During the next 355 days, we will see and hear partisan exaggerations being taken as fact. It behooves us to examine each statement with a fine-tooth comb or become the target of political propaganda. I realize that there's a difference between posting an opinion and submitting half-truths expecting them to be taken for substantiated facts. For example, it is my opinion that every Supreme Court nominee has a bias which more often will remain with them for their duration. The Senate nominating committee will ask them pertinent questions but expect and gets nuance responses. They are human beings who come with a bias. They’ve also been known to argue adamantly for the rule of law.
The question comes up as to whether justices Kagan or Thomas should recuse themselves from the upcoming healthcare case. Why should they? We already know that the only evidence they have against Kagan is a couple of emails expressing enthusiasm for the healthcare bill. Justice Thomas's wife benefited economically by lobbying against the health care. I guess you can make an argument that Justice Thomas did not share the money because he didn't initially disclose it on the required forms. I guess it doesn't matter that justices Scalia and Thomas were dined by the law firm that will argue the case before the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of all those involved will be questioned, that’s not new but let's not get sanctimonious. We know the way they're going to rule. The conservatives need to rethink their position because, if it comes down to a 4-4 tie; the lower courts will rule. That means, and the District of Columbia, the five southeastern states that make up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the four Midwestern states that make up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit -- the law would be in full force.
But in the states that make up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit -- Florida, Georgia, and Alabama -- the individual mandate would not apply.
There were so many half-truths, lies, distortions and opinions posted as fact in the past two weeks, so I decided to throw in my two cents. There were blogs about global warming, Obama's immigration conspiracy, and a letter to the editor accusing the president of playing politics with our energy policy.
The proponents of climate change are no longer calling it " global warming" because people mistook it for a weather report. The Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and authorized the EPA to control it as such. We also know that (should know) that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas, and its emissions are contributing to climate change. That's not to dispute any other factors that are causing the climate to change. There's no longer the need to argue about prehistoric days, changing ice and heat ages, and Al Gore. There's not a need to blame the Green Movement for our lack of an alternative energy policy, if you're not willing to blame the oil companies. The Japanese incident, lack of funding, no plan for the waste, and the ten years it takes to come online, are the biggest drawback to nuclear energy.
The Obama administration had deported about 1.06 million as of September 12, against 1.57 million in Bush's two full presidential terms according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as of September 9, 2011. I've been a Democrat for several years, and I've never heard of a registration drive to sign up illegal immigrants. This subject, like Obama's foreign policy doesn't need defending because the facts speak for themselves. Although the 100 special forces in Somalia and the 100 troops in Australia with an additional 2600 marines by the year 2016 needs a little more explaining.
A letter writer said President Obama was playing politics with the Keystone XL. That could very well be but so could his opponents. Politics is always a two-way street. I guess after suffering through our worst environmental incident, the president is supposed to ignore 20 of the nation's top scientists, including ten Nobel Prize Laureates, stating that" categorically that is not in the nation's interest or the planet's best interest." I guess you could put equal blame on the Nebraska politicians, landowners and environmentalists in the state feared a spill along the pipeline’s original path would pollute the Sand hills, a wide expanse of grass-covered dunes that sits on top of the Ogallala aquifer. The aquifer provides drinking water to 1.5 million people in Nebraska. Yes, the pipeline will produce needy union jobs for many when we really need it, but I'm not against taking more time to come up and a safe plan that will benefit all.
My idea of reducing our need for foreign oil is not more dirty coal or fossil fuels but our alternatives fuels are lagging because we don't have an energy policy.
I knew Newt Gingrich would step into it just as soon as he got to the top tier. Newt's was just a cheerleader during the debates, so his outrageous comments were taken as “Newt being Newt" but now he is leading in some polls. In the conservative mind, Fannie & Freddie was the major culprit of the 2008 financial crisis (not so) but as late as 2008, old Newt was on their payroll. He is claiming he was a high-paid historian getting from $1.6 to $1.8 million from 1999-2002 and again from 2006-2008. Even Jack Abramoff called Newt corrupt, and he should know corrupt.
I can only wonder what's going through Romney's mind. Here, he is against all the unelectable and he can't get above 25%. Then again, Mitt is staying off the talk shows and staying low, but he won't be able to do that when he gets the nomination. At least Mitt is not going around say" the U.S. needs a leader, not a reader." Watch out Romney, knowing history, facts, and reading is a disqualifier.
- 9 unverified comments
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Follow Mike