Can Hillary Clinton win in the November General Election?

National polls this far out are meaningless and they only gauge the potential national popular vote. However, Presidential Elections are not won with a Majority of the Popular Vote; they never have been. Presidential Elections are won by winning a majority of Electoral Votes¹.  Proof of this was Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Start with the 2012 Electoral Map

In 2012 Barack Obama won 332 electoral votes and Romney won 206. For a Republican Candidate to win the Presidency, they would need to move 64 Electoral Votes from the Democratic Column to theirs. With Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee, this may be feasible given just about any Republican Nominee except maybe Donald Trump. In a previous blog, I delineate my rationale as why Mr. Trump will not be the Republican Nominee and why he will not run as a Third-Party Candidate.

Democrats start with a 232-191 Lead

States² can be categorized in one of seven demographics:

·         Solid Democratic – States with winning margins of 20% or more

·         Strong Democrat – Winning Margin between 10% and 20%

·         Lean Democrat – Margin between 6% and 10%

·         Swing – Defined Below

·         Lean Republican – Margin between 6% and 10%

·         Strong Republican – Margin between 10% and 20%

·         Solid Republican – Margin of 20% or more

 

Solid Democrat/Republican

Generally, deep Red States will remain Red and heavily Blue States will remain Blue, regardless of who heads either ticket. In 2012, Barak Obama won the Maine 1^st Congressional District³, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia² by margins over 20%. There is near certainty that their 120 electoral votes will be cast for the Democratic Party’s nominee.

Mitt Romney won Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Nebraska 3^rd Congressional District³, and Utah with margins in excess of 20%.  These represent 68 Electoral Votes that will be cast for the Republican Nominee.

States can change columns after major changes in demographics and almost all of these states are at least a generation/decennial census away from changing.  A political upheaval can also move these states from one party to another.  The last major shift was the Reagan Revolution in 1980. Nothing in the 2016 Race points to these states changing sides.

Strong/Lean

In 2012 there were 13 states with 113 Democratic Electoral Votes and 14 States with 123 Republican Electoral Votes that can be classified Strong/Lean. As with the solid states, I see nothing, short of a significant Third Party candidate, that will move these states from Democrat to Republican.

Given that none these states will now change color in 2016, without counting a single vote, the scoreboard starts out 232-191 in favor of the Democrats. The republicans need to find 79 Electoral Votes and the Democrats only 38. The outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election will hinge on the Swing States.

What is a Swing State?

For determining which states will be swing states in the 2016 election, I refer to the Wikipedia entry for Swing States. University of Oregon Political Science Professor Joel Bloom presents an analytical approach for determining Swing States.

Which States are the Swing States in 2016?

Based on Professor Bloom’s analysis, the 2012 swing states were those states where the margin of the state’s popular vote within the national margin plus 2%. In 2012, there were 7 swing states having a total of 99 Electoral Votes⁴.

Can Clinton Carry the Swing States?

I’ll start with two basic assumptions. First, the Clinton name energizes the base, the Republican Base. With Hillary Clinton heading the Democratic Ticket, Republican turn-out will be at least 5% greater than in 2012; regardless of their nominee.  After twenty-four years of the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ demonizing the Clintons, not only will the Republican Base show up just to vote against her, but also the 14% of the electorate who identify themselves as Republican-leaning Independents⁵.

The second assumption is Clinton could lose 5% or more of the proportion of the vote Barak Obama received in 2012. One reason is these states have enacted laws such as photo-id.  These laws will preclude a portion of the Democratic base from voting. Most significantly though, is that Hillary alienates many Independents; both the 12% of the electorate that are true Independents⁵ and the 16% that lean Democratic⁵.

To be fair, all of the votes Clinton loses would not necessarily go to the Republican candidate. Most would go to the Green Party, other candidates, or no candidate. For this analysis, I have assumed that on 25% of the lost votes would be cast for the Republican ticket.

Florida

Florida had the closest winning margin at 0.88%. With 29 Electoral Votes, it is the most critical state needed to deny Clinton an electoral majority. If Florida stays Blue, the path for defeating Clinton becomes nearly improbable. However, even if she does not lose any of the Obama Vote, a mere 1.8% increase in Republican Vote will flip Florida. Conversely, a 1.2% decrease in the Democratic vote with no increase in Republican turn-out will also move Florida.  With Rubio as the Republican VP Candidate, a 2% increase will be exceeded.

Republicans Win Florida   Clinton: 303   Ryan: 235

Ohio

Though not as critical as Florida, Ohio’s 13 Electoral Votes put it as the third largest swing state behind Pennsylvania. Obama won Ohio by only 2.98%. and is more likely to switch colors.  Given the full 5% Republican increase, Clinton losing just 0.8% will Ohio goes Republican. If Clinton loses 4% of the 2012 vote, no Republican increase is needed.

Expect the Kasich to campaign hard in Ohio for the Republican ticket.

Republicans Win Ohio   Clinton: 285   Ryan: 253

Given Republican wins in Florida and Ohio, they need to find only 17 more from the 67 Electoral Votes out of the remaining 6 states.

Pennsylvania

Since Obama won by 5.38%, Pennsylvania will be slightly harder to win than Virginia and Colorado. However, with 20 electoral votes, it would be sufficient in order to win the Election. For Republicans to take Pennsylvania, either they hit the 5% increase and the Democrat have a 4% decrease or a there is 5% Democratic increase with a 3.25% Republican increase.

If Republicans Win Pa   Clinton: 265   Ryan: 273

Virginia

13 Electoral Votes; Obama won with a 3.88% margin.

The ranges for Virginia to go Red are:

5% Republican increase and 2% Democratic decrease

5% Democratic decrease and 0.2% Republican increase

Colorado

9 Electoral Votes; Obama won with a 5.36% margin.

The ranges for Colorado to go Red are:

5% Republican increase and 4% Democratic decrease

5% Democratic decrease and 3.4% Republican increase

New Hampshire

4 Electoral Votes; Obama won with a 5.58% margin.

The ranges for New Hampshire to go Red are:

5% Republican increase and 4.25% Democratic decrease

5% Democratic decrease and 3.7% Republican increase

Iowa

6 Electoral Votes; Obama won with a 5.81% margin.

The ranges for Colorado to go Red are:

5% Republican increase and 4% Democratic decrease

5% Democratic decrease and 4.55% Republican increase

Even if Clinton carries Pennsylvania, Virginia plus any one of other states add up to at least 17. Colorado, New Hampshire and Iowa add up to 19.

The +5%/-5% range ignores any significant impact the ‘Bernie or Bust’ movement may have on Democratic Turnout. It also does not factor in the implications of a Republican October Surprise that could move the 5% Democratic falloff out to 10% or even 15%.

With all of this, the path to the White House looks doubtful for Hillary Clinton in November.

 

Footnotes

1.   Each State gets two Electoral Votes as a base (one for each Senator) and one for each Congressional District. Except for Maine and Nebraska, Electoral Votes are winner take all.

2.   The District of Columbia is not a State but has three Electoral Votes. When the term State is used, it is a generic reference to the jurisdiction associated with the Electoral Votes.

3.   Maine and Nebraska are the two states that do not allocate their Electoral Votes as winner-take-all. One Electoral Vote is awarded to the winner in each of their Congressional Districts and two to the overall winner of the State’s popular vote.

4.   Mitt Romney won North Carolina by 2.04%, close enough to fall into the category of Swing State but given the methodology of this analysis, it will remain Republican with Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee.

5.   The Growing Myth of the ‘Independent’ Voter, Phillip Bump, Washington Post, January 11, 2016.

The Goldnam-Sachs Transcripts: Logic and the October Surprise

One can deduce the content of her speeches by simple logic.

 

Ask yourself this question:

Was she lecturing them on how they will be broken up if they continue with their greed or was she laying out policy whereby they can continue on their path and rake in even more profits?

I believe it was the latter simply because the baksters must have liked what they heard otherwise they would never have paid her for multiple speeches.

If I’m wrong and it is the former, then she easily cleans Bernie’s clock in the remaining contests.  If it is the former, she could have ended Bernie’s campaign back in October. If it is the former, it would be to her political advantage to release the transcripts. When have you ever known a Clinton to not use every political advantage at their disposal and go for their opponent’s jugular?

Logic dictates that it is the latter and releasing them would be the death knell of her ambitions.

Given that the transcripts would be toxic to Clinton’s Presidential bid, do you think we will ever see them? If Clinton is the Democratic Party’s nominee the answer is YES!

Remember, Heidi Cruz is an executive with Goldman-Sachs; expect an October Surprise.

Video included.

That is of course if she never actually gave any speeches.  One other option is that she showed up, collected a check and never said more than ten words.  They were outright bribes disguised as speaking fees.  
 

The 2016 Republican Nominee will be…

The 2016 Republican nominee will not be Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush. It won’t be any Republican in the original field of seventeen. The Republican nominee will be Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan is the choice of Charles and David Koch. Charles and David Koch are the single largest donors to the conservative cause. If not for Koch money, the Heritage Foundation, the preeminent conservative think tank, would not exist. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) would not exist. Neither would any of the other Orwellian-named Conservative AstroTurf Organizations. The Tea Party would not be the political force it is today without Koch funding funneled through Freedom Works. Bottom line, follow the money.

To make this work, the Ryan Express must have the backing of nearly all the NOT CRUZ delegates. After the second ballot and no candidate has reached the magic number, Trump, Rubio, Kasich, Carson and Bush all agree to release their delegates to Ryan. In exchange Rubio is offered VP; Kasich, Treasury; Carson, Surgeon General and JEB!, Ambassador to China (so he can follow in Daddy’s footsteps).

But what can they offer Trump to get him to agree? Wouldn’t Trump supporters revolt? Wouldn’t Donald run as a Third Party Candidate and fracture the Republican Party? The answer both these questions is an unequivocal NO.  Deep down, Trump does not want to be President.

Sure, Trump has been blustering as to what he will do if the nomination is stolen and it is just bluster; a red herring. When you listen to what Trump says when talking about this, he always qualifies his statement with ‘if I am not treated fairly’ at the convention. Trump is about Trump and Trump’s EGO.

       But wouldn’t Trump’s ego preclude him from conceding the nomination to Ryan? Wouldn’t being elected President be the ultimate winning? As for the latter, there is a huge risk of Trump loosing. Polls do not favor his election.  That would be too much for his ego to absorb.

Not losing would outweigh winning. For Trump it is the art of the deal.  Trump could cut the ultimate deal of his career with the Koch Brothers; he may have done so even before he announced his candidacy.

       The scenario that lets Trump preserve his ego is simple. One where Trump takes the stage and announces that he is more concerned about the future of the Party, the future of the Country than about becoming President. Trump releases his delegates to Ryan; Trump is hailed the savior of the Party and Country.

       What logical argument can the Koch’s use to convince Trump to play their game?  There is no ‘logical argument’ to be made. Remember, follow the money.

Trump has something that is greater than his ego, DEBT. The Koch’s buy The Donald out of several underperforming projects. Say $500M or more; pocket change for Charles and David.  Trump gets cash, financial liquidity and the spotlight as the man who saved the Republican Party.

For Donald and his EGO, that’s winning.

A $15 Minimum Wage Will Destroy My Business Model

I detest that my taxes are going to pay for a program like Food Stamps.  Food Stamps, now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), is a subsidy that encourages bad behavior.  SNAP is a Socialist Program that uses my tax dollars to allow people to shirk their responsibilities and leach off Americans who work hard and pay taxes. These people do as little labor as possible yet live the life of Riley.  These people expect the rest of us to pick up the tab while they party.

I’m talking about Corporate Persons.

When people like Ronald J. McDonald, Samuel Walton XII, Duncan D. O’Nuts and John S. Papa pay their employees less than a living wage, we all pick up the tab through SNAP and Medicaid.  When they fly across the country in private jets, stay in luxury hotels and party the night away at Trade Conventions and we pay for their party; they write it off as a ‘business expense’.  That's another Socialist Program is would like to see ended, but another rant for another blog.

A 2014 study by the Center for American Progress and the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment concluded, “The decline in overall SNAP spending equals about 15 percent of the total resulting increase in wages.” What does this mean in real dollars?

I made my own rough analysis of the impact of raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15.00. Using data from ‘Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2014’ (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), 1.3 million earned the Federal Minimum Wage of $7.25/hour and 1.7 million earned below the Federal Minimum Wage.  That totals 3 million natural-born persons.

Currently, SNAP is available to households of four with annual incomes below $31,000/year (130% of poverty) and total benefits.

Assumptions:

·       Those earning below the federal minimum  wage earn an average of $6.00/hour

·       The number of people earning between $7.25/hour and $15.00/hour equal the total  number earning the minimum wage or less; their average wage is 12.00/hour.

·       Total annual income based on an average of 2000 hours/year

The resulting increase in wages throughout the economy would be $68.75 Billion per year; equating to a reduction in SNAP costs of $10.3 Billion per year.  That alone should be a sufficient argument for raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $15.00.

But those against raising the minimum wage claim:

‘McDonalds, Duncan Donuts, Papa John’s, Wal-Mart will have to raise prices to cover additional costs.’

First, I don’t spend my money at those places but I still have to subsidize their payroll.  I personally don’t care if McD raise their prices.

Second, studies have shown that McDonalds’ menu prices would only increase by about 10% for profits to remain the same. That is $4.5. Billion in profit for 2015. (updated 6/29/2016)

Third, if they held the line on prices, they would have to accept a 10% reduction in profits and I believe Ronald can live on $4.1 Billion.  What a hard knock life.

‘Business will cut jobs.  More people will be unemployed and there will an in increase unemployment with resulting increases in SNAP spending and other assistance programs.’

A business requires a minimum number of work-hours a day to operate efficiently.  When businesses cut employee hours below that number, they sacrifice customer service.  If their service level drops too low, they begin to lose customers, net revenue decreases and a death spiral ensues.  Business owners will maintain employee hours to meet the level the service level they aspire too. Good owners will make sure they provide service that will assure return customers.

Yes, some businesses will cut jobs.  However, many low wage earners hold two or three jobs in order to make ends meet.  When they earn $15/hour rather than $7.25/hour, they will not NEED to work several low paying jobs.  Many businesses will see some employees quit. If people have multiple jobs, they will quit one or more of those additional jobs to have quality time with their family.  Maybe even go out to eat occasionally.

‘It will hurt small businesses the most.’

What do you define as a ‘small business’?  When those in congress who oppose the raising the minimum wage use the term ‘Small Business’, they are referring to business with 400-600 employees.  I define a small business as a mom and pop shop with 5 to 10 employees, 100 tops. 

If a real small business, run by real entrepreneurs, must cut employee hours to survive, then the owner personally will have to pick up the slack themselves.  That is what it means to build a business with sweat equity.  If they want to claim 'they built it', they should build it with their hard work and not with wage slaves.

‘I only make $15/hour now and I have special training.  A burger flipper doesn’t deserve $15/hour’

Any person who works 40 hours per week does not deserve to live in poverty. PERIOD.

If you have specialized training and are only earning $15, you are probably worth $25 to your employer.  Don’t blame the burger flipper because you are underpaid. It is your boss who is exploiting you, not the burger flipper.

‘Those minimum wage jobs are held by high school kids.  They live with their parents. They don’t have a family.  Why should they make $30,000 a year?’

The fact is workers between 16-19 years of age represent only 15% of those earning the Federal Minimum Wage or less.

However, I believe there should be a special exemption to the minimum wage for full time students claimed as dependents by a parent or guardian.  $10/hour for the first 20 hours; $15/hour for the next 20 hours and time and a half over 40.  Businesses would be limited to 15% of their entire payroll for pay to employees with the student exemption.

Let me debunk all the myths perpetrated by those who favor paying employees the least amount possible with this:

If your business model is dependent on me subsidizing your payroll through my taxes, there is something wrong with your business model and you do not deserve to be in business.

Look on the positive aspects on the economy with a raising the minimum wage.

Besides a reduction in SNAP spending, our sluggish economy will get an infusion of cash.  CEO's benefitting from paying a low minimum wage, earn well in excess of what they spend each year. Some is put into bank savings and indirectly helps the economy. However, many invest a significant portion of that excess in Wall Street instruments; effectively removing it from circulation.  People earning below $30,000 per year spend every dollar they earn.  Their spending has a multiplier effect on the economy.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 will give 6 million people additional income.  Income subject to income tax.  We will have more people paying more taxes reducing the tax burden on the rest of us.  Some of the net income will be in excess of what they need to 'just survive'. 

More people will not be working 50 hours a week. They will have time to spend with their family and have a little extra money to allocate to frivolous things like going out to eat.  This will increase demand at restaurants.  Restaurants will hire more employees and buy more supplies.  The restaurant supply companies will see an increase in business and need more employees. As demand grows, new restaurants will open to absorb the demand.  This means even more jobs in the restaurant industry; more jobs in construction, architecture and engineering.

More money will cycle through the economy; there will be more people employed at all wage levels.  More people will have more disposable income.  More people will go out to eat more often creating more demand for restaurants.  More people will buy more things. More stores will need to hire more employees and stock more merchandise.

Now, if only that merchandise was made in America by Americans earning middle class wages and not in totalitarian Communist Countries in Asia by workers who are effectively wage slaves; but that is another rant for another blog.

Abortion, NO! But Mercury Poisoning of a Fetus is OK?

Donna Campbell is on the stump saying all the ‘right’ things; using all the ‘right’ talking points.  If you listen to Donna, she talks a good game to Pro-Life Christians.  The problem lies with her stance on other matters that she and her corporate backers refuse to acknowledge as right to life issues.

During pregnancy, the mother and fetus need health care. New born infants need neo-natal care.  Children need pediatric care.  One would presume the moral imperative for a professed Christian would be affordable care for our Children. But apparently it is not for Doctor Donna.  She wants to slash care for millions of Texas infants and their mothers.  Why?  Is it because the deep pocket donors to her Astroturf campaign refuse to render their fair share unto Washington?

Of course, they claim a moral objection to tax money being spent on medically accurate sex education, pre-conception birth control and of, course, abortions. Donna and her cronies are willing to deny medical care to infants all the while preaching: Abortion, NO!

In virtually the same breath, she vilifies the EPA’s endeavor to reduce environmental Mercury levels as “arbitrary rules and regulations hindering business and industry” (From Dr. Donna Campbell Facebook page; if it has not been scrubbed).  Dr. Campbell, if you believe these rules to be arbitrary, what safe levels you would establish?  If you believe in-utero exposure to increasing levels of Mercury is not detrimental to embryonic development, please share your research.  What is the safe level of Mercury for a second trimester fetus?  Please tell us.  You are quick to dismiss solutions proposed by others, but slow on offering anything in their stead.

Doctor Campbell, why are you willing to subject unborn children to a greater risk of Mercury poisoning?

Every voter in Texas Senate District 25 deserves an answer to this question before they vote.  They deserve an honest answer.  After all, honesty is on God’s top-ten list.

My guess: Thirty pieces of silver means more to Donna Campbell than protecting God’s creation.

Supplemental reading:

Prenatal Exposure to Mercury From a Maternal Diet High in Seafood Can Irreversibly Impair Certain Brain Functions in Children, Harvard School of Public Health

Update (8/20/12): Screen Capture of Campbell Facebook Thread

Tax Failure, Not Success

Anytime anyone proposes even the most modest tax increase on multimillionaires, minions of Grover Norquist religiously recite their time worn mantras: “You can’t tax the job creators” and “Why do you want to punish success?”  Well, I believe the literal interpretation of their doctrine may be sound but there is a disconnection between the theory and practice.

I agree that it is antithetical to the American way to punish those who have achieved success through their own hard work.  I enthusiastically advocate prosperity for everyone who creates American jobs. But, if we reward their success we should also penalize their failure. 

For more than three decades, we gave disproportionate tax breaks to the top one percent under the guise that they would use their increased liquidity to create jobs.  They assured us that we too would benefit from the vague effect they called “trickle-down” and so we paid homage to them.  We allowed them to have their dessert as the first course in exchange for a promise that they would eat their vegetables later. However, instead of creating jobs in the United States, they exported our jobs to the Pacific Rim.  As the ranks of our unemployed swelled, CEO’s grew fat on a feast of Chinese Pizza and Oriental Fries.

The unemployment rate is the obvious indicator to measure the success and failure of the “Job Creators”.  I recommend we establish an Unemployment Surcharge Adjustment (USA) based on the unemployment rate.  The USA would increase taxes on the top earners when they fail to create American jobs; when unemployment is high. Conversely, it will result in a tax cut when they are successful; when unemployment is low.

First, we establish a TARGET UNEMPLOYMENT (TU) of 6%; then, each quarter, the Department of Labor publishes the AVERAGE UNEMPLOYMENT (AU) based on a six month moving average of monthly unemployment figures.  To compute the USA, subtract the TARGET UNEMPLOYMENT (TU) from the AVERAGE UNEMPLOYMENT (AU) and multiply the result by 4.

When unemployment is high, say 9%; the USA would be 12%.   (9% – 6% = 3%; 3% x 4 = 12%)  When unemployment is below 6%, the difference becomes a negative number and the USA results in a tax reduction. If the AU is 5.5% the USA results in a 2% reduction in taxes. (5.5% - 6% = -0.5%; -0.5% x 4 = -2%). 

The USA would be added to the Capital Gains and Carried Interest rate for net gains in excess of $20,000/year and the Marginal Tax Rate for net ordinary income above $1,000,000/year.  

When the job creators are successful, they get a tax cut; when they fail, they pay a penalty.

.

A Letter to My School Board

NEISD School Board Members:

The circus sideshow that has surrounded the President’s planned talk with students and the decision by the NEISD Superintendent to censor him is disgraceful. When Dr. Middleton made his unilateral decision to banish President Obama from the classroom, did he stop and consider the Civics lesson he would be teaching. As a consequence of his capitulation to the racist rabble, children will accept as doctrine that an uninformed intimidating marginal minority armed with fear and bigotry trump the ballot box.

Without citing existing policy or precedent, Dr. Middleton yielded the Districts standards to single-minded ideologues bent on denouncing and destroying the lawfully elected President of the United States. What reasons did the alarmed citizenry present as dire need to protect everyone’s children from such an evil person? Let me guess, they claimed the President would use the address as a political vehicle to indoctrinate the young minds to his socialist agenda.

My wife and I are homeowners and taxpayers in the North East Independent School District and, although we have no children, we have never objected to paying school taxes. We have voted to approve every District Bond Issue. We agree with Thomas Jefferson when he asserts that an educated populace is an essential prerequisite for a successful democratic society. Every citizen receives benefit from sharing the cost of educating of all the children of the community; in other words, a Socialist School System.

Dr. Middleton should have recognized that those objecting to the President and his policies consider the public school system to be an evil socialist institution. They consider taxes of any sort to be intolerable; they vote no in every bond election. The name of their shepherd organization should have been a clue: Taxed Enough Already. With his decision, Mr. Middleton has established a new reprehensible district policy. He has aligned the School District with the TEA Party activists and the School Board will soon experience budget shortfalls resulting from their anti-tax dogma.

Have you ascertained if Dr. Middleton’s has an alternate program to finance future improvements, renovations and expansion? The ironic consequence of his decision is that now we have common ground to share with TEA Party troglodytes. For as long as Dr. Middleton is Superintendent, my wife and I will vote against every bond issue. We will work vigorously to defeat any referendum for funding the District’s new policy of endorsing censorship, hatred, bigotry, ignorance and racism.

Who Follows in the Light of Christ?

Many Born-again Evangelical Christians have an acute ability to articulate a first-rate game. Their dogma displayed ubiquitously on their sleeve. Incessantly, they impose their ideology upon those around them. Persistently they proselytize their canon, “I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior”. For these modern day crusaders, the first rule of Christianity is “Always talk about Christianity”.

There are those claiming to be Compassionate Conservative Christians who rarely, if ever, practice the teachings their Savior preached. They believe following Jesus is merely bearing witness, repeating prayers and converting the heathen. Christianity means more than spouting platitudes. Christianity means more than simply shouting, “Jesus is Great” from the rooftops.

Why are the actions of many Conservative Christians contradictory to the words of Scripture? Are the ethical lessons of Jesus lost duet to literalism? Do they deliberately discount those parts of Scripture that diverge from their insular worldview?

Reborn Christians cite John 14:6 “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” as the singular necessity for salvation. Yet they pay no heed to the remainder of the lesson, which occurs only six verses later: “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do.” The meaning of the entire passage is that one demonstrates to God their acceptance of Jesus as Savior by doing deeds similar to those of Jesus.

In Mark 12:30, Jesus says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” Unfortunately, those with sound bite attention spans gloss over the remainder of this message: “…and to love your neighbor as yourself is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:33) Jesus cannot be more explicit. Actions toward others will determine access to salvation, not external displays of piety.

Members of the Religious Right should (re)read Mark 25:34-46 and give special attention to verse 40: “... whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me”. The lesson to be gained from this passage is that we all are children of God so we all are brothers and sisters of Christ and, as such, we must treat each other as such if we expect to receive redemption. Many philosophers, both religious and secular, have said the same thing, many times and in many different ways.

How hypocritical that the self-proclaimed Moral Majority labels those who endeavor to improve the condition of the least of our brethren as Godless Liberals while they worship at the purse of the moneychangers who have turned the health care industry into a den of thieves. For the Family Values crowd, the Golden Rule has become the rule of gold. They are oblivious to the precept that God will know who has followed in the Light of Christ, not by the quantity of their prayers, but by the quality of their acts.

State Senator a Media Mogul?

On Friday August 14, the San Antonio Express News published the following article about the esteemed State Senator from District 25 (North San Antonio, South Austin and four adjoining counties):

Sen. Wentworth is linked to Web pyramid scheme (Follow the link and read the entire article, post comments and pass it on)

Two items of note:

“BurnLounge is operating a pyramid scheme. Such schemes have an intolerable capacity to mislead,” the FTC said in its lawsuit.

“That's news to me,” Wentworth said Thursday.

What was it that surprised Jeff? Was he surprised BurnLounge was a scam or that he got caught? One would think that a competent attorney and proficient legislator could discern the difference between a legitimate investment and a fraudulent scheme.

According to the interview, Wentworth said he was brought into BurnLounge by a lobbyist for the Texas Automobile Dealers Association.

This raises three questions:

Did this lobbyist also make a substantial donation to Jeff's war chest?

What other lobbyists bought "memberships" from Jeff?

What else does Jeff do for Lobbyists without reading the fine print?

Cash for Clunkers: Who Benefits?

The CARS program is horrendous and destroying the fabric our Country.

It is so repugnant to real Americans that noted capitalist Red McCombs has stipulated none of his car dealerships will accept trade-ins under the program. Clear Channel Communications and News-Corp owned media outlets have refused advertising from auto dealers promoting Cash for Clunkers deals. Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot have announced they will not serve any Car Salesmen who may have made a commission from this program.

Yes, the ONLY people benefiting from the program are the Socialist Autoworkers’ Unions.

Ron Paul You are Wrong....

The Honorable Ron Paul M.D.
203 Cannon House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515


Re: Web Post of July 20, 2009
“Health Care is a Good Not a Right”

Dear Representative Paul:

I beg to differ with your assessment. You appear to have mixed your analogy. Right is to Privilege as Goods is to Services. That is a basic SAT analogy.

Health care would be a SERVICE. One provided by trained individuals, each with their own reasons for entering the field. Health care is NOT a commodity. Beef and potatoes are commodities. Beef and potatoes are commodities produced and brought to market by individuals wuth some degree of college education; although a higher education is not specifically required.

For arguments sake, I will address Health Care as a commodity and as a commodity; the way to reduce consumer costs would be to increase supply. If beef costs are too high then flood the market with cattle. Consumer prices drop. It is simple supply-side Economics. You do remember Supply Side Reaganomics from the 1980’s.

If Health Care costs are too high, then increasing the number of Practitioners will reduce the costs. However, the AMA limits enrolment into medical schools. Why? They do it to keep the supply of Practitioners to a premium. This is where I see you as a hypocrite. You call for free-market solutions yet your professional organization institutes monopolistic controls that artificially inflate fees.

In Paragraph 3, you state:

"…if healthcare providers were suddenly considered outright slaves to healthcare consumers, our medical schools would quickly empty. As the government continues to convince us that healthcare is a right instead of a good, it also very generously agrees to step in as middleman. "

Under the current system we are all indentured servants. Employees are to their employers for fear that they might lose their health care and Providers to the Insurance companies in order to receive a continuing stream of clients. I cannot quote the exact statistic, but it is my understanding that the top 10 Insurers have secured the sole right to represent over 80% of all employees receiving health care. In order to have the right to provide services to these clients, doctors need to sign contracts with the Insurers and the insurers dictate what pay the provider. In effect, the Insurance Companies have become the middleman all the while taking between 20% and 50% for CEO Salaries and stockholder dividends.

At this point, let me tell you about myself.

I am a self-employed Civil Engineer. In 2002, I left a management position with a medium firm to become an entrepreneur; to start my own consulting firm. At that time, I was paying $900/month for Health Coverage ($30 Rx Co-pay and $250 deductible), for my wife and myself. That was a rate I could afford and net more than I did as an employee. However, even at those rates, I struggled to afford additional staff to expand my business. Therefore, after a short attempt to grow the business, I went back to a one-man operation. I had one Large Developer and two small developers as Clients in addition to “overflow” work from larger Engineering Firms. I had sufficient work to earn a comfortable living.

In the fall of 2007, as the recession started to slow development in San Antonio, the over flow work trickled to a halt. By February 2008, my largest client declared bankruptcy and the small developers found it difficult to obtain financing.

At the same time my Insurance premiums, which had been increasing, jumped from $1,200/month to $2,000/month ($5,000 deductible, no Rx). I was subject to the increase even though my total claims were three general Practitioner visits in the five years and one visit per year to an Ophthalmologist.

In 2008, after expenses, my net income was less than the cost of the Health Insurance. I am among the uninsured; one of then NON-Privileged. I work hard every day but, at this time, I do not earn enough to afford health care. You assert that Health care is “something you work for and earn”. How much harder do I have to work?

Continuing on, in Paragraph 4 you state:

"Universal Healthcare never quite works out the way the people are led to believe before implementing it. Citizens in countries with nationalized healthcare never would have accepted this system had they known upfront about the rationing of care and the long lines."

If this statement is true, then answer me why have the citizens of Canada, France, Italy et al NOT had a revolution at the ballot box? Why does the Conservative Government in the Canadian Parliament not toss out their system and replace it with an American System. They have the majority.

I ask you in what country currently is there rationing? It is the United States. Health Care is limited to those who can afford to pay high premiums, work for large companies or the Federal Government, that can qualify for lower group rates. Since you do not think Health Care is a right then, by analogy, you must consider it a privilege; available only to the privileged few. How do you compute the wait time for someone who does not ever get to see a Doctor? Those people are in the longest line in the world; longer than any found in Canada or Europe.

Next you continue:

"As bureaucrats take over medicine, costs go up and quality goes down because doctors spend more and more of their time on paperwork and less time helping patients..."

The real bureaucracy that is burdening Medical Practitioners is the Business School Graduates employed by the Insurance Companies.

When I last visited my Ophthalmologist (paying out of pocket), we had a discussion regarding Insurance. He has a small practice and yet has to have a full time employee devoted to “dealing with the Insurance Companies”.

"As costs skyrocket, as they always do when inefficient bureaucrats take the reins, government will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay the bills."

As opposed to Insurance companies taking up to 50% for dividends and pay their CEO Millions, if not in excess of $1 Billion as with United Health Care and Bill McGuire.

"The frightening aspect of all this is that cutting costs, which they will inevitably do, could very well mean denying vital services. And since participation will be mandatory, no legal alternatives will be available."

What legal recourse do I have today with insurance companies? Change carriers and be subject to a pre-existing condition exclusions? Recent history shows that this activist Supreme Court rules for big business on every case. If I show up at United Health Care, they can have me thrown in jail. I have no say about the CEO of United Health Care; I can vote for or against candidates for Congress and President.

"The government will be paying the bills, forcing doctors and hospitals to dance more and more to the government’s tune. Having to subject our health to this bureaucratic insanity and mismanagement is possibly the biggest danger we face. "

Can you really say this with a straight face? Replace the word Government with “Health Insurance Companies” and describe have the current system. Can you deny that the insurance companies do not deny services and control what which procedures Doctors can and cannot perform?

"The great irony is that in turning the good of healthcare into a right, your life and liberty are put in jeopardy."

Currently my right to life is in jeopardy. If I cannot get any health care because I cannot afford the Insurance Premiums then the quality of my life and my liberty are at stake. Of course, the only thing I have to fear is a serious illness that would cause me to lose my home.

"Instead of further removing healthcare from the market, we should return to a true free market in healthcare one that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats, with control of healthcare dollars."

Yes, I would like to see a truly free market for health care; one where practitioners could charge what the market will bear. I would like a free market where Practitioners must compete legitimately for my business and the supply of Practitioners is not artificially limited.

"My bill HR 1495 the Comprehensive Healthcare Reform Act provides tax credits and medical savings accounts designed to do just that."

Can you tell me how tax credits and medical savings accounts work if one is not earning enough to pay the premiums in the first place, much less have excess capital to invest in the savings account? Your Bill HR 1495 is only adventitious to the upper middle class and the current Insurance Companies. In fact, it directs even more money and control to the Insurance Companies; Monopolistic Insurance companies that are exempted from anti-trust laws. It benefits those who are not having any trouble getting health care today. Your bill does nothing to help the under-employed or the small business trying to expand.

Single payer is not something Corporatists should fear. We have single payer fire protection and that works quite well; as does our Single Payer Police Protection. A Single Payer program takes the basic premises of Insurance and risk management to the perfect state: The larger the pool of insured, the lower the risk. What bigger pool can there be than Everyone. Everyone in; everyone pays.

I have given serious thought to Health Care reform. In my vision for Single Payer, private insurance companies are included. There is a profitable niche for them. The can continue to sell Supplemental Policies. In addition, I would propose that they process claims on a percentage of claims paid. That will be a good incentive to pay the claims quickly and accurately. There can be good profit in that. Health Care Providers have the choice of which company the want to process their claims.

Providers can charge what the want for their services. Clients would pay the difference between the charges and the approved the government reimbursement. In addition, since you believe the Private Insurers have a better handle on reimbursement, initially reimbursement rates will be the average of current Federal Employee Insurance schedule and top five providers as indicated on their January 1, 2008 schedules.

Paying for the program and implementing cost reductions would require a comprehensive rework of our tax structure and modifying the current Medical School model. The system can realized savings over the total of all current expenditures. There is more detail than appropriate for this letter and I have attached an outline as a summary.

Gates/Crowley Is NOT About Racism

With their coverage of the Gates/Crowley incident, the myopic corporate media is fighting the last war, not the next one. In this instance, America’s history of ethnic profiling and Police mistreatment of minorities is not the troubling issue. I do not believe that Sergeant Crowley is a racist or that his treatment of Professor Gates is a product of racism.

This unfortunate event is a symptom of a new affliction permeating Law Enforcement; the impetus for Crowley’s actions was Authoritarian Machismo.

Since 9/11, our law enforcement departments have become more and more authoritarian. In his training, Serpent Crowley learned to regard every perpetrator, regardless of race color creed or national origin, as a potential enemy of the State. Police officers see themselves as front line foot soldiers in the struggle to protect the Fatherland.

Professor Gates was upset and rightly so. Who wouldn’t be? He is in his own home and confronted as if he were a criminal; even after he proves his identity. Did he shout at Crowley? Yes. Did he accuse Crowley of racism? Probably, but unless he pulled a gun, knife or other weapon and physically threatened Sergeant Crowley, Professor Gates did not break the law.

Even after Crowley notifies dispatch that Gates is the resident, the incident continues. At that time, Crowley should have said: “There has been a misunderstanding and I’m sorry for inconvenience. If you would like to file a report with my supervisors, here is my badge number and contact information”. Crowley should have defused the situation by backing down and leaving. He did not. Why not?

Professor Gates may have said something that insulted Crowley’s manhood and challenged his position. No pumped up alpha male would tuck his tail between his legs and skulk off. Ever fiber of his being, every element of his training, every aspect of his psyche required that Sergeant Crowley confront the threat to his authority.

The bottom line, Sergeant Crowley did what he did because he had too much testosterone coursing through his system.

And because he could.

An Open Challenge to Birthers Everywhere…

I was born in Pennsylvania in the mid 50’s and my family moved to San Antonio when I was 10.

During the mid and late 1980’s, after the S&L fiasco, I had to follow work around the country and lived in three different States over 8 Years.

In 1993, I moved back to Texas. When I received my Texas driver’s license, I noticed they had my date of birth wrong. There was a typo in the Day of the Month.

I contacted the Department of Public Safety and they told me that they had processed my information exactly as shown on the license I had surrendered. Apparently, one of the previous states had made an error that I never caught.

DPS required that I submit certified proof of my birth date.

So, I contacted the Pennsylvania Department Health/Vital Records.

Did they send me a copy of my original Birth Certificate? NO.

Pennsylvania sent me a certificate that stated, "A certificate of live birth is on file…” it contained all the pertinent information but it was not a copy of my original birth certificate.

The State of Texas accepted that document and corrected my drivers License.

I challenge every "birther" to contact their state of birth for a birth certificate and tell me what they get in return.

If It’s Good Enough For Dick It Should Be Good Enough For Mother Earth

When I am in a debate
with those on the right
who want to
Deny, Delay and Do Nothing
about Global Climate Change

When they spew
“There is no proof…”
“All scientists don’t agree..”
“I don’t believe mankind can have any impact on the Climate”
“Climate Change is a Natural Process”
or other misleading talking points

I give them this quote:

"Even if there's just a one percent chance
of the unimaginable coming due,
act as if it is a certainty.
It's not about analysis,
it’s about our response.
Justified or not,
fact-based or not,
our response is what matters."

For most, they react
That’s a stupid reason
How Idiotic to take unjustified actions
and waste our money
based on contrived evidence
without facts to support the necessity

I merely reply

If that reason was good enough for VP Cheney
to justify sinking billions of dollars
and the lives of thousands of American Troops
into the black hole of Iraq,
to preserve, protect and defend His homeland
Then it should be good enough
to justify actions that will

Preserve
Protect and
Defend

Our Home Planet.

Teach Our Children Well

With China, Japan, India and Europe leving the United States in their Science and Technology dust, Don McLeroy, chair of the Texas State Board of Education is on a crusade to drag our children into the 16th century.

Mr. McLeroy implied that

Scientists are “atheists.” Parents who want to teach their children about evolution are “monsters.” Pastors who support sound science are “morons.”

when he endorsed Robert Bowie Johnson’s book, Sowing Atheism: The National Academy of Sciences’ Sinister Scheme to Teach Our Children They’re Descended from Reptiles

Quotes from the Johnson’s book include:

The obvious problem here is that it is simply not possible to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, and at the same time, embrace the tenets of atheistic evolution.

What kind of monster parents teach their children that they’re descended from rodents and reptiles?

What do these apostate morons celebrate at their Sunday services, the lies about humanity’s origins told by Moses, Jesus, and Paul?

Mr. McLeroy, let me quote from another book. The following is from the preface to my CATHOLIC Bible.

Literary Genres or Forms

It is very important to know what literary form a writer uses to convey his message. Is it a history, a poem, a figure of speech, a parable? If you don not know, you may misunderstand the writer’s message. That is why we must pay attention to the literary genres (forms) of the Bible. The following a just a few of them.

. . .

The Allegory: A figurative story with a veiled meaning. Read Genesis . . . for centuries these chapters have been misunderstood as inspired lessons in science. The Bible does not teach science; it teaches religious values. It uses these folktales to teach a lesson. Again, the point of the allegory (not the details) is God’s message to you.

Well Mr. McLeroy, do you believe the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the direct successor of Peter, the Holy See, are morons?

Mr. McLeroy, since you present yourself as an expert on the Bible, I would presume you have read Matthew 16:18:

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…

Are you a Roman Catholic?

If one preaches that Scripture must be read as literal then that same person must accept Papal Catholicism as the ONLY theology Jesus established on earth.

So, just who is the real apostate, moron?

Atlas Juiced

In her novel “Atlas Shrugged”, self-espoused fascist Ayn Rand deifies the Captains of Industry. She postulates that they, and they alone, have a divine right to control the wealth derived from the labor of the working class. Her justification is that should the Robber Barons stop doing what they do, then nothing would get done and everyone will suffer. To this end, she has her protagonists stage a strike and then draws her own conclusions as to the results. However compelling her prose may be, the novel is still a work of fiction without basis in reality, much less economics.

In effect, Taggart, Rearden, Galt and their ilk are more like petulant children who, when they can’t have everything their own way, they throw a temper tantrum. Unfortunately, many of today’s CEO’s have read Ayn’s nonsense and accept it as Gospel. In today’s financial meltdown of Wall Street, they want to have everything their way. They have threatened to crash the World Markets if we do hand over all our property value.

I am reminded of the scene from the movie “Blazing Saddles” when Sheriff Bart, played by Cleavon Little, holds a gun to his own head and proclaims; “Next man makes a move the Ni**er gets it”. These people are willing to commit economic suicide and destroy the rest of use if we don’t let them have more riches; if we don’t bow in awe to their greatness. Unfortunately, Bush, Paulson, Geithner and Obama respond in unison: “They’re not bluffing; they’re just crazy enough to do it”.

Comparing these greedy cretins to petulant children who take their toys and go home in a snit, is a gross miss characterization. Their actions are more akin to extortion if not worse. Our leaders have capitulated.  Maybe they are complicit.

Let’s see, what would you call someone who will do anything to bring the United States Economy to its knees and are willing to destroy themselves in the process. Isn't that a Terrorist?

These Atlas’s on Steroids are nothing less than Economic Terrorists.

Invoke the Patriot Act.

They should not be sent to jail, they should be in Gitmo.

Stem Cell Hypocrisy

Most Republicans are not opposed to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research (HESCR). The Bush Administration was not opposed to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

If Republicans were opposed Stem Cell Research on moral grounds then they would have passed a comprehensive research ban while they controlled congress. If Bush believed HESCR was immoral, he would have signed an executive order to stop ALL research. They didn’t; George didn’t.

When George Bush vetoed the “Stem Cell Research and Enhancement Act of 2007”, then White House press Secretary Tony Snow said: “There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal; it simply says that the federal government will not finance it. As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it, and I daresay if people think that there's a market for it, they're going to support it handsomely.”

He was then asked: “Has the White House received much reaction to the stem cell veto? And do you see a day when the President would believe that embryonic stem cell research, which is private, becomes illegal?” His response: “The answer to the second is, no…”

He later continued, apparently describing Bush’s position, “He did not think it would be appropriate for the federal government to engage in something morally controversial, but he would not outlaw it, and in fact, would permit private investment, which is going on in some places.”

As he was wrapping up the briefing, he recommended that everyone should invest in biotech stocks.

Republicans don’t oppose HESCR; they oppose PUBLIC FUNDING of Zygotic Stem Cell Research.

Ask yourself “Why do they oppose Public Funding?”

Do they oppose Public Funding of HESCR because they have a MORAL objection to HESCR? Well, they can keep the Religious Right flock in the fold by their bombastic remarks and pandering is worth only a few votes every two years.

The true reason They oppose public funding of HESCR is to pander to Big Phama…Surprised?
Any and all cures and treatments resulting from government funded research would become PUBLIC DOMAIN; cures and treatments resulting from private research will be PROPRIETARY.

A public domain treatment to cure diabetes might cost a few of hundred dollars. A proprietary cure would be worth more money than the bank bail out, the stimulus package and all the Halliburton no-bid contracts combined. Everybody benefits from the former; only Big Phama benefits from the latter.

If the right truly believes that HESCR is immoral and the reason the Bush administration vetoed the S.5 “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 was ”so that Americans would not be compelled to support an immoral activity with their tax dollars”, then it would follow that these same moral Americans would object to supporting Stem Cell research with ANY of their money.

Those who buy everything from Allegra to Zyrtec, from Oxycontin to Viagra, provide economic support to HESCR. If Republicans and the religious right are so morally opposed to it, then why don’t they boycott the products produced by Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Abbot, Eli Lily etc. since a portion of that money goes to HESCR.

And what about stock ownership. Do Dobson, Robertson, Brownback, Kyl, McCain, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and their ilk own stock in firms that are engaged in HSER. Has the Focus on the Family, The Family Research Council, the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention used their voting shares to force these firms discontinue the immoral practice. Have they divested themselves of such stock?

To all those who rail against HSER and preach it to be immoral: Check your 401K and portfolio. If you have any of your money invested in these companies then you have a moral obligation to divest yourself of those holdings.

Oh, and stop popping that little blue pill.