A Second Look

Re: New Hampshire Stand Your Ground Law Opponents Threatened With Arrest, Removal From Office

If we, as a country, know of some way, either a law or regulation that would reduce the amount of gun deaths, then aren’t we morally obligated to try? Is it morally or ethically defensible to put forth a plan that involves more guns and possibly more gun violence as a viable solution to this mounting tragic situation?

In this “up is the new down” reality that was heralded into existence by the Bush administration, the line between right and wrong is being purposefully blurred by Fox news and the echo chamber spin machine on the right in order to support an otherwise indefensible platform. They’ve wrapped this altered state with God and the flag and any other kind of truthiness they can grab onto.

Adding guns to any situation cannot possibly reduce the chance of death no matter how you spin it. That idea is morally, ethically, and in all practicability indefensible.

Gun Control, Tea Party, HuffPolitics Blog, New Hampshire Politics, Second Amendment, Stand Your Ground, Second Amendment, Guns, Lenette Peterson, New Hampshire Legislature, New Hampshire Stand Your Ground, Stand Your Ground Law, Tea Party Movement, Politics News

Re: GOP Immigration Reform Politics Turned ‘Upside Down’

This from Huffington Post:

At this time last year, Republican U.S. presidential contenders were competing to act tough on immigration to win favor with the party’s conservative base.

Eventual nominee Mitt Romney led the way by advocating "self-deportation" – a plan that essentially called on the government to make life so miserable for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics, that many would leave on their own.

This plan by Romney was just the first step of many in his attempt to appease old white conservative voters, which the GOP very wrongly understood as the majority. But trumpeting this idea would, of course, disenfranchise the Latinos in doing so, but who cares? They wanted the good-ole-boy vote.

I don’t know exactly how republican thinkers heard of “self deportation”, but the source of that idea was no more than a satirical jab at a piece of legislation in California, not a brainstorm from within his campaign. I like to think that they heard the satire and thought it was serious, not having a clue that a republican bill could be ridiculed in such a manner. This from The Daily Beast:

Mitt Romney’s immigration policy may not be a joke, but the name he’s given it is. The much-mocked term "self-deportation" was not invented by harsh immigration lawmaker–and Mitt Romney backer–Kris Kobach but instead originated in a 1990s satirical ad responding to a California ballot initiative that attempted to ban illegal immigrants from using public schools and hospitals.

Sort of like early Stephen Colberts, a couple of Mexican-American comedians funded a group called "Hispanics Against Liberal Takeover" and made mock news releases and radio ads wherein they pretended to be conservative activists promoting the law.

This American Life recalls interviewing HALTO founder Daniel D. Portado–a Mexican-American–back in 1996 about the idea of self-deportation. Portado explained in jest, "We feel that the immigrants are taking too many jobs, are bringing down the quality of life. They’re not allowing our young American teenagers the character-building experiences of picking fruit and cleaning hotel beds." Lately, Portado has been using his twitter feed to try to remind America that "self-deportation" was his idea, and it was not a serious one.

What has changed since Romney’s brilliant idea? Well, since the grand ole party has been hoist on their own petard with the self-deportation thing, and since they have since discovered that their once coveted old pasty white majority is no more, they have come up with a brilliant plan. Now they want to do a 180 degree flip-flop and be the champion of Latino causes. From Huffington Post:

The changed dynamic on immigration reflected how "the election was a real wake-up call to Republicans. They have had their eyes opened on Hispanics," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota.

Asked why he thought this immigration bill might succeed, McCain said: "Elections. The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens."

Republican strategist Ana Navarro said McCain – whose state borders Mexico and is about 30 percent Hispanic – could be an important voice to other Republicans on the immigration bill.

"Nobody can talk to other Republicans with the authority that John McCain can about what it means to move the Latino vote," Navarro said.

So there it is – the truth. This newly found compassion has nothing to do with saving families, or granting some of the perks of being a tax payer in America. No! It is all about swinging votes – nothing more. It is important to note here, that any legislation the GOP backs will be carefully combed as to not offend the white conservative base. So look for something weak coming out of Congress.

What is almost as weird as Romney’s self deportation plan, is the fact that the GOP thinks Latinos won’t notice, or can’t read, or can’t understand that the sudden reversal of the GOP platform has nothing to do with immigrants’ plight, but sadly, only their vote. The GOP doesn’t yet understand that they will be heralding yet another insult at the very folks they wish to befriend.

Re: Even The Koch Brothers Disagree With The GOP On The Debt Ceiling

When you’ve lost the Koch brothers, you’ve lost the game.

Republicans intent on smashing through the debt ceiling in order to wring some spending concessions out of President Obama are finding themselves awfully lonely these days, but they’ve kept soldiering on. The latest ally to abandon them may be the toughest to ignore, though. The president of the group Americans For Prosperity, bankrolled by Charles G. and David H. Koch of Koch Industries, yesterday said the group wants spending cuts, but warned Republicans that screwing around with the debt ceiling “makes the messaging more difficult,” the Financial Times writes. The AFP president also warned Republicans not to be seen as “hostage takers.” That’s a marked change from the summer of 2011, when AFP objected to a debt-ceiling deal because it didn’t cut spending enough, the FT notes.

This is way, way beyond former House Speaker Newt Gingrich telling House Republicans to give up on its debt-ceiling threat, like he did again yesterday. Newt’s always rattling on about moon bases and zoos and stuff, so nobody listens to him. And certainly the House GOP doesn’t care that Sen. Susan Collins (RINO-Maine) warned them to bow to the inevitable and raise the debt ceiling, as she did yesterday. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-DebtPanicStan) are a little tougher to take, but the cognitive dissonance arising from their debt-ceiling warnings is still manageable.

But the deep-pocketed Kochs are harder to ignore. Similar warnings recently from Tom Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce, along with the Financial Services Roundtable, the Business Roundtable and other job creators, also can’t be ignored. These people have all of the money. And if the economy goes off the cliff, as a new survey of economists strongly suggests it would in a ceiling-breach, then these people will have less money available for campaign contributions. Game over.

Look. Raising the debt ceiling is not a way for Obama to spend more money, or to create more spending programs. It is simply a way to pay for the spending that has already been approved by Congress. This is from CNN Money:

What is the debt ceiling exactly? It’s a legal cap set by Congress on the amount of money the federal government can borrow. The ceiling applies to debt owed to the public (i.e., anyone who buys U.S. bonds) plus debt owed to federal government trust funds such as those for Social Security and Medicare.

When speaking of government debt, many folks don’t understand that the debt owed by the government is really owed to ourselves, or any one in the world who invests in government securities. It is necessary to raise the ceiling so we can pay our debts to these investors. Some don’t understand this.

Republicans in Congress are resorting to brinkmanship in order to try to force out vital programs that they have scorned for decades through hostage negotiations. Being obstructive because of long held ideology and failing to raise the ceiling would lead to avoidable bankruptcy, and I’m sure all you red state folks out there do not want your precious Republican Party to be the ones that bankrupt the country. That, to me, would be much worse than either loosing some campaign money from the Koch brothers, or being forced into paying for programs for the poor that you hate.

But! If Congress has to raise the ceiling to pay the bills year after year, then the ceiling itself is a waste of paper and it is time to re-think the whole idea of having a debt ceiling in the first place.