure of how the country is doing economically, and gives an estimate of the receipts that the government can expect, but has no real bearing on expenditures (except as a comparison to other countries or historical comparisons).<br /><br />So the next time a right-wing pundit/moron/official says we spend less than 4 cents of every GNP dollar on the military, turn the 'tables' on them and give them the real comparison/figures that effect actual income vs. expenditure by comparing it with the budget or receipts.<br /><br />Please note: I am not an economist, but most of the info is out there if you look. Here's some starters:<br /><a href="http://www.bea.gov/">Bureau of Economic Analysis</a><br /><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/">Office of Management and Budget</a><br /><a href="http://www.cbo.gov/">Congressional Budget Office<br /></a>'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-3666500369567041612008-06-16T13:03:00.000-07:002008-06-16T13:22:13.423-07:00A Lesson in Political Economics<p>Before we get started, just a quick reminder:<br />The 'deficit' is the yearly difference in income vs. spending (ie: when you spend more than what you make).<br />The 'debt' is the money borrowed to pay for these continuing deficits.</p><p>Also, please note that as far as I can surmise, none of these numbers include the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. These numbers are also a few months old, but the basic statistics remain the same.<br /></p> <p>The Federal Government:<br />The total GNP (Gross National Product) of the U.S. is approximately $14 trillion dollars (<a href="http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls" title="http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls">http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls</a>). The Feds receive around 18.5% in taxes (chart #3 at <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf" title="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf</a>), or about $2.7 trillion.<br />Now, the total national debt is approximately $9.2 trillion, but to be fair, we'll only use the public debt, which is $5.1 trillion (<a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np" title="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np">http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np</a>).<br />Even using the lower (public) debt number, that puts the debt to income ration at close to 190%. Again, these are unsecured loans. It would be like someone making $100,000/yr, with a credit card debt of $190,000. Pretty sad, to say the least.<br /></p><p> The current spending is over $3 trillion, giving us a current federal deficit of $306 billion for the year, adding even more to the debt.</p> <p> as of: 2007-Q3 (in billions)<br />Total receipts 2,712.8 (Fed gov't income)<br />Total expenditures 3,018.8 (Fed gov't spending)<br />Net lending or net borrowing (-) -306.0 (Fed deficit)<br />(these numbers are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis: <a href="http://www.bea.gov/" title="http://www.bea.gov">http://www.bea.gov</a>)<br />(the actual table: <a href="http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=85&FirstYear=2005&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr" title="http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=85&FirstYear=2005&LastYear=2007&Freq=Qtr">http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=85&First...</a>)<br />Remember, these numbers are adjusted every Quarter, so it may be a little more or less by the end of the year. In essence, they are like an estimate, with the final numbers coming at the end of the fiscal year.</p> <p>Totals (as a nation):<br />If we look at the totals (as a nation: fed/state/local), we come to the higher number of $9.2 trillion.<br />Here we can see the total receipts and expenditures: </p> <p> as of: 2007-Q3 (in billions)<br />Total receipts 4,231.1<br />Total expenditures 4,671.2<br />Net lending or net borrowing (-) -440.9<br />(these numbers are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis: <a href="http://www.bea.gov/" title="http://www.bea.gov">http://www.bea.gov</a>)<br />(the actual table for these numbers are at <a href="http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid" title="http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid">http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid</a>).<br />Again, these are adjusted numbers, as above.<br />So, as a nation, the deficit is approximately $440 billion for this year, with a total national debt of $9.2 trillion.</p> <p>At the current rate of debt accrual, well, I'll let you make your own conclusions, but as you can see, the financial outlook does not look promising.<br />Now, I don't want to get into a position of 'finger pointing', but the fiscal irresponsibility throughout the current presidential administration has been appalling. Let's hope that 'whoever' is in charge after the next election, will 'see the light' and work to stop the downward spiraling economy. My fingers are crossed.</p> <p>Some personal thoughts:<br /> I fail to see how we will ever be able to pay off the debt as long as we continue to have such large deficits.<br /> Looking at the White House's 2008 budget (<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf" title="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf</a>), I find that they are using 'Red Herrings' to make things look better than what they are. In particular, they like to show the 'deficit' (and other items) as a percentage of GNP. However, it's really the actual receipts (income) that the government makes that should be the deciding factor. It's this income that runs the country, not the GNP (although, generally speaking, the higher the GNP, the more the government makes). This makes for a truer picture: so instead of a deficit of 1.5% of GNP (Chart #1 - <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf" title="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf">http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf</a>), we would have a deficit of over 11% when compared to federal receipts (income).<br />Using GNP as a percentage would be like me using the company I work for as my basis of financial status. Here's an example (using the same basic percentages of the above 'federal' data): the company I work for makes $1 million. I make $185,000/yr. I spend $206,000/yr, or a deficit of $21,000/yr. My credit card debt is $351,500. Hmmm, of course, this would never happen. However, I could say that my deficit is only 1.5% of my company's gross income, when in reality, it's 11% of my true income. The same can be said about the my debt. Why, it's only 35% of the my company's gross income, but in reality, it's 190% of my actual income. (these numbers may be off by a little bit, but the basics still apply). Is this any way to run a country?<br /></p><p>Hmmm, and I thought 'billions' (let alone 'trillions') were suppose to be 'astronomical' numbers. Now they're just economic numbers.</p> <div class="meta"> </div>'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-70109395742557260732008-06-14T14:38:00.000-07:002008-06-15T07:33:52.931-07:00$300 Billion Government BoondoggleWant to know where some of your hard earned dollars are going? Interested in how our government works? Wondering why our national debt is over <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np">$5 trillion dollars (over $9 trillion for all debts)</a> and growing?<br /><br /><a href="http://newsproject.org/">American News Project</a> has an excellent video on the mindless military spending that's going to the military industrial complex, and the waste of billions of dollars on worthless systems, cost overruns, scheduling delays, underbidding, and more.<br /><br /><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" title="Block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-05454542814271697 visible ontop" href="http://newsproject.org/player.swf"></a><a style="left: 0px ! important; top: 15px ! important;" title="Block this object with Adblock Plus" class="abp-objtab-05454542814271697 visible ontop" href="http://newsproject.org/player.swf"></a><object height="501" width="511"><param name="movie" value="http://newsproject.org/player.swf"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="FlashVars" value="autoStart=false&p_u=http://newsproject.org/node/71&b_u=http://newsproject.org/&title=The $300 Billion Betrayal&vd_id=300billionbetrayal"><embed src="http://newsproject.org/player.swf" flashvars="autoStart=false&p_u=http://newsproject.org/node/71&b_u=http://newsproject.org/&title=The $300 Billion Betrayal&vd_id=300billionbetrayal" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" height="501" width="511"></embed></object><br /><br />This is your government at work folks. Add in the cost of the war, and it's easy to see why our national debt is spiraling up. Disgusting.'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9060218380374157649.post-38763962969323507222008-06-14T11:04:00.000-07:002008-06-14T12:39:39.132-07:00The McCain Loyalty Oaths...Planning on voting for McCain?<br />Don't forget to take your loyalty oath first. Katie Harper has several oaths for you to take (for Women, men, and gays). I bring you the 'Oath for Women'.<br /><br />Courtesy of <a href="http://www.236.com/blog/w/katie_halper/loyalty_oaths_for_hillary_supp_7062.php">Katie Halper at 23/6.com:</a><br /><strong>The McCain Loyalty Oath for Women</strong> <p>I _______________ pledge to transfer my support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. I agree to do all I can do to get McCain the vote. In order to achieve this noble goal I promise to support McCain's...</p> <ul><li>fight to overturn <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm" target="_blank">Roe v. Wade</a> and my right to choose.</li><li>fight against <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/mccain-dismisses-equal-pay-legislation-says-women-need-more-training-and-education/" target="_blank">equal pay</a> for men and women.</li><li>opposition to providing low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.</li><li>opposition to <a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/" target="_blank">sex education</a> and support of <a href="http://www.ppaction.org/ppvotes/08_antichoicemccain.html#1" target="_blank">abstinence-only</a> education.</li><li>opposition to insurance covering birth control.</li><li>endorsement of women's rights more "<a href="http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1392352" target="_blank">in theory</a>" than in practice.</li><li><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/mccain-asked-did-you-call_n_99744.html" target="_blank">pet name</a> for his wife.</li></ul> <p>As a woman I promise to apply McCain's principles to my own life and vow to...</p> <ul><li>call myself and my female friends the<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/mccain-asked-did-you-call_n_99744.html" target="_blank"> C word</a>.</li><li>picket abortion clinics.</li><li>not use contraceptives.</li><li><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=bleach+abstinence+mountain&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a" target="_blank">drink bleach</a> so I don't catch HIV and drink Mountain Dew so I don't get pregnant.</li><li>give back part of my salary to male coworkers.</li><li>not vote, but pursue <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/mccain-dismisses-equal-pay-legislation-says-women-need-more-training-and-education/" target="_blank">education</a> and encourage my father/husband/brother male friends to vote for McCain.</li></ul> <p>Once McCain is elected, I will continue to support him and I will not complain about my losing my right to choose, and other reproductive freedoms. And I will continue to refrain from pursuing equality for women.</p> <p>Signature ____________ </p>'Heeling To Port'http://www.blogger.com/profile/06251340210755212159noreply@blogger.com0