Can the Roberts' Court Have it Both Ways?

John Roberts, Jr.
Chief Justice of Supreme Court

Today (2/28/2012) the United States Supreme Court heard testimony in the Koibel vs. Royal Dutch Petroleum case. And, as expected, the conservative majority of Justice Roberts appeared to favor the argument that corporations do not have the same responsibility and culpability as individual persons. Please recall that these same five conservative judges ruled in Citizens United that "corporations are persons," as Mitt Romney contends, and as such are able to donate as much undisclosed money to political campaigns as they choose.

Big business and huge corporations have won the day. All their efforts to get these five conservative Republican judges seated have paid off. What a deal. They rule that corporations are persons so that they can pump millions and billions of dollars into the electoral process to influence elections, but on the other hand, corporations do not have the same responsibilities as persons in terms of human rights abuse.

And, then we are surprised that some people around the world question our concept of democracy.

Please be advised that I am presuming in this case, as in the past,  that, based on the comments of  the justices, the five conservative justices will side with the corporations. I can only hope that my presumption will be proven incorrect.

What is Richard Santorum About?

Straight and Narrow
Ricky Santorum

In response to the emailer who wanted to know why  I wrote about Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Cain and Rubio, but I ignored Ricky Santorum: I apologize. It never occurred to me that the Republican Party was so far out there that he would be a factor at this stage of the primaries. I am not sure whether that makes me an idiot or  that the Republicans are still searching for some one else other than Willy Mitt Romney. Whatever, I was wrong and Richard John Santorum  is a serious contender in this year's bizarre primary. That being the case, I must ask: "Who is this guy and what does he want?" (I will not comment on another Republican politician choosing not to use his given first name. I guess it is a Republican thing. Or maybe it's that they don't want to be a Dick.)


Richard Santorum, born in 1958,  is the son of an clinical psychologist who immigrated from Italy and an administrative nurse. (It would be interesting to know who the coal miners were that he claims.) He was born in Virginia and grew up in West Virginia and Butler County, PA. where he was known as "Rooster." (Don't know whether he wore Jim Tressel sweater vests back then.)  He attended Pennsylvania State (BA), the University of Pittsburgh (MBA) and received his law degree from Dickinson School of Law. He married in 1990 and fathered 8 children, one of which died shortly after birth.


As he is quick to remind you, Rick is a Roman Catholic and supports the church's stand on contraception, abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and cloning.. Since the church opposes capital punishment, he is reluctant to address that issue, but has indicated he has fears about people being wrongfully executed.


As an associate in a law firm, he successfully lobbied  for the World Wrestling Federation to deregulate pro wrestling, arguing it should be exempt from the federal anabolic steroid regulations since it was not a sport, but entertainment.


In 1990 he was elected to the House of Representatives as a member of "The Gang of Seven." He also served in the Senate for two terms. He lost his senate seat in 2006 by 18 percentage points,  perhaps because of his close ties with George W. Bush. "I agree with George W. Bush 98% of the time, but I say when I don't."


In 2002 he traveled to Rome to speak at a celebration honoring Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the controversial Opus Dei.. In 2004, he and his wife were invested as Knight and Dame of Magistral Grace of the Knights of Malta, a group with its origins in the First Crusade.


Mr. Santorum has espoused some unusual positions over the years, some of which sound more like that of a TV evangelist than that of a politician. In 2008 he lectured a college audience about the U.S. being under attack from Satan and has suggested that mainline Protestantism is "gone from the world of Christianity."


Mr. Santorum tells us that John F. Kennedy's famous speech about the separation of church and state made him "want to throw up." Apparently Rick would like to blow some big holes in the wall that separates the two, although he does not go so far as to advocate a total christian theocracy or persecution of non-Christians..


The Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal, according to Santorum,  occurred in Boston because it is "a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America." Quite convenient; shift the blame to geography and the liberals.


In spite of his Christian faith, he supports the use of torture. "I mean the fact that some of this information that we found out that led to Osama bin Laden came from these enhanced interrogation techniques." Unfortunately, the U.S. intelligence organizations point out that none of the information leading to bin Laden came from prisoners, not to mention, "interrogated" prisoners.


And, of course, Rick is a historian. "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical." This is the same guy who now is talking about religious liberty, and he thinks attacking people because of their beliefs was the right thing to do.


He has an interesting take on history in the case of Iraq. "You know we have a game plan. We need to go out there and continue to fight this war on Islamic fascism." An inconvenient truth is that Iraq was a secular nation before we invaded. Now it is a country of religious sectarian conflicts.


Recently, Rick appears to be obsessed about sex and particularly gay sex. Gay marriage, he said, "threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the values of this country." I am not sure how that works. Frankly, gay marriage does not threaten my marriage. Why does it threaten his? On another occasion, he compared gay marriage to bestiality. I certainly don't want to hear his explanation of that.


Even Homeland Security comes down to marriage and sex. "Isn't the ultimate Homeland Security standing up and defending marriage?" I don't get the connection, but that would cost much less than defending the country from real terrorists.


Of course, he considers climate change to be "junk science," wants to privatize Social Security, and thinks schools should  teach creationism.


On the campaign trail Santorum attacks President Obama on his energy and environmentalist policies referring to "radical environmentalists" and a "phony theology," but on his 2009 tax return, he claimed $3,151 for energy saving improvements to his home as a tax credit which resulted in a $945 savings on his taxes. Apparently it's easier to talk the talk than walk the walk.


Since he was voted out of the Senate, he has done well. He has been a writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, commentator on Fox News, and a think-tank leader. When he left the senate in 2007 his income was $259,000 and in 2009 it was $1.1 million. He acquired a $2 million home in Great Falls, Virginia, for $0 and "no consideration" from a wealthy supporter, James Sack.


Mr Santorum claims to "home school" his children, but he charged Pennsylvania for their "cyber schooling." Apparently he considers cyber school the same as a parent actually teaching his children himself.


Writing of Rick Santorum's presidential bid, the conservative columnist for the Washington Post, George F. Will,  wrote: "Santorum is repelling people who want politics unmediated by theology." (2/24/2012)


Some think Rick is confused; he really doesn't want to be president; he wants to be either Pope or Grand Inquisitor.


( The above biographical material was derived from Wikipedia. The quotes, position statements and tax information have been previously published in a variety of media outlets.)

You Might be a TEApublican

While President Obama was preventing Bush's Great Recession from becoming the country's second Great Depression, the Republican party under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner became the party of obstructionism with the stated goal of keeping the country from succeeding as long as Barack Obama is President -- a position contrary to their oath of office.

In contrast to the stagnation and obstructionism of the Republican establishment, the Tea Party came along with an agenda of its own, albeit, a regressive one. Although the Tea Party initially claimed not to be associated with existing parties, it soon became clear that it was taking over the Republican Party, perhaps because of a leadership vacuum.

The result is the TEApublicans, defined by a friend as: " Formerly reasonable Republicans who have drunk the "Kool Aid," or should I say,  the poison tea of the Tea Party."

You might be a TEApublican if:

1. you believe a zygote is a person.
2. you believe a corporation is a person.
3. you believe government should not regulate what happens in corporation board rooms, but should regulate what happens in people's bedrooms.
4. you purchased a copy of Going Rogue even though you didn't read it. Not to worry, Sarah Palin didn't read the whole thing either.
5. you believe a woman should undergo a vaginal ultrasound probe before she can have a legal abortion.
6. you believe democracy can survive without a system of free public education.
7. you were invited to go hunting with Dick Cheney, even though you were smart enough to turn down the invitation.
8. you favor adopting GOP-sponsored election procedures to keep citizens from voting.
9. you think that Catholic bishops are experts on healthy human sexuality.
10. you know the code words that appeal to racial fear and prejudice.

Also, you might be a TEApublican if:

11. you listen to Rush Limbaugh, watch Fox News and think you are an informed citizen.
12. when you go on vacation, you haul your dog on top of the car.
13. you explain that you like Michigan because it has the right-sized trees.
14. you would like to build a Berlin-like wall separating us from Mexico.
15. you think it is religious freedom for one church to dictate what kind of health care its women employees receive.
16. you agree with Santorum that the "right to privacy doesn't exist...in the U.S. Constitution."
17. you think sex is all about procreation.
18. you think congress should not remove the cap on Social Security payments, thus preventing any SS shortfalls.
19. you call it is a "subsidy" when wealthy agricultural and energy corporations receive billions of government money, but you call it "crippling welfare" when a working mother receives a few food stamps to feed her children.
20. you want your congress person to abdicate her/his responsibility and sign Grover Norquist's pledge to not raise taxes, come hell ot high water

If you find you are a TEApublican, you have my sympathy; but don't give up hope, there is a twelve-step program for that.

Kasich Twins Hold an Intervention with Dad

There was a time
I could do this.

The 69th Governor of Ohio, John Richard Kasich, was a "You Tube" phenomenon last week with his 100-minute State of the State" speech delivered in Stuebenville, Ohio. Since John does not want to be confined by the limitations of a written speech, he rambled on from topic to topic as his audience of attendance- required "guests" were nervously fidgeting in both amusement and bewilderment.


Having had experience as both a father and grandfather, I was  wondering whether the Kasich twin daughters, Emma and Reese, witnessed the spectacle. Even if they were back home doing their homework, they soon saw highlights of the speech as it spread around the internet. I'm just guessing here, but I suspect the eleven-year old girls may have made the following points with their dad:


1) "Dad, if you think our mom is a "hot wife," that's fine, but don't mention it in your 'State of the State' speech! Mom is mom, and we don't want our nerdy classmates referring to her as a 'hottie.'"


2) "Another thing, Dad, perhaps you need a speech writer. We've heard that all politicians have one. We like your free spirit, but our teachers tell us we need an introduction, body, and conclusion. It seems you missed that class when you were in school."


3) "Sometimes, Dad, you can be really funny, but it's not a good idea, in the State of the State speech, to make fun of someone who suffers from Parkinson's Disease. We really like Michael J. Fox, and it appeared you were making fun of him and people  like him. Also, the kids at school are asking whether you have  stopped shaking."


4. "And you have to ditch that crying thing. We know it's the thing Republican men do, but we are not comfortable seeing our dad on TV crying.  We can put up with it here in the house, but not on TV. And frankly, Dad, John Boehner does it so much better than you. His crying is almost believable."


5. "There's another issue, Dad. It's not too statesman-like to call the citizens of California "Whackadoodles." We don't want Governor Brown referring to us as "cornflakes." But anyway, we have a guy in our class who wants to know how to spell "wackadoodle." He thinks it's a shame Abraham Lincoln did not use the word in the Gettysburg Address.


6. "And that middle name thing. Preppy Republicans like former Governor Romney like to use their middle name rather than their first name. And in his case, Mitt is much better than Willy; but in your case, John is better than Richard. We really, really don't want our classmates referring to us as "Dick's kids" or other variations of that."


7. "Just so  you don't think we are too negative, we want you to know that we think it was a stroke of genius to give the "State of the State" speech in Stuebenville instead of the Capital. We were confident that our friends and classmates would never hear of it, but then you had to go big on You Tube and now we hear about it every day at school."


In the interest of transparency, you should know that I have never talked to Emma and Reese Kasich. In fact their parents have probably told them never to talk to people like me. Therefore, I can't be confident the intervention went exactly as described, but it is so damn plausible, I'm not discrediting it.


The test of any intervention is the results it produces. In the case of John Richard Kasich, it's too early to judge but for those of you who understand gambling, the Las Vegas odds are: "No Way In Hell."  Mr Kasich considers himself God's gift to the mankind and he is not going to take advice from his children.


Their father is involved in a three-way race for the honor of being "The Most Unpopular Governor in the USA," but he has serious competition from Rick Scott in Florida and Scott Walker in Wisconsin. The speech in Stuebenville may have sealed the deal John Richard Kasich.

What Jesus Said

from MoveOn.org

Christian churches claim to originate from the Man from Nazareth, but they tend to manipulate His simple and straightforward message by putting words into His mouth, based on their petty fears and prejudices.

Bishops and GOP Politicize Contraception

Catholic bishops prefer to talk about their religious liberty rather than defending their assertion that contraception is evil. By attacking the Obama Administration for requiring institutions receiving public funds to provide comprehensive health care to the public, the bishops are catering to the social conservatives and Tea Party Republicans. In the past two weeks, while the bishops and their defenders have ignored the issue of contraception itself and tried to make the whole issue a matter of religious liberty, how many times have we heard them attempt to justify the theory that contraception is immoral? I have yet to hear any reasoned defense of their position other than to refer to the Vatican's edict declaring contraception anathema -- reminds one of Imams issuing a fatwah.


Many Catholics and non-Catholics are of the opinion that, given the lack of a rational justification for the church's edict, the primary reason they oppose contraception is to increase the number of Catholics, especially at a time when the Church's retreat to a pre-Vatican II stance is causing many  Catholics to leave the church.


Of course, there is a good reason the bishops want to politicize the issue and deflect discussion away from contraception -- most Catholics and many priests do not agree with the Vatican. the Guttmacher survey reveals that 98% of sexually-experienced Catholics use active methods of birth control. Catholics, for the most part, do not support the hierarchy as to the evil of contraception. On the other hand, The bishops are hoping practicing Catholics will support them when they attempt to politicize the issue as one of religious liberty.




Unfortunately for the bishops, even when phrased as primarily an issue of religious freedom, most Americans and most Catholics disagree with the them. In a survey last week, the Public Religion Research Institute learned that most Americans (57% to 39%) disagree with the religious liberty claim. And more importantly, Catholics disagree as well (53% to 45%). (MoJo,2/7/12, Kevin Drum)


What is left to the bishops? They do not want to discuss the justification for their position on contraception; they tried to frame the issue as one of religious liberty, but most Americans and Catholics are not buying that. Give them credit; they are trying to salvage something from this disaster by tying their contraception baggage to presidential politics, and the Republican candidates and social conservatives are all too delighted to kiss the bishops' ring and jump on the "we-are-being-persecuted" bus. Face it, anyone who is against Obama automatically becomes the GOP's best friend.


The irony: when Catholic priests in South America took up the cause of the poor and depressed, The Vatican warned them not to get involved in politics. When Catholic bishops in the US politicize health care issues, the Vatican is silent.



Other concerns are: why were the Catholic bishops and the Republicans not fighting the battle in the 28 states that already have this rule (8 of those states do not even allow the exemption the Obama ruling allows)? Why was Governor Mitt Romney in favor of providing contraception in Massachusetts, and now is against it? Why did Governor Mitt Romney attend a Planned Parenthood fundraiser? Why do so many Catholic institutions already provide contraceptive health care? 


The answer is that it's politics, politics, and more politics.




P.S. A letter from Paula J. Kampf on Connie Shultz FB (2/9/12):


Dear hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church,

Here's an idea I --with a Master of Arts in Ministry degree and many years of professional parish ministry, among other things--would like you to consider:

If that teaching which you are promulgating is credibly communicated and taught, it won't matter whether your healthcare plan matches it or not: no one will USE that part of their healthcare plan.

If your healthcare plan includes actions that are contrary to what you teach and lots of people on your own payroll use that part of the plan anyway, you need to do some serious self-reflection about the credibility of the teaching itself, the communication and education you're providing and whether something YOU are doing needs to be addressed.

I offer this thought with the deepest of respect, and hope you'll consider it.

Just for the record:  In 1966, Paul VI's birth control commission presented its preliminary report to the pope. It held big news: The body had overwhelmingly voted to recommend lifting the prohibition on contraceptives. (The former Archbishop of Brussels, Cardinal Leo Suenens, went so far as to say the church needed to confront reality and avoid another "Galileo case.") (MoJo,2/10/2012)  In 1968 Pope Paul VI rejected the commission's recommendation in Humanae Vitae.

How to Stop Credit Card Solicitations

Ever since my friend from California, Jacob, suggested the following strategy, my Wednesday-breakfast-buddy, Buck, and I have been following his suggestion. When one receives a credit card application in the mail, take the enclosed pre-paid envelope and stuff it with as much junk mail as you can and send it back to the Big Bank that sent it to you. They in turn will have to pay the postage and dispose of your junk mail.



Since Big Bank has to pay postage based on the weight of the envelope, Buck has resorted to placing pennies in the envelopes to increase its weight. He is over-joyed at the irony. " What is more fun than sending the suits at Big Bank a hand full of pennies and letting them pay the postage and having to get rid of my damn pennies?" (By the way, you don't want to get Buck started on the "archaic and asinine U.S. coin system.")

On the other hand, I still believe Ben Franklin's saying: "A penny saved is a penny earned." Furthermore,  there is something in my inner self that will not allow me to send money,. even pennies, to Big Bank. I therefore use another method to "stick it to the man." I take scraps of building materials and a place them in the pre-paid envelopes. I have a stack of 1/4th inch thick ends of 2X4s stacked up on my desk to stuff into their pre-paid envelopes.

But then today I received a credit card application, and I noticed they had included a note that says: "You can choose to stop receiving "prescreened" offers of credit from this and other companies by calling toll-free 1-888-567- 8688." I am not sure what "prescreened" means, but I suspect it is a synonym for "suckers list."

So, you see our dilemma. Buck and I could call this toll-free number and ask the Big Banks to stop sending us credit card applications. On the other hand, we lead boring, uneventful lives. Opting-out of "prescreened" offers would deprive us of one of the joys of our day-to-day, sorry lives.

Buck and I are NOT opting-out. We will continue a our feeble attempts "to stick it to the man,"  but for the rest of you who have real lives, I would suggest that you call 1-888-567-8688 and tell Big Banks to stop sending you  credit card applications. 

P.S. I know it is tempting to fill out one of those applications for your stupid cat, but I would advice against it. Just saying.

Catholic Bishops Forget the U.S. Is a Democracy

In a previous blog ( "US Catholic Bishops Misuse Religious Freedom Argument," 1/30/2012   ) I took exception with the U.S. Catholic bishops for encouraging Catholics to take political action because the Department of Health and Human Services insisted that Catholic institutions who serve the general public and who receive public funds provide insurance coverage for contraceptive health care. I suggested the the bishops were mistakenly trying to divert attention from their problem with contraception to religious liberty issues.

Since then I have read the following blog, Perspective, (2/3/2012), which among other issues goes to the heart of the problem, Catholic bishops or other religious leaders who inject themselves into politics and violate the concept of Separation of Church and State -- a principle the Founding Fathers insisted upon. Bishops meddling in politics is messy and unseemly at any time; it becomes absurd when they attempt to control the sexual lives of  U.S. citizens. 

The following is the blog from Perspective:

A Catholic theologian on the Bishops and contraception

I saw an article today at CNN Opinion by Keith Soko ... associate professor of religious ethics and moral theology at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa. He teaches courses in bioethics and health care, social justice, peace and justice in comparative religions, and moral issues. It's a long and interesting article, giving the history of contraception in the church and opining on the present situation, so I've just posted a bit of it below ....

Bishops don't speak for most Catholics on contraception

(CNN) -- Recently, the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Religious Liberty argued that the Obama administration's requirement that most health insurance plans cover contraception goes against "the mandate of Jesus Christ."

But Jesus said nothing about contraception coverage, of course, or most any other issues related to sexuality. So, what is the issue?

The current mandate would require that Catholic institutions like universities and hospitals include coverage for contraception and sterilization, although it exempts Catholic parishes. Official Catholic teaching is against contraception and sterilization. But this issue goes beyond internal Catholic Church concerns and moves into the public arena. The U.S. Catholic bishops and other conservative Christian groups have argued that the Obama administration's requirement wars with religious liberty and the role of conscience.

Last Sunday, at least 100 bishops had letters read at masses in their dioceses imploring Catholics to oppose this coverage. Newspapers have carried stories of Catholic bishops making apocalyptic predictions that Catholic universities and hospitals would have to close their doors if this coverage is allowed. But who is really making this argument besides the bishops and a minority of conservative Catholics and Christians, especially when studies show that 98% of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptives?

.... (very big snip) ....

So here is the question, as I see it, as a Catholic theologian and lifelong Catholic, educated almost entirely at Catholic institutions, and taught to work for human dignity, the common good and social justice: Should the U.S. bishops speak for all Catholics on a matter of national public policy, an issue that most Catholics disagree on within their own church? The bishops have refused to discuss this issue with their fellow Catholics for more than 40 years. And the bishops are all male. What about Catholic theologians, academics, social workers and health care professionals? What about Catholic women? What about the 98%?

Public policy involves discussion, dialogue, debate, and sometimes even compromise. That does not mean compromising one's moral principles, but it may involve compromising how those principles are legislated as a matter of public policy in a pluralistic and democratic society.

I guess it is no wonder that a monolithic religion has difficulty understanding the principles of democracy.

Who is Marco Antonio Rubio?

Jeanette Rubio and husband,
Senator Marco Antonio  Rubio

The GOP presidential candidates have been drooling with delight at the possibility of having Marco Antonio Rubio as their vice-presidential running-mate.

And, why not? The young, handsome U.S. Senator has the two assets they need -- geography and ethnicity! Marco Rubio is a Cuban from Florida; and, if that is not enough, he is the darling of the Tea Party. If you were a potential GOP presidential nominee, you too would be drooling at the prospect of such a running-mate.

However, on January 27, Marco, told the New York Times: "I'm not going to be the vice-presidential nominee. There are many reasons, but one of them is because I'm focused on my job in the U.S. Senate." That sounds all too familiar. Should we believe that he will turn it down once it is offered? How many times have we heard pols say something similar, and then change their minds and "answer the call of God and country." Just like the football coaches who tell us one week they will not leave their present team and then a week later sign with another team, Marco feels required to reassure his constituents that he will fulfill his Senate commitment, but he may sing another tune when actually offered the VP spot on the Republican ticket.

Whether or not Marco Antonio Rubio ends up as the GOP vice-presidential nominee, he is "a person of interest" and worth a closer look.

1. Marco was born in Miami, FL, of Cuban immigrants. His father worked as a bartender and his mother a motel maid.

2. In his official biography, Marco claimed he was "the son of exiles," and frequently suggested his parents fled to Miami to escape the Fidel Castro regime. That was false. His parents had moved to Miami before Castro came to power. When his story was challenged, he blamed the mistake on misinformation from his family.

3. Marco's wife of Colombian descent, Jeanette, was a Miami Dolphin cheerleader in 1997. The Rubios have four children.

4. Like many Floridians, the Rubios are "underwater" homeowners -- owing more on their home than it is worth. (The homeowners John Boehner says should drown.)  In 2008 Rubio "failed to pay down the principal on his home." (Reuters) About the same time, he did not make payments on a $100,000 student loan. While not unusual, these circumstances are embarrassing for as Senator who repeatedly says, "We need a government that stops spending more money than it takes in." Unfortunately the good Senator has trouble following his own advice.

5. In 2006, as a bizarre sign of friendship, Governor Jeb Bush gave Florida House Speaker, Mario Rubio, a sword which Jeb labeled "the sword of Chang." The significance of the sword is not clear. perhaps it is to be used to behead his political enemies. Whatever the purpose, I for one am happy that it was a sword and not an a 32 clip Glock.

6. In 2006, Marco Rubio was elected to the U.S. Senate as the Tea Party/Republican candidate in a three-man race with an independent and Democrat splitting the anti-Rubio vote.

7. Although Marco is not among the top 1% financially, he is one of their boys and if he keeps kissing their behinds, he may end up there. His top corporate contributors are Koch Industries, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. When they say "jump," Marco asks, "How high?"

8. An advocate of responsible government spending, Mr Rubio, in his 2010 campaign, had difficulty controlling his personal spending. He charged $14K to $16K of his personal expenses to his Republican Party American Express credit card. After an FBI investigation he reimbursed $16K. No harm, no foul for the good senator; on the other hand,  public employees who used government credit cards for personal expenses were prosecuted.

9. You thought "the sword of Chang" was bizarre? A member of Mr. Rubio's staff resigned after tying his wife up in a carpet. It is difficult to imagine a reasonable explanation for that, but perhaps Newt Gingrich understands.

10. In spite of his Hispanic background, as Marco has ascended the Tea Party/ Republican ladder, he has distanced himself from Hispanic causes. He opposes the Dream Act, the Affordable Health Care Act, voted against Hispanics, Sonia Sotomayor and Marie Carmen Aponte, and supports the harsh immigration law in Arizona. As Fernand Amandi has said, " He is on the wrong side on every issue that matters to Hispanics."

11. Most recently Marco co-sponsored PIPA, the senate bill which he touted as an internet anti-piracy bill. Unfortunately the bill was an attack on a free internet and freedom of expression. After President Obama indicated he would veto it, and millions of internet users bombarded Washington with their opposition, the good senator withdrew his support. Perhaps, the next time, the he will do a little reading before he co-sponsors a bill the lobbyists put on his desk.

12. The most ironic development of the last few days has been that Charles Kirchner and the "Birthers" are arguing that Marco Antonio Rubio is not "a natural born citizen." Marco was born in 1971, but his parents did not become citizens until 1975. The Birthers argue that he cannot be vice-president because he cannot become president because he is not a natural born citizen.The Birthers attacked President Obama on this same issue even though  in his case, at least one of his parents was an American citizen at the time of his birth. Why does anyone even pay attention to these jerks? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." One has to think this whole Birther thing is nothing other than a xenophobic attempt to deny citizenship to the many Hispanics, who  like Marco Rubio were born in this country.

Senator Rubio is a United States citizen and eligible to be President.  The more important question is whether he would "promote the general Welfare" as required by the U.S. Constitution or be a puppet of the Tea Party.

Romney Royalty

Sometimes royalty just wants to be treated like royalty. You and I have to take off our shoes and allow the TSA to scan them; but if you are Willard Romney,  they bring you a chair to sit on while they scan your shoes, and of course, Romney Royalty do not have to remove their Italian hand-made wing-tips.


Everything is as it should be; royalty deserves special treatment. In fact,  I am a little miffed that the airport did not send someone out to hold an umbrella to protect the Royal Romney Heir from the hot sun. In fact,  they should have also sent someone to wave a palm branch to make Willard even more comfortable.


Wondering where he was going? I'm guessing it was to the Cayman Islands to visit his off-shore money.