They Did What !

The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.
The first priority of the American people is to reduce the deficit by cutting spending.

Having made that statement 50 times, it is no truer than it was the first time I made it. So how is it that the Republicans continue to say that and, more importantly act on it, and We the American People aren't working to have every one of them recalled?

Where do the Republicans get the "job killing" part of their title for their health care repeal act?

They take a piece of the CBO report on the health care reform bill, stretch it, twist it, convolute it, and come up with 650,000 lost jobs. At the same time they totally refute the figures on the bill's effect on the deficit in this same report. So they use part of the CBO analysis as definitive for their own purposes while at the same time, denying its validity where it does not support their view. Sort of a having your cake and eating it too approach.

According to Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post, the report does not actually contain this job loss figure. Rather it says that there are people, some with chronic medical conditions, who feel compelled to continue to work to keep their health insurance. The health care reforms would offer them new options which might include leaving the workforce. The Republicans take a rough estimate of this anticipated effect and, using their "magic math," come up with 650,000 jobs eliminated. Actually, under these circumstances, the jobs would not be eliminated, they would be vacated, producing an opening for someone else to fill so doesn't it seem they would count more as jobs created than jobs eliminated.

That aside, why do you suppose people who believe their viewpoint is right would feel it is necessary to lie or at least stretch the truth to prove their point? Shouldn't a belief be grounded in truth, in facts? Using ginned up job loss figures, non-existent death panels, threats of faux Medicare cuts and government takeovers make it look like many Republicans more likely believe their viewpoint cannot stand on its own merits. It seems they feel they have to scare people with lies to get their support. How can that be if they sincerely think their way is the right way?

The obvious conclusion is that they aren't pushing their viewpoint because they think it is right but for some other reason: perhaps they are so sure they know what is best for the rest of us that they feel justified in using any means necessary to get their way; possibly they really don't give a damn about the people or the country and are only interested in their own personal agenda (think money and power); conceivably they are not bright enough to think for themselves and just walk in lock step following the party line.

Politicians who put on an earnest face, look into the camera, and talk about health care reform being a job killer and too expensive are either lying or they are displaying an incompetence we cannot afford in our leaders. Media figures who allow these statements to go unchallenged are either complicit in the lies or they are displaying an incompetence we cannot afford in our press. We the people who accept or just shrug off these lies are cooperating in the destruction of our way of life or we are displaying an incompetence we cannot afford in our democratic system.

That's an expression my Grandmother used to describe surface hypocrisy that covers rottenness underneath. It seems an apt description of what is happening to our once great country.

We have been shredding the moral fiber of our country bit by bit for years and we are now faced with the destructive consequences of a corrupt government, a politicized judiciary, and an angry, desperate electorate. We have taught our children by example:

• in our own actions each time we cheat or lie in ways large and small to get what we want
• in television and movies that count success in dollars and condone doing whatever is "necessary" to win
• in commercials that use humor to present misbehavior as acceptable
• in news that offers true and false sides of a story as though they are equal
• and in the lack of consequences to judges and political figures making decisions where there are blatant conflicts of interests.

American's claim to exceptionalism may have seemed reasonable in the years we were building this country and fighting what were considered just wars. But the ideals and principles that were the basis of a majority of ordinary people's lives are sadly missing in our world now. Today the claim of exceptionalism is based on phony sentimentalism and pretend patriotism built around symbols and lacking substance. Too often falseness is just shrugged off or considered the way things are. Such rot from within brought down the Roman Empire and it is in the process of doing the same to America.

If we are to restore America to anything resembling a great country, we first need to restore integrity to our character and ethics to our behavior. And a little humility might also be in order. Why do we need to be exceptional? Why can we not count our blessings and use them wisely for the betterment of our world instead of this incessant need to pat ourselves on the back and let others know how special we are?

Republicans claim to be the party of family values. They make much ado about having symbols of Christianity on our currency and public buildings; about keeping the word God in the pledge and praying in the schools. But symbols and words do not make one a Christian. Christianity is a way of life and it is a way that embodies honesty and fairness. Christianity is inclusive not divisive; it is loving not hateful; it is honest not deceptive; it is righteous not self-righteous; and above all it looks to serve God and the best interests of God's creations - the planet and its inhabitants.

In an October 6, 2010 article (Tribune Washington Bureau) reprinted in the LA Times, the following statement appeared:

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for House Republican whip Eric Cantor of Virginia said, "The White House is showing no effort to work with Republicans. It has shown no interest in listening to the American people and has at all costs tried to ram through legislation that was tremendously unpopular."

This is not just "politics" it is a dishonest statement meant to misinform, mislead, and manipulate people. Anyone who has been awake and even slightly listening over the past two years can't miss the lies in this declaration.

Lie #1: "The White house is showing no effort to work with Republicans."
Obama spent much of his term to date reaching out to Republicans only to be met with a solid wall of obstruction. He repeatedly made conciliatory efforts with Republicans but they had one condition for working together; that was to do it their way - period. That is not a good faith effort to negotiate and it certainly isn't compromise.

Lie #2: "It (the WH) has shown no interest in listening to the American people."
In spite of their repeated statements about "the American people want" and "the American people think," the GOP does not really speak for the American people. As of September 2010, 33.1% of American adults identified themselves as Republicans - roughly one-third of the electorate; Republicans fill a minority of seats in both the Senate and the House; they hold a minority of state governorships and control a minority of state legislatures. To claim they speak for "the people" leaves out two thirds of Americans. This is not just a little exaggeration, it is a big lie.

Lie #3: "(The WH) has at all costs tried to ram through legislation that was tremendously unpopular."
Much as the GOP would like everyone to believe that health care and financial reforms were unpopular, the truth is that the majority of Americans wanted these reforms to be stronger not weaker or non-existent. In spite of the negative rhetoric of Republican politicians and their stirring-up of the ill-informed, the fearful, and the easily led, with lies and misinformation, the reforms, albeit watered down, were passed.

What actually was tremendously unpopular was the alternate reality of these reforms that the Republicans presented as fact. There was never any such thing as a "death panel" in the proposed reform; there was never an attempt at "a government takeover" of health care. While screaming about the costs of the reforms, the Republicans worked to defeat the very provisions that would have cut costs, such as the competition that would have been offered by a public option.

These lies created fear and anger, and encouraged people's natural resistance to change. When you really look at the complaints that people voiced during the health care debate, you see they were complaints, not about the health care plan itself, but about death panels and government takeovers;the problems fabricated by Republicans; fabrications many people still think are true.

This story repeated itself in the process of financial reform. The same tactics of avoiding honest debate, substituting obstruction for negotiation and refusing compromise were used. Even with our economy barely holding on, millions out of work, and foreclosures shattering families and devastating the housing market, Republicans refused to put the welfare of the people first.

As implementation of the health care provisions begins, people are starting to recognize that it works in their favor and is not the catastrophe the Republicans insisted it would be. But even in the face of these facts, Republicans call for its repeal and continue to repeat discredited and misleading distortions of the facts. It is reminiscent of small children who lie and lie and continue to lie even when the falsehood is undeniably evident.

We are now seeing this same kind of dishonesty, on steroids, in television political ads. Twisted facts, out of context quotes, and nasty, mean-mouthed accusations fill the airwaves. Are these the kind of people we want to run our country and look out for our interests? Rather than listening to what they say, we need to look at what they have done. The "actions speak louder than words" axiom is a good measure to use in our voting decisions.

And in the future, when someone makes an issue of America being a Christian country it might be a good idea to start a discussion about what Christianity is and how it expresses itself. If our country was founded as a Christian nation, how Christian are our actions now? What kind of Christianity chooses leaders who have slipped down a slippery slope of rationalization and now appear to be disciples of the church of "Win At Any Cost?"

Meg Whitman says her experience as CEO of eBay qualifies her to become Governor of California. If she is going to use her experience as a qualifier, perhaps she should explain why, during the last two years of her tenure, eBay lost about half its value. California sure can't afford that!

It might also be a good idea to explain to Meg that unlike a CEO who gives orders to get things done, a Governor has to play well with others (no shoving allowed!) in order to get things done. We have just lived through two terms with a businessman governor who thought he could treat government like a business but learned to his chagrin and at taxpayers' expense that it doesn't work that way.

If Ms. Whitman is so sure she knows what California needs and how to get it, why are all of her ads filled with half-truths, lies, and unproven accusations about Jerry Brown instead of details about her plan?

In one of her attack ads, Whitman makes false claims about Jerry Brown's "lifetime in politics." According to FactCheck.org:

The ad claims that "crime soared" while Brown was mayor of Oakland. That's false. The total number of crimes actually went down by more than 13 percent.

Also false is the ad's claim that Brown "damaged the school system so badly the state had to take it over." As mayor, Brown had almost no control over the school district, which was run instead by an elected school board.

A charge that Brown "lobbies for a corporate polluter" is highly misleading. Brown wasn't a paid lobbyist. The claim is based on a phone call he made for a past campaign contributor, and it had nothing to do with pollution.

The ad claims Brown worked to "send California jobs to China," but that's unproven. The claim rests on an 18-year-old newspaper story that Brown strongly denied.

Some of the ad's other claims lack context. For example, it's true as claimed that California had unemployment of 11 percent when Brown finished his time as the state's governor. But the ad fails to mention that the national unemployment rate was 10.8 percent at the time.

The other attack ads Meg has run register at about the same low level on the truth-o-meter. If Meg Whitman is so capable, why does she need to lie and smear Jerry Brown to try to get elected? Why doesn't she talk about what she can and would do as Governor?

Whitman used the same tactics to secure the Republican nomination. She did not sell herself and her abilities; she attacked and smeared her opponent. You have to wonder how this way of operating would carry over in her leadership of the state. How would we be able to trust what she says and does as Governor when we obviously can't trust what she says as a candidate?

Please don't think, much less say, that's just the way politics work. It shouldn't work that way. It doesn't need to work that way. It can only continue to work that way if we respond to big bucks spent on TV ads filled with lies by electing the liar. It's our choice.

We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797

In 2000, without precedent, the Supreme Court stepped in, stopped the counting of votes, and decided who would be president of the United States. This was an outrageous overreach of their powers, and judicial activism at its worst. The American people were momentarily stunned but the anger and resistance to such a blatant infringement on the rights of the people began to surface and build across the country. Then came the shock of the 9/11 attacks that immediately took precedence over everything else. Despite getting sidetracked by other events, this action by the Court radically affected the people's confidence in the fairness of the Supreme Court; a confidence that ten years later remains compromised.

Now, in 2010, the Supreme Court, with their decision in Citizens United vs FEC, has reversed decades of precedent in campaign finance laws and again undermined democracy by handing our free elections over to predatory corporations. As far back as 1902, and as recently as 2006, the Court had upheld the authority of Congress to limit corporate political expenditures. The convoluted reasoning and weak arguments offered to support their decision is more indicative of their political leanings than their claimed allegiance to the Constitution and the intentions of those who drafted it and its amendments.

The glaring dishonesty in Alito, Scalia, and Thomas' self proclaimed judicial philosophy as "originalists" is undeniable when you recall Thomas Jefferson's warning about "the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations" and John Adams' expressed belief that regardless of the fury and demands of the wealthy, a "more equal liberty than has prevailed in other parts of the earth" should be established in America." The duplicity of John Roberts is also clearly evident as this decision gives lie to his claim of being an incrementalist. Overturning 102 years of precedent does not in any way fit within the definition of incremental.

According to US Code: Title 18, 1001: ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious,, or fraudulent statement or representation;, or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry

If the shoe fits... It is time to hold these people accountable for their testimony given during confirmation hearings. The misrepresentation of their judicial philosophies as demonstrated by their actual record of decisions is there for all to see if they just look. And the consistant alignment of the decisions with a political agenda is impossible to miss. It is particularly egregious when Justices of the highest court in the land are guilty of such deceitfulness. No court, especially the Supreme Court which is charged with clarification of the law, has the right to take free elections out of the hands of the people and place them in the hands of profit motivated entities that have no concern for anything except their bottom line. How can a court that defends making a profit as the sole purpose of a corporation, in the next breath, claim that same corporation is a person with the right of free speech?

And more to the point, when did money become speech? There is a common expression, "money talks." And when someone makes that comment it is commonly understood to be a reference to a situation where the use of financial resources is helping to pave the way for a desired action or ending to occur. At its heart, the use of this saying indicates that when other methods fail, offering cash to someone who is in a position to accomplish the desired end will ensure the desired outcome. This is how the corporations will exercise their right to free speech in our elections; they will purchase the branches of our government.

The Supreme Court is an important part of our government, intended to be free from political influence and therefore able to make crucial decisions about the law and how it is applied. When the Court repeatedly makes decisions that clearly reflect a political agenda, then the members of the Court should be subject to close scrutiny, investigation, and impeachment if that is what it takes to restore the Court to its proper position as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

...and all through the town there is a sense of anticipation. You can see it in the faces, hear it in the music, and feel it in the hustle and bustle on the streets and in the stores. Watching people and listening to their chatter, it becomes clear that even though this is an annual holiday celebrated throughout the world, it means many different things to different people.

Some are preparing for a religious holiday; others for a purely secular celebration. Some are caught up with thoughts of time with family and friends, some with the giving and getting of gifts. Within the people of all these groups, can be seen joy, depression and everything in between. This time of year is laden with expectations - our own and those of others. Songs, cards, movies, and advertisements all contribute to these expectations, a large percentage of which are totally unrealistic.

We do not live in a "Father Knows Best" kind of world where everything ends with a happy resolution. Aunt Ethel doesn't suddenly change from a cranky, chronic complainer into a smiling, comforting presence when the decorations go up. Sibling rivalry doesn't suddenly dissolve when the Christmas lights go on. And, though I am a firm believer that miracles happen all the time, I don't think they are wrought by Santa and the elves.

This season is what we make it - spiritual or material, sad or happy, full or empty, shared or lonely. Some of us have to make more of an effort than others. Hard as it may be, those who are lonely need to reach out rather than waiting for others to read their minds. Those who are able to give need to offer without waiting to be asked. Those who seek perfection need to let go and accept the flaws and idiosyncrasies that go with being human.

Most of us just want those warm inner feelings of loving and being loved; of being part of a happy experience; of feeling the joy and satisfaction that are portrayed as an integral part of the Christmas season. But, often as the song says, we are looking in all the wrong places.

Perhaps focusing on the purpose of our celebration, whatever that may be, will bring us what we are seeking. For those celebrating the birth of Christ, centering preparations on the coming of Jesus into our lives, brings a sense of joy that no material gift can equal. For those celebrating a time of family togetherness, concentrating on unconditional acceptance of each other brings comfort and an easy camaraderie that criticism and efforts to control will never achieve.

Rarely will an anticipated event equal the expectations leading up to it. And the more exaggerated the expectations, the bigger the disappointment. So for the Christmas season of 2009 I wish you and yours the flexibility to go with the flow, the warmth of family and friends to accompany you through the days and evenings, and most of all, a sense of fulfillment in your purpose for celebrating.