Ron,

The other question is - how will Willard's Mormonism play in the South?

Anyone else remember 2008?

Then the 800# gorilla in the room was whether or not white blue collar Democrats would be able to vote for a man named Barack Hussein Obama?

The difference being, Democrats are not nearly as rigid as Christian conservatives...

Feisty: Good morning:

Mitt's Mormonism will likely play like a broken fiddle.

Ron I agree with both you an feisty. It is really a shame these evangelical place negative association to Willard's Mormonism instead of issues.

Hate destroys the Hater

Dr Martin Luther King Jr-quote

Is anyone else having problems getting into Politics on the MSNBC main screen?

The whole screen locks up on me.

alberto_ny

Romney's religious preference will play better than Obama's race in the south.

Would you care to elaborate on the word "race"? How do you mean it?

Is it etnhincy or campaign?

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day!

The man illustrated it is possible for all of us to have a dream...

alberto,

Tell me everything you know about how southerners vote. I really want to know.

If the rule was "Winner take all" then indeed he would be winning. But with the rule that each candidates gets a proportional number of delegates based on the number of votes they receive, Romney is not winning. He is LEADING. He doesn't have a majority; he has a plurality. It seems to me that the media pundits have bought the Romney language of "winning" instead of calling it for what it really is…leading.

Big deal. Did Obama win a majority of the Democratic primaries or did he win a plurality and was then put over the top by Super Delegates (the party insiders). Is there a point to your post?

Stop worrying if Republicans will vote for the Republican nominee. Just as Democratics will vote for the Democratic incumbent. The fight is over the center.

About Bain Capital

Information technology

IT Capability Sourcing

This is straight from the Bain website.

We help clients ensure that IT offshoring and outsourcing decisions are based on business strategy and help set up deal structures, capability networks and sourcing agreements to deliver enduring results–lower costs now and flexibility for the future.

Strategic sourcing is the process by which organizations determine how to access the right IT and business capability at the right cost. Sourcing must be managed effectively across the four key dimensions of management, resources, services and business processes.

Outsourcing of IT or business processes is just one option of sourcing strategies, often unleashing tremendous value. With strategic sourcing, Bain can enable clients to ensure sourcing decisions are based on business strategy and to help set up sourcing agreements to deliver value now and flexibility for the future.

http://www.bain.com/consulting-services/information-technology/it-capability-sourcing.aspx

============================================================
Contrast that website with the White House's:

President Obama's website introduced the White House's Insourcing Initiative."Insourcing: Bringing Jobs Back to America."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/01/13/west-wing-week-11212-or-insourcing-bringing-jobs-back-america

=================================================

Bain admits it outsources jobs. But, for how long will Bain be truthful about outsourcing?

I agree with Newt & clueless Sarah Willard should show his tax returns and rove he does not have a Cayman Island account.

ROFL!!!

Ron, good points, well said. The press talked about Romney winning by the largest margin in NH ever as well as winning both IA (by a whopping 8 votes) and NH which had never happened previously. Good grief, look at his opponents who, with the exception of Huntsman, represent extreme far right and even further far right. He should win based on that fact alone.

Feisty, definitely Romney's religion will be a factor even though it should not be. The fact that Santorum, after 3 votes, was endorsed by the religious right will likely mean more trouble for Romney. Mitt will win but it isn't going to be a cake walk for him

To all you hypocrites supposedly so concerned about "how will Mitt's Mormonism play in South CArolina"....

Well, I guess we'll have to see, won't we? But one thing we DO know for sure. If Mitt goes on to get the nomination and runs against Obama, you people here will be trashing, ridiculing and running down "HIS MORMONISM" left and right. This is a 100% guarantee. Mark my words. That's the kind of people some of you are.

Good morning Ron,

So true. Romney is leading. So many are calling this race as over. It would be like calling a football game over with a first quarter score of 6 to 3.

So true. Romney is leading. So many are calling this race as over. It would be like calling a football game over with a first quarter score of 6 to 3.

Again it was so different in 2008 after Iowa when Obama was anointed.

It would be like calling a football game over with a first quarter score of 6 to 3.

Speaking of football games...

Did I mention how depressed I am the Green Bay Packers LOST?

NOT!!! ;op

alberto,

Well, as a southern woman, I happen to notice that the demographics for the region are changing. The influence of the evangelicals here is quite strong, this will give Mr. Romney an extremely hard time. The minority population is growing, and despite the efforts of GOP legislatures to restrict the voting of minorities here, I don't think the south is a "gimmee" for Romney.

And, one - my child is grown and thus I have no need to change a child's diaper. Two, don't play ugly with me, it just demeans you and makes you look ridiculous.

...and in other news on the successes of the Economic Policy of this Administration

Obama set a goal of providing 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years. But that lofty vision is yielding to the political gravity generated by high costs, determined opponents and a public that has grown dubious of government’s ability to do big things.

So far, Obama has wagered more than $10 billion in federal money on high-speed rail, only to see his plans diminished, one after another.

And on the California Project Specifically

Beyond that, the estimated cost of the rail network has tripled from earlier estimates, to nearly $100 billion. Planners are at a loss to say where they will get the bulk of the money needed to complete it. And the completion date for the 800-mile system has been pushed back from 2020 to 2033.

But others are urging the governor to slow down, even if it means busting a 2017 deadline for spending all of the stimulus money earmarked for the project.

So here we have another example of politics attempting to drive business decisions with no regard to the economics of the decision. The state of California is attempting to spend borrowed money just because it was appropriated, on a train line that has no economic demand. You tell me who is being more fiscally responsible to their state? The governors that refused this money or Governor of California, aided by the President of the United States?

Willard -

Remember the old saying.

"IT AIN'T OVER TILL IT'S OVER"

Obama in 2012.

One

Big

Ass

Mistake

America

Anna Molly: How ‘bout them Giants!!!!

NONE of the football games this week went the way I wanted them to. But then again, those guys make MILLIONS of $$$ a year and only work SIX months out of the year. They're definitely rich happy 1%'ers. Funny how liberals never, ever whine about those guys salaries, bonuses and severance packages, isn't it?

So last debate Romney represented all that was divisive in the Country and by the next debate, he was your man to "lead to the Country back to greatness"? Nice Jon, nice.

For those talking about the nomination process, it does seem a little crazy, no? 50 States, not including the Territories, 1 Caucus and 1 Primary have taken place with proportional delegation and the race is bascially over? The only logical conclusion then is if as an active member of the political process in the Country you want to "matter" in the Primaries, you'll have to move to IA or NH.

Democracy is so beautiful.

Allen,

I sort of noticed that, too, about two small states deciding a nominee. I have been recommending to anyone registered Republican, that when primary day shows up here, to skip it and go to the beach!

“The more delegates I have, the more leverage I have,” Mr. Paul said in the interview here, during which he candidly discussed his hopes but remained circumspect about some issues. “We’ll go after delegates, and we have staying power.”

Asked whether he believed he would have the leverage to make Republicans more willing to accommodate his supporters and positions, he said: “I don’t know how they’re going to handle it. Because we’re very precise on what we would like, and I can’t imagine all of a sudden one of the other candidates changing their position on their desire to go to war constantly.”

He added: “How much leverage do I have? How many more votes am I going to get? You know, the more pressure they feel, the more they might be willing to look at some of those issues. We want to change things.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/ron-pauls-campaign-plots-path-focused-on-delegate-math.html?_r=1

He will NOT be bowing out...

dangerfield,

Good morning! First, congrats to your "G Men". Great, great football game. Second, I agree, Congressman Paul is in it to the convention. It will be interesting to see how the GOP works to accommodate him - and his delegates (not to mention his well structured campaign organization and loyal followers).

Another one bites the dust … Not Jon Huntsman but …

The leader of the Pakistani Taliban may have been killed in a recent U.S. drone
strike, Pakistani intelligence officials said Sunday (1/15/12).

Paul won't quit - I agree with dangerfield. From the underside, Newt is chiseling away at Romney. Over the course of the past couple of weeks with Perry and Gingrich hammering Romney on Bain Capital, the fast moving train that was Romney has met a huge incline. I personally hope Romney's train falls off the track since he's been opened up to vunerabilities.

I do understand the media's fascination and promoting of Romney though. They want him to win the nomination because they have bigger fish to fry in the general election. Romney reduces the chance of a republican presidential win and the media darling has a greater chance of success. The ONLY person that can beat Obama is Gingrich. Paul doesn't stand a chance, neither does Santorum. Perry will fall out shortly. This is my view and I approve it.

Dennis,

The follow up on this news will be interesting to see. One, did the Pakistanis okay the intrusion of the drone into their airspace and if not, does that increase the tension between the two countries? Another interesting question is where the intelligence came from, us or the Pakistanis? This will be interesting to follow.

Damage123

To all you hypocrites supposedly so concerned about "how will Mitt's Mormonism play in South CArolina"....

Well, I guess we'll have to see, won't we? But one thing we DO know for sure. If Mitt goes on to get the nomination and runs against Obama, you people here will be trashing, ridiculing and running down "HIS MORMONISM" left and right. This is a 100% guarantee. Mark my words. That's the kind of people some of you are.

Damage,

I don't think religion should be such a narrow determining factor. But, I am concerned about Willard gobbling up businesses and outsourcing as well as him not paying his taxes, and using tax payer $$s hypocritically. See #4 of list below.

As Governor, Mitt Romney used taxpayer money to fund four Sanctuary Cities for undocumented immigrants.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/23/1039317/-Gov-Mitt-Romneys-4-Sanctuary-Cities-for-Undocumented-Immigrants

============================================================================================

As head of the investment company Bain Capital, Mitt Romney laid off thousands of workers.

[CBS News, 01/28/2008]

3. The former Bain Capital managing director said of Mitt Romney's tenure: "We had a scheme where the rich got richer."

[Los Angeles Times, 12/16/2007

4. Mitt Romney set up shell companies in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda to avoid U.S. taxes.

[Los Angeles Times, 12/19/2007]

Mitt Romney falsely claimed he saw his father march with MLK Jr.

[The Boston Phoenix, 12/21/2007]

http://thinkprogress.org/romney-facts/#fact-4

============================================================

You see Willard would be bad for America. Plus, he LIES.

Show those tax returns Mitt; prove you don't have a cayman island account

According to Gallup polling, 18% of republicans are religious bigots who would not vote for a Mormon.

19% of independents are, likewise, religious bigots.

Fully 27% of democrats are religious bigots. On this board, we see proof of that number just about every day, as democrats bring up Romney's religion no matter what the post covers.

Sad, really.

He (Hunstman) was the only GOP presidential candidate who never adopted the Tea Party’s rhetoric. ...And he was the only one calling for civility in politics.

...and we see how far that got him with his own party.

It's pure good news for Obama/Biden.

The polls say that if the election were held today, it would be a virtual tie between Romney and Obama! That's got to worry the libbies, as Mitt hasn't had a chance yet to discuss the many failures of Obama's failed presidency... lots of material there and so far the old liberal media has given obama a pass.... Romney won't be so kind! And there's lots of uninformed and undecided voters out there that are wondering if it makes sense let the neighborhood organizer repeat his inadequacies of leadership. Can't teach an old dog new tricks, eh?

Damage, those NFL players are UNION workers so we liberals give them a pass. Seriously, I think some of the wagers are over the top but I also recognize the physical toll taken in the sport; and don't forget those multi-million dollar NFL players make their owners many multi-millions more. What should annoy people about the NFL is the fact that taxpayers subsidize those teams, taxpayers build the bigger, better stadiums just to keep the "team" in town. The Green Bay Packers is the only NFL team owned by the citizens of Green Bay, Wisconsin--cheers to them.

Jody,

Do you suppose Damage realizes that a lot of the NFL owners (very wealthy men, indeed) support Mitt Romney. I know for a fact the Jets owner and the Dolphins owner have come out for him. However, I will still watch the games whenever their team plays mine, I try to seperate politics from sport.

The ONLY person that can beat Obama is Gingrich. Paul doesn't stand a chance, neither does Santorum. Perry will fall out shortly. This is my view and I approve it.

Sorry, Brianb. Gingrich has no chance of winning the GOP nomination. The Republican establishment loathes the man.

You're going to have to get out some shoeshine and polish up your man Romney, I'm afraid.

Ha, forgot to edit, that's "wages are over the top".

phine, the only NFL team I know of that supports democrats is the Pittsburgh Steelers.

Pride and Joy, there are also polls which show Obama ahead of Romney by 6-8 points. Nope, doesn't worry we "libbies" at all considering the nonstop GOP candidates making their case 24/7. Once the general election starts, that will change.

This just in;

Huntsman decides to put party before country after all...

kaybeetoys - Politics are strange bedfellows. The republican establishment wants everyone to believe that Romney is the man at this point. The liberals believe it and it appears as though many republicans also believe it. In 2008, it appeared as though Huckabee was going to go all the way... The democrats weren't watching the republicans because they were all drooling over Obama and the race between him and Hillary was sapping all their attention. 2012 is different in the fact that the democrats are throwing in their 1/2 cent worth, but since it's the only game in town, they are paying it some mind. Politics are like chess... and the board is in full play... losing some pieces, but checkmate hasn't been played yet. We shall see, won't we? Personally I think Romney is a pawn.

Don't forget all the women that Romney lied to their faces that he would protect their right of choice. Romney wants you to believe that just because he lied a couple years ago that you should trust him now. A proved liar now won't release his tax returns.

I want to see his tax returns to see if the liar has something to hide or not. I think Romney is hiding something big as he is only the third person in history running for president who has not released his tax returns. He even stated that becoming president would not mean he would release his tax returns?????

Romney has engaged in slimy business practices and now wants to hide his finances from the public. Only a republican would be dumb enough to vote for Romney without seeing his tax returns.

Candidate Obama did not release his tax returns until March of 2008.

You can start complaining in April, 2012.

So here we have another example of politics attempting to drive business decisions with no regard to the economics of the decision.

Alan - Thank God (purposely using the conservative slant here) we have politics driving the California rail system project. If the state government had had the balls in to work on this in the past, it would have been started in the '70s and would be complete by now. But we in Cali foolishly followed the Reagan philosophy of letting economics drive the building of this network, and 40 years later, we have nothing in rail transportation between San Francisco and San Diego. What we now have are 1.5 hour drives between San Diego/Los Angeles that easily turn into 8 hours, 5 hours drives between San Francisco/Los Angeles that take 15 hours, 1.5 hour drives between Palm Springs/Los Angeles that routinely take 6-7 hours. Airline service is just as horrific with daily cancellations and flight delays that turn 45-50 flight times into trips that take 4-8 hours to reach destinations.

Private enterprise has done absolutely nothing to solve the commute issues in California, in fact, they have only added to the degradation. It is about time government stepped in to solve the problems. This is another fine example of the government finally stepping up to the plate to solve problems for the people vs. cow-towing to the whorish corporate business interests that would squash this solution.

Candidate Obama did not release his tax returns until March of 2008.

You can start complaining in April, 2012.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spoken as a Romney backer who KNOWS no good can come from their release...

Newton, Rep. Paul, and the VOTERS all rightfully disagree and are entitled to to all the information they REQUIRE to make an informed decision, in the "most important election of my lifetime #5 lol;

----------------------------------------------------------

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich offered Sunday to release his tax returns this week and challenged rival Mitt Romney to do the same.

"The country deserves accountability and transparency," Gingrich said, announcing he will release his returns on Thursday.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/15/gingrich-challenges-romney-tax-records-release#ixzz1jdrZjMBT
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't 2008 (or 1980!)

Candidate Obama's MegaFortune wasn't really an issue in the 2008 campaign, unlike candidate Romney, whose estimated quarter-Billion dollar holdings make him potentially the richest man to ever run for President.

Newton and perhaps others will bludgeon Candidate Romney ALL WEEK LONG to release his returns and will play his reticence into EVASION and that evasion into the insinuation that he has something to hide. Let's see if Mitt can tell them when THEY can start complaining...

no joe, you call people who will not vote for a Mormon "bigots" but let's just look at a fact about the Mormon religion: they believe that all christians and evangelicals will burn in h*ll unless they are baptised as a Mormon. This is a fact which you can easily verify. Now you tell me how a christian can vote for a man who, by his own claims, think they are all just tinder for the fires of h*ll? Why would he care what happens to them on earth, as they are already eternally damned? Trust me, this will be a big deal in the general election in certain states. This is the stuff that robo-calling just before the election was made for. Democrats are not above using this tactic - in 2012, no political party is.

BTW, I wasn't sure if you can write the word "h*ll" here, so I took no chances.

Don't forget folks, good ole Harry Reid is a Mormon. Talk about influence peddling he just got his no-account, party boy son, Josh, appointed to be the City Attorney for Henderson, NV! $190,000 a year for a guy who barely made it out of college, and has virtually no experience.

Not all Mormons are as trustworthy as Romney and Huntsman.... just like in any religion!

Sad, really.

No Jo .. not sad. The Mormon religion went on the rampage to fight gay marriage in California and are largely responsible for the success of Prop 8 .. this from a religion that is based in Utah and should keep their collective butts in Utah politics, where they belong, and not in California. While many say a candidates religion should not be looked at in politicians, I say it should be closely scrutinized. Romney is part of a religion that ran a successful political smear campaign in a neighboring state. If any voter believes his religion will not play a part in his policies for the nation, they are in for a rude awakening. All Mormon politicians should be closely vetted to ensure the religion does not enter the political arena on their behalf. Reid has proven he will not let religion shape his political views. Hatch has proven he will.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Then the 800# gorilla in the room was whether or not white blue collar Democrats would be able to vote for a man named Barack Hussein Obama?

As if! The Democrat party could have run the great grandson of Adolf Hitler and beat the Republicans that year, after Bush2 had screwed up the country so badly. The only real election for POTUS was Obama or Hillary. Too bad they picked Bush3.0.

Mitt hasn't had a chance yet to discuss the many failures of Obama's failed presidency...

Where have you been living? That's all he talks about, all day every day.

@Joe-Albany: I'm sure you'll enjoy this infantile response to your infantile Obama parse.

R epulsive

O mni

M egalomaniac

N arcissistic

E nigmatic

Y okel

Personally I think Romney is a pawn.

We share that view, Brianb. Romney is a pawn, just as Dubbya was a pawn...just as McCain became a pawn. Some maverick, huh?

Obama, on the other hand, is a master strategist. He can win at the same old political chess game the Republicans keep playing. Repubs always want their leaders to be sheep, and we have hours of videotape showing exactly how well the current crop bleats their anti-tax/ protect the rich rhetoric ad nauseum.

Private enterprise has done absolutely nothing to solve the commute issues in California, in fact, they have only added to the degradation. It is about time government stepped in to solve the problems. This is another fine example of the government finally stepping up to the plate to solve problems for the people vs. cow-towing to the whorish corporate business interests that would squash this solution.

This is a prime example of why we need government to fund and run certain businesses...in this case, transportation. The U.S. is light years behind Europe and Asia in public transportation and we will continue to be less competitive unless we change that. History shows that most forms of mass transportation are better left to the public sector.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day!

The man illustrated it is possible for all of us to have a dream...

Hats off to Mr. King! He gave his life to help make it possible for a man from a minority race to become the first President of the United States of America.

His dream that we be judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character was realized, at least in part, when Mr. Obama won the election in 2008.

Let's do it again! OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

alberto_ny

Romney's religious preference will play better than Obama's race in the south.

I think you're wrong about that, alberto, just based on demographics.

The southern states have a sizable population that shares the same race as Mr. Obama.

Mormons, on the other hand, are scarce in that part of the country.

Time will tell.

We love you Dr. Martin Luther King. Any true liberty seeker would not be able to resist loving you. Your bravery to the cause of freedom was inspiring. Some of us who truly tried to understand your messages and the thoughts and final ideas you had been learning before your death, now know the federal reserve bankers killed you because you had learned about the ultimate slave handlers deception on our people. It had given you a new ENERGETIC attitude, or the true fire of liberty. You were ready to awake the large group of people who would have believed you and you were brave enough to have done it. You surley would have further set the world down a different path. I will do my best for you towards true liberty and put myself out there on the chopping block of the publics guillotine with this message in hopes they will study your death for themselves. I sure wish you were here today to see that Americans have come together to put Obama in office and the color of our skin is no longer the issue, but you would surly be disheartened to see that he has shown none of the beliefs that you fought and died for in his actions. Worse yet, he has been supporting your killers.

Posted in Politics / World News | Leave a comment

Dr. King family’s civil trial verdict: US government assassinated Martin

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Carl Herman

“What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon.” - Napoleon Bonaparte [69]

The following is from : Occupy This: US History exposes the 1%’s crimes then and now (6-part series)

Dr. Martin Luther King’s family and his personal friend and attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty in the wrongful death of Martin Luther King. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, [70] is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King.

The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were denied, as suspect James Ray’s recant of what he claimed was a false confession was denied. Mr. Ray said that his government-appointed attorney told him to sign a confession in order to receive a trial. When Mr. Ray discovered that his signature meant no trial, his and the King family’s subsequent requests were denied.

The US government also denied the King family’s requests for independent investigation of the assassination.

Therefore, and importantly, the US government has never presented any evidence subject to challenge that substantiates their claim that Mr. Ray assassinated Dr. King.

US corporate media did not cover the trial, interview the King family, and textbooks omit this information. Journalist and author, James Douglass: [71]

“I can hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants, only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J. Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?” ”

For comparison, please consider the media coverage of O.J. Simpson’s trials: [72]

“Media coverage of the Simpson trial, which began in January 1995, was unlike any other. Over two thousand reporters covered the trial, and 80 miles of cable was required to allow nineteen television stations to cover the trial live to 91 percent of the American viewing audience. When the verdict was finally read on October 3, 1995, some 142 million people listened or watched. It seemed the nation stood still, divided along racial lines as to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. During and after the trial, over eighty books were published about the event by most everyone involved in the Simpson case.”

The overwhelming evidence of government complicity introduced and agreed as comprehensively valid by the jury includes the 111th Military Intelligence Group were sent to Dr. King’s location, and that the usual police protection was pulled away just before the assassination. Military Intelligence set-up photographers on a roof of a fire station with a clear view to Dr. King’s balcony. 20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day. Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper team. Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.

The King family believes the government’s motivation to murder Dr. King was to prevent his imminent camp-in at Washington, D.C. until the Vietnam War was ended and those resources directed to end poverty and invest in US hard and soft infrastructure.

Please watch this six-minute video of the evidence from the trial, [73] and this eight-minute video [74] on the FBI’s disclosures of covert operations against Dr. King, including confirmation from his closest friends and advisors.

Coretta Scott King, Dr. King’s wife, is certain of the evidence after 30 years of consideration from the 1968 assassination to the 1999 trial:

“For a quarter of a century, Bill Pepper conducted an independent investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. He opened his files to our family, encouraged us to speak with the witnesses, and represented our family in the civil trial against the conspirators. The jury affirmed his findings, providing our family with a long-sought sense of closure and peace, which had been denied by official disinformation and cover- ups. Now the findings of his exhaustive investigation and additional revelations from the trial are presented in the pages of this important book. We recommend it highly to everyone who seeks the truth about Dr. King’s assassination.” — Coretta Scott King, Dr. King’s wife.

The US Department of Justice issued a report in 2000 that explains their investigation into their own possible guilt in the assassination found no evidence to warrant further investigation. Dr. King’s son issued the following statement [75] rebuking a “self-study” rather than the independent investigation the King family assert the evidence demands:

“We learned only hours before the Justice Department press conference that they were releasing the report of their results of their “limited investigation,” which covered only two areas of new evidence concerning the assassination of Dr. King. We had requested that we be given a copy of the report a few days in advance so that we might have had the opportunity to review it in detail. Since that courtesy was not extended to us, we are only able at this time to state the following:

1. We initially requested that a comprehensive investigation be conducted by a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, independent of the government, because we do not believe that, in such a politically-sensitive matter, the government is capable of investigating itself.

2. The type of independent investigation we sought was denied by the federal government. But in our view, it was carried out, in a Memphis courtroom, during a month-long trial by a jury of 12 American citizens who had no interest other than ascertaining the truth. (Kings v. Jowers)

3. After hearing and reviewing the extensive testimony and evidence, which had never before been tested under oath in a court of law, it took the Memphis jury only one (1) hour to find that a conspiracy to kill Dr. King did exist. Most significantly, this conspiracy involved agents of the governments of the City of Memphis, the state of Tennessee and the United States of America. The overwhelming weight of the evidence also indicated that James Earl Ray was not the triggerman and, in fact, was an unknowing patsy.

4. We stand by that verdict and have no doubt that the truth about this terrible event has finally been revealed.

5. We urge all interested Americans to read the transcript of the trial on the King Center website and consider the evidence, so they can form their own unbiased conclusions.

Although we cooperated fully with this limited investigation, we never really expected that the government report would be any more objective than that which has resulted from any previous official investigation.”

Let’s summarize: Under US Civil Law, covert US government agencies were found guilty of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was the leading figure of the Civil Rights Movement, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and widely recognized as one of the world’s greatest speakers for what it means to be human. The family’s conclusion as to motive was to prevent Dr. King from ending the Vietnam War because the government wanted to continue its ongoing covert and overt military operations to control foreign governments and their resources.

It is therefore a factual statement that under US Civil Law, the US government assassinated Dr. King.

This is similar that under Criminal Law, both O.J. Simpson and the US government are not legally guilty for murder, but both parties are guilty for killing innocent victims under Civil Law.

People of sufficient intellectual integrity and moral courage will embrace the trial evidence and testimony, jury conclusion, and King family analysis as appropriate and helpful information in seeking the facts.

People who at least temporarily reject challenging information out of fear might say something like, “The government killed Dr. King? That’s a crazy conspiracy theory!”

Let’s consider that statement.

When someone says that a body of evidence is “crazy,” or a “conspiracy theory” (meaning an irrational claim easily refuted by the evidence) that’s a claim. With a claim comes a burden of proof. In this case, the person would have to demonstrate command of the facts to explain and prove why the evidence from the civil trial is somehow “crazy” and easily refuted.

If the person can do this, it would be tremendously helpful in understanding the facts. However, we know from our experience that such statements almost always have zero factual support, and that the person making such a claim literally doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

We also know from our experience, a person making such a statement is really voicing an emotional reaction something closer to the spirit of, “The government killed Dr. King? Ok, I read and understood the paragraphs about the trial and evidence. I read Mrs. King’s and her son’s statement. I haven’t invested the time to verify how valid that information is. I’m not stupid, but because the implications of what that means is so disturbing, I’m going to deny anything about it could possibly be true as my first response. If I’m going to continue being in denial and refuse to discuss the evidence, I’ll attack the messenger.”

We also need to consider the lack of coverage by US corporate media of this compelling evidence, trial verdict, and King family testimony from over 30 years’ analysis of the facts. Recall the evidence of US corporate media reporting being infiltrated by CIA agents to propagandize Americans’ access to information. This included the Director of the CIA’s admission to Congress that they have over 400 agents working in corporate media to make the US public believe what the CIA wants them to believe.

In 2006, George Washington University used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the US military’s “Information Operations Roadmap.” This formerly secret and approved document details present US government strategies to generate propaganda, and then attack Internet alternative media that provides dangerous facts and discussion. The military promoted the term, “Fight the net.” [76]

Although I won’t enter the burden of proof here, you may know that there are similar and related bodies of evidence that the US government assassinated other American leaders who opposed key policies of an apparent violent faction within US government. The 1975 Senate Church Committee disclosed that the US government initiated and helped assassination attempts on multiple foreign heads of state. [77]

If we were discussing how the population of some other nation could employ critical thinking skills to understand current events from anytime in history, we would certainly understand the importance to anticipate disinformation from government, danger of controlled media, and assassination as a political weapon.

Failure to do so would appropriately elicit the label attributed to the first dictator of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin. Such people who believe what their government tells them when the history and present have overwhelming objective evidence to explain, document, and prove that the government is typical of so many other historical self-serving oligarchies are:

“

By 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )

The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.

When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."

After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.

Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.

care4mycountry,mychildren,myparents

J Edgar spied on Dr. king and just like President Obama Dr. King was considered to be a communist.

No Jo @ 1.32

I have to part company with you on this one, I take great offense at anyone who says that you should vote for me because I'm a ________(insert religious affiliation here)

I do this for two reasons,

#1 WE do not take the lords name in vain, and

#2 "All you self-righteousness is like filthy rags before me"

I will explain the first for those that need to have it explained, the second is self explanatory.

Taking the Lords name in vain is not the usual thing we are taught as children, saying "God-damned" this or that is NOT taking his name in vain, it is cussing, which we should all teach our children is wrong and our first demonstration of adult hypocrisy to our children.

Taking the Lord's name in vain is claiming publicly that you are a believer in the lord when in actuality your actions speak a completely different tune. Cloaking one's self in the lord to disguise your intents is genetic in politicians of every bent, they are the quintessential liars and frauds, and cause more damage to a society and people than anything else ever created in the history of Man.

This is why most honest people automatically understand that most politicians are liars. There is only one candidate in this race that hasn't tried to cloak himself in the mantle of god, Dr Paul. The rest have in some context or other. Dr Paul rejects the "Mantle" stating that his relationship with god is a personal matter and is not something to be cited for political gain. It makes a mockery of your faith to use it as political fodder.

Just another of my reasons for supporting Dr Paul... He is an honest man.

Agree Egilman,

Instead of debating how isolated events will affect the political winds, why not try to come up with a solution for a dysfunctional Washington that will sell it's soul for personal gains ?

Why don't we elect an independent Ron Paul and throw a wrench in the gears of corrupt politics, why don't we force democrats and republicans to work together for the common good rather than left or right wing extremism, and why don't we work to return control of government to the people by way of Ron Paul.

phinephancy-4252115

a lot of the NFL owners (very wealthy men, indeed) support Mitt Romney. the Dolphins owner have come out for him.

Phine- when my hubby saw that he was fit to be tied, I just laughed, I don't know who my owner (The Devil aka Jerry Jones) is supporting nor do I care since his opinion means two dead flies to me, but it was hilarious to watch my husband get that mad.

Beverly: President Obama's job Czar is (was) Jeffery Imelt, head of GE who just recently said they will move their headquarters to China. The only jobs Mr. Imelt made while under the helm of President Obama were jobs in China.

This is a global economy and we need to take part in it by adapting to it or go by the way side. Bain Capital is instrumental in investing in companies that created jobs here at home. Sometimes investment capital doesn't help and other times, it is paramount to success in turning businesses around. Without the Bain Capitals of the world, businesses would never be able to create jobs and like Jefferey, will just take them to China where it is easier.

That makes sense Egilman! And even if Dr. Paul winds up pouring it in our butts like the rest of the poliitcians, at least he will know what he is doing.

Jon Huntsman was at least rational on the stump and offered a grown-up version of the GOP policy argument, something that voters may well have embraced in the general.

Do you know any Democratic voter who would vote for Huntsman over Obama?

I thought Huntsman was a decent candidate but he didn't gain any traction. What we don't need is crocodile tears from the left about how they could have supported him. Bull@!$%#!

Alan,

No, I probably would not have voted for him, mainly for his domestic policy and his support of the Ryan Plan. However, I certainly liked his views on Asia and trade. I also appreciated the way he presented his views.

No crocodile tears here. Just intellectual interest in the man, and curiosity on why the sudden departure.

It's hardly "crocodile tears" to provide an opinion of the GOPTP candidates. Nothing in the left's comments regardingly him implies democrats would vote for Huntsman. That said, independents as well as Ron Paul supporters would have liked Huntsman's anti-war stand, his let's get out of Afghanistan view along with other moderate, reasonable approaches such as gay rights.

The fact is that Hunstman's "would have been strength" was the Independent voters, the block of voters which swings every election.

I hate to see Jon Huntsman drop out. Of the entire Republican group running, he is the only one I have any respect for.

@Phine

I probably would not have voted for him, mainly for his domestic policy and his support of the Ryan Plan.

Unless both parties start being fiscally responsible you are going to get the Ryan plan on steroids AND the Clinton tax rates (all of them).

Obama's biggest blunder has been the fact that he ignored Simpson-Bowles.

Alan,

We can agree on one thing, I wish the President had paid more attention to Simpson-Bowles. However, let's play fair here, team red wasn't exactly jumping up and down for it either.

However, let's play fair here, team red wasn't exactly jumping up and down for it either.

Nope, but they don't control the Administration. Leadership comes from the top.

Politically, I think if Boehner and McConnell had embraced the plan they would have had a political winner.

Alan,

The left hated the cuts and reforms to social security and medicare/medicaid. The right couldn't see past raising revenue from the wealthy and cuts to defense. Sad thing is, all of that needs to be done - together. However, everyone is so engrossed in winning one for their team, the losers are the American people.

Nope, but they don't control the Administration. Leadership comes from the top.

Politically, I think if Boehner and McConnell had embraced the plan they would have had a political winner.

=============

I wasn't exactly aware the Congress and it's "leaders" were on the bottom.

To formally endorse its own plan, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform needed 14 out of 18 votes in favor of the recommendations. It only received 11. All 3 House Republicans on the commission, Dave Camp, Jeb Hensarling and Paul Ryan, voted against the recommendations.

The fact that so many lefties say they like Huntsman and say stupid things like "he's the only sane one running", is at least partly the reason no real consevatives want him anywhere near the White House. Any Repub who is liked by the far left is not a true conservative. It's almost like a dirty trick you people want to play: "Hey ! Nominate that guy!!!" lol

Which brings us to the fact that, if Huntsman WAS nominated and ran for Prez, these same libs would then be calling him an extremist and a nazi. You'd be trashing his family, his personal life etc...Remember John McCain?

Then, years from now when he's dead, you'd be going on and on about how "boy, they don't make conservatives like Huntsman anymore...." "He was one that I could really get behind...." And once again, you would be full of s**t.

@Allen

Relatively speaking I would say it's the President, Leader of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Minority Leader. The only time I've seen the opposition in the house amount to more than a hill of beans was in the 1994 election with Newt Gingrich.

@Da Noid

To formally endorse its own plan,

So the President would only support the findings of his own commission if they formally endorsed the plan? As I said a lack of leadership. (or in his case leading from behind).

Damage, according to what I have read over the last year or so, Obama saw Huntsman as a reelection threat, and sought to neutralize that threat- a perfectly legitimate course for any politician, particularly when done in the manner Obama chose.

By all accounts, Huntsman was a fine Ambassador to China. He acceptsd the job, probably fully aware of the damage to his credibility, but also probably believing that he could mitigate it, while at the same time using it to strengthen is foreign policy credentials. Unfortunately, he failed to do so in a way that resonated.

The talking point- that Huntsman was the only credible candidate even to be considered- was a well thought out tactic to further undermine his candidacy. I know- I've got the emails.

A president has to have the ability to govern, but he also needs to have the political savvy to get the job done. Huntsman may have many admirable traits, but political savvy is not one of them. He simply could not get his own message out.

He will, however, make a fine Secretary of State in the Romney administration.

What is forgotten about Simpson-Bowles is that it didn't have the votes to get out of committee for consideration by Congress. Even if it had, it would never have been passed the House or Senate. There was also a great deal in it that tilted to the wealthy; it didn't solve social security and medicare the easy way by raising the wage cap but took the conservative approach of raising the retirement age, and other steps that would have harmed seniors. I don't think President Obama ignored Simplson-Bowles; he has taken some of the good things in it and tried to get Congress to act on them.

Alan---while most Democrats want to see President Obama re-elected, we would also like to see a real debate about the challenges facing our country from Republicans who we can respect--Huntsman was one of those for many of us. (I have had problems with his loyalty). We also look ahead 4 years down the road to wonder who will be vying for leadership of the Republican party---based on perceived competency of the people, not their ideologies. We just want good, smart people running from both parties because we think it is good for the whole country.

@Steeler

Interesting point. This election will be about basic philosophy. Unlike the Clinton Administration, this one does believe that all ideas, investment and direction should come from the Federal Government (not even delegating issues to the states). Whoever is the Republican nominee will oppose this view. It is not going to be an election over competence or smart government it is going to be over the role of government in general and the Federal Government in particular.

I tend to lean to side that government should not be in business. Regulate, tax and create a social safety net is fine, but when it tries to influence the direction of the economy by picking winners then I disagree. I also believe that neither party has come up with a fiscal plan that is meaningful. Either way we can not take more of George W Bush's crony capitalism and big government spending (Medicare D), nor can we take more of Barack Obama's crony capitalism (Green Energy and High Speed Trains).

So, hopefully both parties will put up solutions rather than attempt to tear the other down (much more likely), but as I posted above the future I see is one of Paul Ryan's spending plans, with the Clinton tax rates because right now, we are living way beyond our means.

Don't know if you watched Morning Joe today where there was the usual nashing of teeth over Big Business and what they did to the middle class. There was a whole lot of sympathy because 1 in 2 were at near poverty and all they could do was over extend themselves by borrowing from the evil Big Banks. When Mike Barnacle suggested that they do what our parent and grandparents did and live within their means he was almost thrown off the set. Well I'm with Mike. You could borrow as much as wanted 50 years ago but it was socially unacceptable. Now it's everybody deserves the latest gadget now, no need to save up. I don't care if you're working poor, middle class or uber rich. Live within your means! The easiest example of where to save. Most people don't need a smartphone with $30+ data plan, and you can still text!

Obama's biggest blunder has been the fact that he ignored Simpson-Bowles.

I disagree, Alan,NJ.

Mr. Obama's biggest blunder is that he failed to realize how doggedly the Republicans would oppose all of his initiatives, no matter what the cost to this country.

His mistake was in thinking the other side cared more about the good of the nation than they do about defeating him utterly and getting their power back. He tried to do things in a bipartisan way for too long. He tried to compromise for too long.

He won't make the same mistake in his second term.

Huntsman would have made a VERY GOOD VP pick for Dr Paul, but, he blew any chance of that when he comes out in support of Mitts....

Wring your hands because someone says that Huntsman wasn't either a complete right wingnut, Looney Tune, Religious zealot, whore mongerer, or heartless business tycoon and then complain they wouldn't have voted for them anyway.

Progressives don't march in lockstep like the Regressive party of No does. Some are independents and may well have voted for Huntsman. I think the odds of them voting for one of the others is reduced when they read the silly a$$ comments like above about "they wouldn't have voted for him anyway". Just proving the point.

I agree Egilman, I still think Johnson would be a good pick for VP, since Huntsman blew it.

Hey Feisty! Did you catch the censorship collapse fest last night? The RWNJ gang were in full force. I just can't fathom the paranoia and intensity of hate, lies and misinformation.

"I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them. " ~Adlai Stevenson
Obama/Biden 2012

Hey Feisty! Did you catch the censorship collapse fest last night?

I caught it alright GF! lol

If their behaviour now is any indication of what's in store... we better get used to it. ☺

Talk about some 'angry birds'! lol

You are 100% spot on in your assessment of PP... I can't put my finger on it either!

Feisty Redhead Roselle,

If their behaviour now is any indication of what's in store... we better get used to it. ☺

Talk about some 'angry birds'! lol

Feisty ,girl friend

As ridiculous as this may sound I think with this display of hilarity from the clowns who call themselves candidates , all president Obama has to do during the debate is smile and he will win. I mean these candidate are soooooo funny it is utterly impossible to take them seriously.

I'm a little late but I am on my way to downtown Bank Of America OWS rally in the spirt of Dr.King. I hope to catch the tail end of it Rev. Jessie Jackson has asked to not just recite dr. King quotes but to do something to keep the Dream Alive. Last night Rev Jackson slept @ homeless shelter and ministered to the down trodden.

Rev Jackson also pointed out that many people living in shelters do have jobs. it's just that they don't make enough money to pay rent. Rev Jackson also said he is reviving the Poor People's Campaign

History of Poor People's Campaign

In November 27, 1967,Dr Martin Luther King JR. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference organized a Poor People's Campaign to address issues of economic justice and housing for the poor in the United States, aiming itself at rebuilding America's cities. The Poor People's Campaign did not focus on just poor black people but addressed all poor people.Martin Luther King jr. labeled the Poor People's Campaign the "second phase," of the civil rights struggle - setting goals such as gathering activists to lobby Congress for an "Economic Bill of Rights," Dr. King also saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its "hostility to the poor " - appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity," but providing "poverty funds with miserliness."

Under the "economic bill of rights" the Poor People's Campaign asked for the federal government to prioritize helping the poor with an antipoverty package that included housing and a guaranteed annual income for all Americans.

http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/

I am donating my old clothes to a shelter in following with Rev Jackson & President Obama to do to help keep the spirit of Dr. King's legacy alive. I'm not rich like Spanky, but I think my heart is in the right place.

Will report back to you tomorrow. I hope I won't be too late.

Hi Bev,

Your heart is in the right place, your pocketbook doesn't matter. There is a lot of Dr King's legacy that needs to be kept alive, but I have to disagree on this one, all we need to establish government dominance of all Americans is for the government to start mandating an income for every American.

Any income so mandated would not be sufficient to really fully support anyone, It would be managed just like a "Welfare" program, how does this co-exist with the IRS? the government gives on one hand only to take away on the other.

What about wage controls? soon, would come price controls because we must make sure that the mandated income is enough to purchase sufficient needed items for survival. How would this be achieved? using the current welfare card? those are sold regularly to support purchasing items that the benefits don't buy, this would exacerbate this problem. Which leads into the next problem, mandating what people can and can't buy.

It's collectivism in a massive scale, this is why it failed during Dr King's day and will fail again, Even the Marxist USSR didn't even try to enact something as massively authoritarian as this.

feisty, I suppose you know the Green Bay team is the only publicly owned team. While I don't like such a destructive sport, I do think that is the ONLY reason to support a team.

I had that same thought, Amy---if Huntsman plans to run in 2016, he will have some fence-mending to do with that paper!

Are you getting any warm up today? We're going to 40!

Steeler Fan, yeah, I'm thinking The State might be pretty quiet about who they support in 2016!

Bright blue skies today, dazzling sunshine, and temp is...14 degrees. My apartment was so cold this morning, putting my clothes on, after a warm shower, made me feel colder, my clothes were cold.

I'm not sure about endorsements and their value--to either party--as the media is changing so much, but it seems to me that if Huntsman had been thinking about this for a few days as has been suggested, then he owed it to the paper to tell them. Maybe naive on my part because it couldn't be kept a secret, but it seems tone deaf to me, as has the whole Huntsman ending of his candidacy.

Stay warm!!

Fast decision by Huntsman. What bothers me is the intellectual dishonesty. If you base your campaign on "Mittens can't be trusted" (which is oh so very true.) and turn around and endorse him? What does that say about YOUR trustworthiness, Huntsman?

newday,

Can't help but think that there is more of a back story here that we know nothing about - and of course, I want to know it!!! :)

I think you are right phine, this was far too abrupt. Either Huntsmans' daddy was turning off the money, or someone with influence told him to drop out.

newday, I wonder if we will ever hear the real story on why he suddenly dropped out? Probably after the general election, is my guess, and I have a feeling it won't reflect well on him, Romney and the GOP.

Someone will write about it. I hope so anyway.

Huntsman's endorsement of Romney seems odd but when one looks at the other candidate who are so extreme in one way or another, he probably didn't think he had any choice. That said, Huntsman would have been better off to not endorse at this time.

Jody,

I agree. I think that is what makes this whole thing appear so odd.

I agree, there is more to Huntsman's sudden departure than is being reported. I'm inclined to think Daddy wasn't willing to flush a few more million down the toilet. Huntsman has never gained traction. He placed 3rd in NH but considering he spent nearly ALL his time there reinforces the lack of enthusiasm for him. He wasn't going anywhere in 2012.

Good Morning Friends, I see we have a new troll come to play here, Alberto has all the snark that the usual suspects from the right show....must be in their genes. They are like flies on honey, predictable. Notice how the continue to denigrate the President, but never say anything positive about any of their candidates, I wonder if their candidates are so wonderful, why does the right, try to make it more difficult for people to vote.

Well Jody & Phine;

No one can say for certain, but my take is that his endorsement of Romney assures the President's re-election.

Having campaigned as the "anti-Romney" and now backing him publicly, Huntsman splits the Tea/Republican party down the middle; throw in Ron Paul, and the right is so fractured that no GOP/TEA candidate will amass enough votes in November to exceed the President. They will now be forced to view Mitt as a left-leaning conservative and NOT in the group with Santorum and Newter et al... no blind promise to Grover/Rove & company in the public view, or at minimum creating doubs & questions from the far right.

And there is always the possiblility of a third (or fourth, or even fifth) party candidacy from this group.

May be wrong, but in any event I think the process is going to become VERY interesting.

Gingerbreadmamma:

why does the right, try to make it more difficult for people to vote

Such tactics are their ONLY hope at this point. They are starting to realize how badly they've stepped in it with the obsstruction and hostage taking.....

That ends any hope of there being a thoughtful intellectual presidential debate. The debate now will be between an intellectual and a clown.

Gingerbread Mamma, hard not to miss the fact they never talk "up" their own candidates; tells me they don't like what they see and they don't have anything good to say about their own. About the only time I read about a conservative candidate from conservatives comes from the Ron Paul supporters.

Perhaps the proper incentive was given to Huntsman.

GBM----a good reminder that we should make good use of the "ignore" feature here!

Hey, I Talk up Dr Paul ALL the time! (not that anyone is listening....) ;-0) //:snark off

Thank you Jody! Some of us on the right side do have a little integrity.

Religion and politics-no thanks.

Good Morning Cynbad!

Religion & politics = oil & water...

Cynthia,

I will go a little further - keep politics and religion out of sports, keep religion out of politics and keep politics out of religion.

Personally, I don't think Christmas and Easter should be federal holidays. And if you preach politics from the pulpit, you lose your tax exempt status.

Excactly, phine!

If they want to preach and endorse politics from the pulpit, they can pay a 10% tithe tax!

alberto,

Perhaps you should do some research and fact checks on your own and you will find that President Obama has a very good record to run on, as a former Senator and as our current President.

alberto_ny

are you kidding? Have you reviewed Obama's record as a Senator. He did NOTHING and is doing NOTHING, same ole same ole. He is a zero.

The Truth About President Obama's accomplishments

Obama has overhauled the food safety system
Advanced women's rights in the work place
Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military
Stopped defending DOMA in court.
Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it.
Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance.
Invested in clean energy.
Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.
While Dodd-Frank bill was weak in many respects, it was still an extremely worthwhile start at re-regulating the financial sector.
He created a Elizabeth Warren's dream agency: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
He's done a lot for veterans
He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks.

None of these things were priorities for Republicans. They actively opposed, directly or indirectly through obstruction, every single item on this list. In fact, they succeeded in killing a Cap & Trade bill in the Senate after it had passed through the House.

All of these things are improvements that would not have occurred under a McCain-Palin administration. Moreover, a McCain-Palin administration would have moved in the other direction on most of these issues, or come up with even worse compromises.

Booman then concludes with:

The president has achieved a tremendous amount under the circumstances. And it matters greatly that he not be replaced by Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, or Michele Bachmann. Or even Ron Paul.

Of course, since that time…

He's killed Osama Bin Laden
Eliminated several other Al-Qaeda leaders
Ended the War in Iraq
Begun the drawdown of forces from Afghanistan
End-run Republican obstructionism by recess-appointing Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Board.

To fully understand the Stakes of the 2012 election, please read…

We all have a choice in the 2012 election.

For much larger and more detailed list of achievements…

See our main list product from this site (not updated since November, 2010)
Notes on the coming update can be read on the ABOUT page of this site

For a much more recent list of achievements…

Please see a few of these lists (which will soon be assimilated on the coming update of this site).

ThePeoplesView.com Achievements List
Milt Shook’s Achievements List (PleaseCutTheCrap.com)

Related Information

How Barack Obama Left John Boehner Holding the Teabag, Again.
Obama as Chess Master: 'Think of Him as Bobby Fischer (James Fallows, TheAtlantic)
More Politics 101: Obama is Smarter Than Us (by Milt Shook)
3 Big Victories for Obama & Dems in Debt Ceiling Fight – Republicans Just Trying to Save Face
Barack Obama and the myth of the progressive ‘majorities’(by The Reid Report)
Why Americans are Fed Up with Armchair Beltway Talking Heads

http://obamaachievements.org/

=================================================

alberto_ny

See what I mean about conduits (tools) of the right wing watching that idiot box; FOX NOISE???

P.S. Give me a list other than naming flag colors, putting motto on coins and other foolish agenda that has nothing to do with jobs and the economy the RepubliCONS have done.

Might I also add the Republicans have added ZERO (0) J-O-B-S to this economy as the Boner promised in 2010.

alberto, NY, seriously, I suggest you review President Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate as well as in the US Senate. For one thing, then Senator Obama worked closely with GOP Senator Lugar to do something about Russia's "lose nukes".

P.S. Congress is responsible for preparing and passing a "budget"; all any President (R or D) can do is submit recommendations which President Obama did last year.

alberto,

What happened to the surplus left to President Bush when he took office?

As of last October, Republicans had introduced

44 bills on Abortion

99 on Religion

71 on Family Relationships

36 on Marriage

67 on Firearms / Gun Control

522 on Taxation

455 on "Government Investigations"

and, wait for it, ZERO on job creation!!

That is Alberto's heros at work. What a troll.

Guy's Alberto has no idea what he's talking about, he's just spouting bits and pieces of crap he's heard from Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) and Limbaugh (aka racist).

BTW: Job1, don't ask Alberto to fact check, he thinks facts are watching Fox (aka tea people GOP republican propaganda machine) and listening to Limbaugh (aka racist). Just like a true tea people GOP republican, when you present him with facts he just goes off on a tangent about something else.

alberto,

Very well said.

You already have gotten attacked just because your opinion doesn't AGREE with the left wing liberal maniacs here.

They are a bunch of FASCISTS trying to shut you up because they have a agenda.......to get Obama elected.

I can understand they have a right to their opinion but they think that YOU are not allowed to have your own opinion.

Liberals are suppose to believe in FREE SPEECH. What happened ????????

It must be the kool aid. I hear it affects brain function. LOL

Ha, Alberto, that's a gem. Michele Bachmann praised China's economic system, no regulation, no unions, etc--guess that makes her a communist. Newt Gingrich's campaign claims he created 11 million jobs while Speaker of the House. You see, Alberto, government policy is what creates jobs as well as local, state and federal government investment in highways, bridges, dams, public schools, streets, sewer systems, water mains, fire and police departments, city maintenace, and so forth.

Then the liberals collapsed his post.

Wait that is what the righties love to do. Alberto's post are all still there for all to read even the one where he claims he is a democrat. Made me laugh that was a good one Alberto.

Just exactly how have liberals stood in the way of Alberto's free speech?

Leona you are proof, it is the kool aid and you should ease up.

Oh My - Leona and her kool-aid benders. That idiot savant needs to switch to vodka so she'll pass out after a couple.

Phine @ 9.3

And if you preach politics from the pulpit, you lose your tax exempt status.

You GO Girl!!!

I would add,

If you preach religion on the campaign trail then you should be kicked out of the campaign.

My Name is Egilman, and I endorse this message!

Then tell me how great a decision it was.

It's already bit them in the ass!

I ♥ it!

And now we have the up and coming sequel-Citizens United-Part 2!

Da Noid, agree.

Stephen Colbert has done more toward getting Citizens United into the daily discussion than any politician could ever do. He takes the debate out of the GOP vs Democrat arena and puts it squarely where it belongs; it's a bipartisan concern that big money, the powerful few are buying and killing democracy.

Amen.

Dear Focus on the Family,

In the future, please stay out of my football games. Thank you.

I triple this motion please call the question!

PASSED! (not that the networks will listen)

alberto,

I can see you need to take some classes in reading comprehension. Where in the world did you come up that load of malarkey from my stating that the money in political campaigns is obscene and that we need campaign finance reform? You need to get over yourself real quick, stop acting the fool, and try to contribute something worthwhile to conversation or you will find yourself mocked and ignored from others - not just me.

phinephancy,

Whenever someone disagrees with a liberal ( like you), they are told......(your words) "stop acting the fool, and try to contribute something worthwhile to conversation or you will find yourself mocked and ignored from others - not just me."

Is that what free speech is all about?? You liberals want to control the dialogue and mute any one who has an opposing opinion. I thought liberals were FREE SPEECH proponents.

What a hypocrite you are!

Leona,

Do you have an opinion on finance reform? And my response to Alberto was not only to my post here, but all the others he has made. You, my dear, have made it abundantly clear to all your extreme hate of anyone who disagrees with you or who you presume to be "liberal". As for myself, I prefer to considered an American, not a label.

C'mon Leona. You know Libs are all about free speech AS LONG AS THEY AGREE WITH IT. If not, they want it shut down in the name of sensitivity, political correctness etc... Yes, they are incredible hypocrites.

And yet, not one comment on whether the money in politics is bad, and if we need campaign finance reform. Pathetic.

Alberto is already being mocked and ignored by most phinephancy. Do you honestly think Leona, Damage or Alberto are going to contribute anything here but hate for our President?

Same old tea people GOP republican trick, being a hypocrite but calling everyone else one, and they think this is still working. NOT

No...Leona, Damage, Alberto...they love themselves some SuperPAC...all the money, none of the responsibility!

Actually alberto_ny,

consistency, common sense and fairness is greatly respected around here no matter what side you are on. Emotional blather, while at times is a useful tactic, generally doesn't add anything to the debate.

And to those democrats that claim it is a republican tactic, read the boards and explain to me why it is a tactic that all together too many democrats use also?

Phine,

The actual effect of Citizens United is a balancing of campaign resources. It takes all the limits off both sides, there is no real winner, and the only loser is the average citizen.

To hell with rep or dem, Let's just stop fighting....I wish someone, anyone, would run as an independent and talk about the ISSUES....all the middle of the road people would flock to him/her, as well as alot of disillusioned rep's and dem's.

Job1,

If he keeps it up, using Ideology's line, he will go on ignore with no chance of parole!

BTW, hope you had a great weekend.

phinephancy,

Is that suppose to be a threat toward Alberto when you are said he will "go on ignore with no chance of parole!"

You are kidding if you think anyone cares who YOU ignore.

I learned something very illuminating from the Msnbc leftist bloggers here..................you are all a bunch of FASCISTS when it comes to free speech.

According to you, we can speak ONLY IF WE AGREE with your leftist BULLSH#$.

Goodbye, Leona. I will not be called names by you or listen to your hate filled venom any longer. Ignored/no parole.

Actually, the Progressives who post here just get tired of hearing all of you non-factual hate talk toward the President, with no facts to back up your arguments. It all recycled garage in and garbage out. Remember, your opinion doesn’t make something factual.

EXCUSE ME!

I've actually defended Leona in other posts on this board and on the vine, but name calling vitriol also gets her on my ignore list also.

Particularly against phine, she is a moderate with a VERY reasonable outlook, I put leona on my ignore list because if she will do that to one she will do it to all.

Personal attacks are OUT, if that is the game you all want to play go somewhere else.

We Repubs and Indies will be at the polls in record numbers in November.

Romney/Rubio 2012 for jobs jobs jobs.

So, Leona& alberto, what magazines, books and newspapers do you read and where do you get your information from to support your choice? How does your candidate intend to accomplish his promises?

So Leona, what magazines, books and newspapers do you read

Are you kidding me?

You don't seriously think Leona the Loon can read do you? lol

Hell, as it is, she can barely write!

Americans are moving away from 'fast food' politics and aren't going to settle for zero substance anymore, no matter who's throwing the party. It takes a long time to turn the country around - in the face of the mantra of the status quo and presidential no shows, and those whose vision is limited to the space between the recliner and the television. And to the 'back to the old frontier' tactics some propose will happen if the foundation of the Constitution is again followed - without government's heavy hand, Americans will be free to fly higher than ever before. Freedom feeds creativity and advancement, it doesn't squelch it, much more than any government agency can ever do. Freedom is fear only to the caged bird. Ron Paul 2012!

without government's heavy hand, Americans will be free to fly higher than ever before.

And crash and burn from never before seen heights. Paul is a loon who's followers exhibit the exact same qualities that you deride, but this one especially:

those whose vision is limited to the space between the recliner and the television

You can't turn the clock back, you can't put the genie back in the bottle and you cannot make the United States crawl down some hold and hide because a bunch of people have no problem solving skills and think the answer to all that goes on around them is to hide. Hiding solves no problems, returning to the past solves no problems.

Ron Paul only wants to bring the robber barons back to power. The rich get freedom and the poor get nothing.

Ron Paul voted to continue the special tax cuts to the billion dollar oil corporations. Yep more freedom for the rich to get everything and the poor can just die if they don't have health insurance.

Ron Paul voted against increasing the minimum wage. Once again a vote for the 1%.

With tax cuts during war time, Ron Paul voted to create the deficit we have hanging over our country. He voted for it, but thinks that only the poor need to pay for the deficit while the richest get more tax cuts. I saw him raise his hand that 10-1 cuts to tax increases was not enough. He wants it all to be cuts for all Americans so he can protect the rich from increased taxes.

What Ron Paul is offering is not freedom. Read some history on the robber baron days and see if you really think that was freedom.

Ahhhh, who else used that phrase "one and done"? Now they're blogging under Alberto's name. Believe me, Alberto's statement to the contrary, he is not a Democrat - he is a paid troll from Faux Noise. They just put a new name on him and sent him out. So far, I have yet to hear the semblance of a reasonable argument from him regarding anythig, so like the rest of you, "ignore - no parole", as it is tiresome to say the least - and boring. Alberto, "one and done".

Amused and Americans First - Your argument is not against Ron Paul. Your argument is against the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ron Paul 2012!

No. It's not. Try reading. There is nothing "Constitutional" about what Ron Paul wants to do. He cherry picks just like everyone else.

Amused - My reading is not the issue. Your lack of comprehension is. Ron Paul 2012!

hey jennifer ,

Do you realize that you just "researched tidbits from 40 years ago and it's only hearsay ??

You are either very bored or a Jackie Collins wannabe?

Hilarious nonsense.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that Leona...

whos jackie collins??? must have been before my time....and I remember the whole newt /clinton thing and that was only 20 years ago (I remeber my Colonel dad calling newt a big fag pussy though)......so if newt is you guy...so be it...I think him and his wife are too ugly and disgusting to be POTUS...my opinion...

We all know that Chicago politics is "dirty" and Senators are bought and sold there. (ask Blago)

So, can we assume Obama was bought and paid for by the Chicago mafia style politics machine??

leona, We all know what assume means. Keep up the good work!

assume = making an assumption

alberto,

I like that definition of assume. lol

can we assume Obama was bought and paid for by the Chicago mafia style politics machine?

Gosh, the Chicago mafia wanted Osama bin Laden dead, so they instructed Obama to kill him?

Amy,

Wow, Obama is taking orders from the "Chicago mafia", according to YOU, on issues like killing OBL?

I thought Obama consulted the Pentagon, after getting intelligence from the CIA and , in the end, made the decision himself.

lol

My bad, Leona, that is exactly what President Obama did:

Obama consulted the Pentagon, after getting intelligence from the CIA and , in the end, made the decision himself.

You do realize you can't vote in the US election if you don't live in the US.

You do realize you can't vote in the US election if you don't live in the US.

Uh, yes you can vote in the US election if you are a US citizen living outside the United States. It's called an Absentee Ballot.

Dubai, why would you vote for Ron Paul, he doesn't want you to have health insurance either?

Your only hope is to vote for Democrats because they are the only party that wants health insurance for all.

Obama/Biden 2012

Current US law prevents health insurance from being sold across state lines and it bans all foreign insurance compaies. Ron would change these rules. My UK based insurance is valid everywhere except the USA... cause the US won't allow them to insure Americans there. Makes no sense.

And of course I can vote - I'm a US citizen. I do it every election by absentee ballot.

TIDubai

It never fails, everyday someone says something here that outright shows that they know nothing about what Dr Paul supports, and says it in such a way that shows they have made no effort to find out.

These are the peeps that I seldom respond to, there is nothing you can say that will even get them to look much less change their 'pinions, their loss not mine.

Happy MLK Day, Nash. Did you see where the First Family is doing a service project in DC? That is a great tribute to a great American.

After Huntsman's pivot from that quote in November to an endorsement in January, I'm concerned he may have whiplash.

Thanks for stopping by Steeler Fan . . . I did see our First Family setting a great example for us all to follow. I am definitely going to try to be of more service in 2012! :o)

Now is that the perfect quote for First Read or what? ;o)

You are simply the best! ;o)

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

-Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963

yep great quote for both sides to pay attention to....

Yep, freedom to work for corporations for less than minimum wage with no retirement and no health care and no safety regulations. That is the freedom that Ron Paul brings. The freedom for the rich to get everything and the poor, well they have more already than Paul thinks they deserve.

When Paul voted to NOT increase minimum wage, he showed clearly what side of the fence he is on and it is not for the people.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the 1%. Check out his voting record if you don't believe me. He talks one story and then votes another.

Just like when the pacifist voted with the republicans to continue the war in Iraq with no end in sight. The democrats were trying to get a deadline set for ending the war, but Ron voted against that. Mr. I am against the war except when I am voting with the republicans to continue the war in Iraq.

If you think Ron is offering freedom I have a bridge to sell, cheap, with free shipping.

Americans First - You have an agenda to sell, and it is far from cheap and it doesn't have anything to do with 'free'. Ron Paul isn't selling anything. The high price spent for your liberty has already been paid. Ron Paul 2012!

jennifer,

You know how hypocritical you liberals sound when you say things like Newt & wife are "too ugly and disgusting to be POTUS" ??.........

You'd be the first to scream "racism" if some one said the same thing about the Obama's.

You are a poster child for LIBERAL HYPOCRISY.

Newt is quite the man.

The only speaker of the house in the history of our country (over 200 years) to get thrown out for ethical violations.

Then he must have given some pretty bad historical advise as Freddie Mac went under. I am sure he was worth the 3.6 million they paid him.

You are aware that what Jennifer said was just a twist on what Newt said about his first wife or was it his second that she was too ugly and too old to be the wife of a president.

Talk about a poster child for hypocrisy. It is okay for Newt to say it, just don't say the same about Newt.

Mike,

What are you talking about?

Most Republicans think Romney should and will be the candidate .

He is NOT a Tea Party favorite.

Mike,

You are correct!

leona, read a Republican poll........any poll.....the Tea Party can't agree on a candidate, and they don't like Romney. "Most Republicans" are not represented by 37%. In fact, 37% of Republicans represents less than 18% of all voters. Your whacky Herman Cain/Ron Paul/Rick Santorum/Michele Bachmann/Rick Perry types are being rejected daily. You're left with a flip-flopping, two-faced liar as your front runner.

Romney 37%

Santorum 19%

Gingrich 18%

Paul, etc........ the remainder

What's left are the racists, the selfish, and the ignorant. I've read your posts Leona. You qualify for all three. Too bad you can only vote once....

MkeMike,

Everyone knows liberals resort to name calling when they are losing the narrative.

Too bad liberals only love free speech when it's THEM who's speaking.

( what a bunch of Fascists) .

LOL

If Bush was a black man( knowing how you liberals hated him)....... would you have had the same problem if people were saying "YOU only hate Bush because he's Black".

It works both ways.

Stop using the race card. It makes you sound desperate.

Did Oprah's rise to fame and fortune get impeded because she's BLACK ? NO. She got where she is on her merits and people of all colors love her to boot.

Jennifer - There is far more than you have begun to notice thusfar. A political party does not define right or wrong any more than character is defined by age, skin color, religion, a degree or a checkbook. Is Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry presidential material? Not based on what they say. But nor is Obama, based on what he does. The overreach of government, beyond its own basic premise and law, serves no citizen, corrupts the system and exposes the country to every kind of manipulation and coersion. It incites cynicism, disparity, mistrust, fear, contempt and war. That's where we are in America now. None of those candidates, nor the seated president, are acting in the best interest of all of the American people and speaks to the individual, not to a division of groups and special interests. Only one candidate promotes the law of the land (Constitutional law) and promotes fully the Bill of Rights except Ron Paul. Ron Paul 2012!

Gosh, so many Republicans are showing signs of short term memory. I myself remember how bad the economy and unemployment were under President Bush and getting worst up to his last days in office.

So actually the truth is, President Obama inherited this incredible brink of depression mess from President Bush and President Obama has done a good job of turning the country around.

I honestly have to say anyone that doesn’t recognize this fact is pretty out of touch with reality.

Job1 - A party pawn doesn't serve the country. Only those individuals who look at every candidate as an individual, running or seated, and weigh their attitudes and actions against that of the law of the land, can the People determine if their candidates hold an acceptable stance. An overwhelming number of members of Congress and the seated president voted in NDAA, which very effectively nullifies the Bill of Rights. That is an action which is a reality that can be blamed on both parties, to the detriment of the People, because they did not follow law. The creation or inheritance of bad policy will always be reality as long as bad policy is allowed to exist. Only when an administration consistently holds to the law can bad policies be avoided. Ron Paul 2012!

I think it's both.