Tuesday, January 3, 2012

So What is it that "Conservatives" are Trying to Conserve Anyway?

I ask this question in all earnestness and with a dash of facetiousness because of the confusion that may be caused by the differing usages of conserve, conservation, and conservative. Especially in our current,  post "Earth Day," era; where these words have taken on expanded meanings, beyond the one previously used in the political realm only. Since that first "Earth Day," the word conserve has meant "to use less of," especially in reference to energy and natural resources. Most of us have adopted at least some habits because of what we have learned since then, so we could be asking, "I conserve gas, electricity, and water; what the heck does a conservative (want to) conserve?"

In basic terms, Conservatism's job is to defend and maintain the "aristocratic order," the social hierarchy of whomever is on top of the social strata at that moment. So, even though the "Conservative Movement," is more than 200 years old, and was started in response to the French Revolution, the current crop of "conservatives" is defending a different group of "aristocrats," than Edmund Burke was.  Instead of the royal families in Europe, the current crop of US Republicans is defending the "aristocratic order," for US based corporations and the people who run them.

The secondary job of those leading the Conservative Movement is to get the "lower orders," the bottom tier to support them in this endeavour by convincing them that maintaining the status quo, or returning to the previous state of affairs is to their benefit. In the case of the current resurgence, this has been done by evoking the idea of the loss of something they never had. A truly equal chance.

Although conservatism as a movement is more than 200 years old, and has not always been in command of the narrative; it has always surged in popularity each time an era passes that expands democracy, and empowers more and more of that "lower order," of the (formerly) powerless. It is always in reaction to this expansion of democracy because of the loss of power that comes when those who used to be your slaves, used to be your trodden upon laborers, who used to be the ones you could deny basic accommodations to, and especially the ones you used to be able to exclude from the electoral process are now no longer slaves, no longer unrepresented laborers,  and no longer silenced at the ballot box.

So, after the greatest expansion of democracy this country had yet experienced from 1955 to 1970, a disgruntled group of folks who benefited from that previous way of life set out on a mission to push back against these changes. It "just didn't set well," with them that they now had to 1) share the bus, 2) sit next to people who had previously been relegated to the kitchen or "out back," 3) send their children to schools that were now going to be integrated, 4) have to pay women as much as they had paid men, 5) hire folks they previously had been able to simply deny an application to, 6) rent apartments or sell houses to people based on qualifications that weren't related to race, religion, or marital status, 7) allow anyone with the proper qualifications to enter university,  and 8) not deny credit to someone based on gender or marital status.  Whatever the case, the current crop of conservatives is fighting to rescind every one of the emancipatory achievements of the last 65 years.
This current group of  Republican conservatives has convinced reasonable numbers of previous Democrats that this new equality for women, blacks, and other minorities was limiting their own ability to succeed in life. And the push back began. It started with "All in the Family's" theme song, "Those were the Days," particularly the line, "when girls were girls and men were men." It was codified with the Hyde amendment, denying certain women access to a newly available medical procedure. It spread to unions under Ronald Reagan. It went on to attack the concept of affirmative action. It has continued to this day in its attack on immigrants. Attack after attack, and those previous Democrats still kept voting against their own best interests because they believed that the Conservatives were on their side, and were going to protect them from those who would take away their "fair shot." The attacks on women's health issues from the Republican Congress and the renewed vigor with which Republican governors took an axe to union rights with this past spring, changed voting laws, and enacted other laws denying democracy shows what they had in mind. It is a whole lot easier if you can convince a group of people to voluntarily give up the level playing field, or for them not to try to get one, than to have to go to war over the issue; and that's just what they did. Now we have a whole bunch of previous Democrats (and some Republicans) with "buyer's remorse."

So, what is it the the Conservative Movement is trying to conserve? They are trying to conserve a life for the "Top Tier" that does not include a leveling of the playing field or an opportunity for equality for anyone not in that social circle. 

Sunday, December 25, 2011

"Occupy" and the use of language


To take this one step further, I believe it will be especially important for anyone discussing one of the issues at the heart of "Occupy," the issue of corporate personhood, to be sure they use the right pronouns to distinguish between people and corporations.  There must be a clear distinction in order to take control of the narrative on this issue. To be sure there is no question of the difference between a non living entity, such as a corporation,  and a person; the pronouns "who" and "that" must be used properly. They must not be interchanged as is done so often in common usage, even by those in broadcasting, who should know better. When these pronouns are switched around, the line between humans and inanimate objects becomes less distinct. The use use of "who" implies human-like qualities to the entity described. The last thing anyone who supports the idea of Occupy wants to do is infer that a corporation has "human" qualities. Corporations are always "that," in order to be sure they are never given the status of "human," in these discussions.

Those who speak to others about Occupy need to be on their toes more than ever when they encounter those who may be unsure about, or are hostile toward, the Occupy movement. If they cannot speak properly; cannot put thoughts into coherent, grammatically correct sentences; the people they wish to influence to become supporters of Occupy will dismiss them as idiots. There is a dichotomy in this; at a time when there appears to be derision for intellectuals or so-called "experts," people will still be judged by their ability to speak (and write) properly. It's a fine line, and a hard one to figure out, but I'd guess that you could still use proper grammar and avoid the "high falutin" language that some folks are skeptical of; thereby not getting yourself labeled as one of the expert types that caused the mess.  Becoming aware of and in tune with your "audience" will help you choose the right words.

Thursday, December 22, 2011

AmericansElect.org... Be Skeptical, be Very Skeptical.

With the Citizens United ruling of 2010,  which corporations are funding elections right now will be next to impossible to know, but it isn't as hard to figure out as it seems. Since we know that old dogs aren't doing anything new, and our current political offerings are guys who have been around Congress and state legislatures for eons; finding out which corporations put them into office in the first place will take a little work, but won't be the impossible task that Citizens United intended.

Prior to 2010, Federal Election laws required everyone who ran for office to report what monies they got and where that money came from. It was intended that the public have access to this info, so it is available for elections through 2009 from the Federal Election Commission.  So, once you figure out which corporations gave money to your specific elected official prior to 2009, you can presume that those same corporations are doing so now, unless said corporations are out of business, or your specific candidate gives a full accounting and does not take money from superpacs. Corporations can still give directly to a campaign, but the invention of the "Superpac" that can get money from anywhere and not have to say where it came from is what we have to fear the most. Superpacs can donate the money they raise to anything, including to a specific candidate. Once that money has been laundered through the superpac, its original source does not ever have to be revealed, and may really be impossible to find. That is what was intended when the unnamed corporations got together and formed Citizens United. We don't even know which corporations belong to Citizens United, shielding those corporations from possible economic fallout.

This long election cycle has given us plenty of time to see the candidates in action and listen to what they have to say. This has been very revealing. Many of the candidates have shown us in the things they have said what they really believe,  but we  have to be very attentive to these things... and understand the "coding." An example of this is Buddy Roemer, former governor of Louisiana (88-92) and currently running for president as a Republican on an election reform platform. He may be the first of the Americans Elect candidates. On the surface, Mr Roemer looks like a very good alternative to the other candidates out there. It looks like he is being excluded from the Republican debates because of what he is saying about campaign finance, and that may make him appealing to some voters who might otherwise vote for another candidate. Further review, and especially a careful listen to what he said on MSNBC's program "UP! with Chris Hayes,"  about mortgages and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reveal another thing altogether. (12/12/11 show) He has the same view as the rest of the Republicans who want to dismantle them because they believe that "certain people should not be allowed to own homes," that Newt Gingrich also revealed in his tirade about federal policy with Fannie and Freddie "forcing lenders to make loans to people with no history of ever paying anybody anything," as the reason the mortgage market imploded. With the evidence now revealing that 65% of minority borrowers who were otherwise credit worthy enough to obtain conventional financing but were given sub-prime loans because of the bigger commissions, that statement is at the very least suspect, and is more likely, disguised bigotry.

While some folks lament this long election cycle, I do not. The longer these candidates have to show us what they really believe, the more they look like the wolves they are....

The long election cycle can give us time to investigate the purportedly non profit group Americans Elect, which was originally formed as a political group, but changed itsstatus to 501 3(c)4  group AFTER chairman Ackerman “donated” 1.5 million. This group has proposed an on line nomination process and trying to get that candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

There is criticism of the group and its processes,  but especially the failure to disclose its donors:

However, Fred Wertheimer, known for his work on campaign finance reform, said, "They must be trying to hide from the public who their donors are. This is a very strange way for a group to act that is complaining about the state of American politics". (from Wikipedia) I might not go that far, but I will say that any political group, candidate, or group of candidates wishing to stand out or distinguish themselves from others cannot continue the practices of previous candidates or parties, cannot hide behind the Citizens United decision, and cannot fail to disclose where their money is coming from. Americans Elect must show that their way of doing political business is not just "more of the same old #$%^," but is, in fact, a new way of doing political business in this country.


Americans Elect has succeeded in getting on the ballot in 13 states so far and is looking to find candidates to place on the ballot as Americans Elect candidates, not just at the presidential level, but at the state and local levels too. Just because that person (or those persons) are associated with Americans Elect does not mean we should not scrutinize them as we would any other candidate; in fact, I believe we should subject an Americans Elect candidate to an even more stringent microscope, if only to prevent us from being taken in by the "shiny new wrapper."

The Republicans appear to be in big trouble. It looks like there may be a number of candidates who would otherwise be on the Republican ticket but will not because they aren't hard line enough for that small segment of the party known as the "TEA Party." Because of this, we may find a number of those guys on the Americans Elect ticket. If this happens, we need to remember, Americans Elect ticket or not; that candidate is, first and foremost, whatever their party affiliation was before they became part of Americans Elect. Being on the Americans Elect ticket will not change that underlying philosophy. We will need to ask some hard questions or do some investigations to find out which corporations donated to their previous campaigns and demand open accounting of all Americans Elect candidates, to be sure they aren't getting corporate or Superpac money this time, that they are truly free to vote as their constituents want them to.

So, what does Ron Paul really think about Blacks, Jews, and Gays? Will we ever really know.

 Well, recent information revealed about Ron Paul, showing him to be a bigot in sheep's clothing underscores the importance of us (the electorate) doing our homework to find out who these people really are, what corporations are sponsoring them, and sharing that information with as many people as we can.




He either said those things, or allowed others to say those things under his byline because he agreed with the views presented. You don't let others use your byline if you don't agree with their views or opinions because, as editor/owner/publisher, you have an option to print things in your newsletter written by others. Whether you agree with their opinions won't be an issue as long as you gave the author of the commentary the proper credit, and you print a "disclaimer" saying that the "views expressed in the following commentary are not necessarily the views of the staff of the XYZ Gazette."  That way, 20 years later, when you are running for president and a reporter asks you about said newsletters; you can say that you printed divergent opinions in the hopes of fostering open discussion on controversial issues. That it was your job to make the newsletter worth reading, even if you didn't agree with what got printed in a specific newsletter. And that's what you did. Now, an on the ball reporter would notice that this answer still didn't provide the information they were looking for, and may still press you on the issue of whether you agreed with the bigoted opinions printed there, in which case, you'd still be on the hook for an answer to that. You'd still have a chance that said reporter wouldn't notice that you never didn't tell them what they really were looking to find out....

We have to conclude that he agreed with those statements because he did not preface these commentaries with any such disclaimer, or cite anyone other than himself as the author of the commentaries in question. As the person in charge, he is ultimately responsible for anything that was published in the newsletter in any case.  So, like the captain of the ship, he has to take responsibility for the things printed in those newsletters "on his watch," even if he didn't write them.

Walking out on the interview does not bode well for him to disavow himself of the views expressed, even though he stated as much.

12/22: A quick additional note 15 things Ron Paul would eliminate as unconstitutional if he were president:

As you can see from the age of some of the video, unlike Gingrich and Romney, he has, without shame, been consistent; although some folks would say consistently wrong. And like Tarot cards or a palm reader, there is always something he will say that you like to hear. It is the balance of the message that you need to pay attention to.  Based on how consistent these videos show him to be on every other issue he has ever raised; it would be very hard to convince most anyone that he no longer holds the views espoused in his newsletters published in the same time period as some of these videos were taken.

Another update: Looks like he has joined the "Flip-flopper" brigade....


Saturday, November 19, 2011

Our "Continental Divide"

"Eventually, one side or the other of that divide will get the kind of popular mandate it needs to resolve our long-run budget issues. Until then, attempts to strike a Grand Bargain are fundamentally destructive. If the supercommittee fails, as expected, it will be time to celebrate."


That mandate will come in the form of either a vote to "throw the bums out until we get ones in there who will truly represent the people's interests," or in a vote to for the same ones we have now... those who are not the least bit interested in what the people want... or what is good for the country long term... their only interest is in what benefits those 9 families and the corporations they represent because it will line their own pockets right now. "Legacy, what legacy; we don't need no stinkin' legacy!"

In 2012, we have the opportunity to toss out every one of the members of the House of Representatives and as many as 1/3 of our Senators who do not represent the people they were elected to serve. They have all committed the same crime against the people of the United States; selling out to the corporate interests that have put the American people in the worst economic disaster in 80 years. In 2014, we have the chance to toss out that new batch of representatives if they show themselves to be as recalcitrant as their predecessors, or prove to be minions of that corporate elite. We can boot out the next 1/3 of the Senate if they haven't gotten the message by then. In 2016, if the members of the House still don't get it, we do it again. If Senators also prove to be slow learners, we get rid of that last 1/3. In doing this, we send the following message to our elected officials, "Do not get comfortable there. You are replaceable. We will hold you accountable for any dichotomy between what you say and what you do. We will find out if you are accepting money from any NON-HUMAN entities.....  and we will make you pay for that by booting you out of office, even if we have to get a new set of guys in there every time." We have learned now that "the price of freedom is being ever vigilant. We will not let you get away with this stuff again."



The problem with the "supercommittee" isn't so much with its individual members... although it is always possible that those chosen may not "play well with others," and we are just now finding that out. The problem is that there is such an ideological divide between the two parties, and they have been dehumanizing each other for so long; they can no longer engage in productive discourse. Once you have crossed the line from believing that someone really is your colleague to saying it only because  it's "politically correct," to do so; once you stop viewing this person with different political views as an equal, you cannot, ever, in good faith, negotiate with them. This explains the current raft of Conservative Republican party members who will go through the process, only to renege on anything they said they were going to do. As long as this batch of Republicans believes that this batch of Democrats really aren't their true peers, there is no negotiating in good faith. You do not negotiate with people you do not feel are worthy of an agreement.  You do not negotiate with people you do not feel you'd have to honor an agreement with. This inability to see each other as equal partners in the business of governing is why we must give them all their eviction notices. If our leaders cannot get their "stuff" together enough to show us how to disagree with another's viewpoint without attacking their personhood, who will? Sometimes we learn, not from our leaders, but from those around us:


Even if this wasn't written by a "liberal," it is still well thought out and respectful of the other person's being as well as his right to have a differing opinion. We have changed the discourse over these last few years, changing it into something insidious, vitriolic, and evil. We call people "liberal," now and use it like it's the new "N" word, used to dismiss, disregard, denigrate, and demean in exactly the same way it has been used in the past. There is no acknowledging that Liberal is simply a differing political viewpoint. What's worse, of course, is to be called a socialist, or to believe that anything a socialistic government might do is a good thing, like provide access to health care.  That makes you Un-American, as if there aren't good ideas found in unlikely places.

Removing the mandate of the "fairness doctrine," from our media has made it virtually impossible to bring back civility to the discourse. How to handle differences of opinion cannot be taught when differing opinions are squelched by virtue of their absence from the public eye. They certainly cannot be taught when they are physically squelched by police officers use of pepper spray on peaceful protesters. First Amendment rights get trampled on, and no one learns about the humanness of differing opinions.

Occupy Wall Street: To join or not to join, that is the question.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is now two months old and main stream media is still largely ignoring the protests except to diminish, demean, and say, “I told you so,” every time the police intervene and there is some outbreak of violence, regardless of the video evidence that the protesters are not the aggressors in these confrontations:



Now that the movement has spread across the US and to most of the rest of the world, it seems to be a good time to discuss the OWS “agenda.” There are still many out there who will say the occupiers have none, but nothing could be further from the truth. The occupiers have an agenda, both individually and collectively. Theirs might not be a written manifesto... but they know why they are out there in force every day...and why more people are joining them day after day.


If written out,  the average person at an OWS site would have something like this to say: “I am here to have a chance at my life’s dreams, to revel in a life’s calling, to have a family in a world I believe has hope for more, and to feel that I had as good a chance at those things as the next guy.” These things are universal to all humankind, hardwired, so to speak, into the DNA of our collective souls. The people who have gathered at the OWS sites across the land are there every day because they believe that these things have been stolen from them by a system that was once good but is now corrupted by a very specific set of people and corporations. They believe that not only have their individual dreams and aspirations been stolen, but so have the dreams of 300 million other Americans, and our shared vision has been stolen as well.

They also believe that those people and corporations responsible for this grand thievery should be held accountable. It has been 3 years since this country sunk into the worst economic disaster in over 80 years, and not one of the people or business entities responsible for this grand thievery has been held accountable.  Not one person or corporation has been charged. Not one person or corporation has been arrested (and if “corporations are people too,” as Mitt Romney said, they can be arrested) Not one person or corporation has been fined or been sent to jail. Not one person or corporation has been made to pay back the 30 TRILLION dollars they stole. In fact these companies have been bailed out because they were deemed “too big to fail,” and apparently the officers of these companies have been deemed “too big to jail.”

It’s one thing to sink your money into a scam artist’s junk bonds and lose your money because you didn’t do your homework. It’s quite another for 2 generations to have their pension and retirement funds raided because the people doing the homework were lied to on all sides. When these people asked for the information necessary to make the informed decisions, they were provided with false information, cooked books, and recommendations from the representatives of the brokerages to buy things that they knew to be worthless. Their own internal memos and other correspondence show they deliberately provided false information! We all know there is risk involved in the investment world, but in order to truly evaluate risk, one has to be able to trust that the information they receive from the stockbroker regarding a particular investment is truthful and correct. When that information is not, especially when it can be shown that the broker involved or the firm he was employed by,deliberately provided false information; that’s not risk; that’s fraud and should be prosecuted as such!

(excuse the language, but this Irish guy has got the right of it) http://front.moveon.org/what-did-this-irishman-have-to-say-about-wall-street/?rc=fb.pm

We have many in government who have said that it isn’t in the country’s best interest to try to prosecute these people, saying that it won’t help get the money back, or get us back on the road to recovery, or whatever other nonsensical thing they might want to say.  The truth is, any government official who is not actively seeking to have those responsible for this sent to jail for a long time, does not represent the best interests of the constituents he was elected to serve. The information is available for all to see just what NON-HUMAN interests these government officials really do serve. At least it used to be. In the world before Citizens United. It used to be easy to “follow the money,” well, maybe not easy; but certainly not impossible, like it is now. The best we can do now is look back on the records for the 10 year period just prior to Citizens United and see which individuals, business groups, and corporations, reported contributions to political parties, candidates, or issues.



This guy is right about one thing: we should be BOYCOTTING: 1) the goods and services of any company or corporation that moved jobs overseas to take advantage of the slave labor market available to them in countries like China, Malaysia, the Philippines, or other countries where working conditions make the Shirtwaist Factory ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire ) look like a child’s playground; 2) any corporation that paid ZERO taxes over the last several years; 3) any corporation that has ties to ALEC, The Heritage Foundation, Americans For Prosperity, C Street, The Chamber of Commerce (the national one that represents the large corporations, not your local one that has mostly small businesses/sole proprietors as members) or Citizens Untied; 4) the corporations that have paid the most in campaign contributions to either individual candidates or the major parties in the last 10 years they had to report those contributions,1999-2010, before the Supreme Court ruled in the Citizens United case and said corporations were people and money was free speech.

If you have been wondering if the folks at OWS represent you, whether they are looking out for your interests. If you need a reason to join a site near you or at least be supportive of those folks who are at a local site. If you need a reason to call upon your lawmakers to support OWS; here is a list of things that might help you make your decision.

1) The charts you will find at this website may help:


2) The U.S. Census says the number of children living in poverty in the U.S. rose by 1 million last year. Nearly 1 in 3 children, 33% now live in households considered poor. At the same time the 400 richest people in America – our nation’s oligarchs – have never had it so good, they control more wealth than 150 million Americans. 400 people with more wealth than 150 million.

3) There are corporations who have a vested interest in making sure a greater percentage of our population is permanently taken out of  mainstream society and placed in a pool for slave labor.


4) They are very worried about the long term effect that OWS will have. They will do everything they can to make OWS look bad. They will use every means possible, both fair and unfair to trip OWS up. The corporate aristocracy is fighting for its very life, and they will defend it to the death...





5) They even have influence over what our children eat. The more garbage they can get our children accustomed to, addicted to, the more profits they make when these children will only eat at their establishments.


6) Our middle class is suffering beyond belief. The internal security of this country rests on its strong middle class. Without it, we’re sunk.



7) They can’t even be honest with us about everyone they have bailed out. These private citizens can get bailed out, but our homeowners are told to “let the foreclosure process proceed.”


8) We have 9 families, a total of 400 people who want to be the aristocracy in this country... and long for a return to "the good old days," of serfdom and slavery.... The attack on the middle class, and the unions that made a middle class possible, makes perfect sense... OWS is just what the doctor ordered... It won't be easy, and it will take a while, but they will be successful. They are on the right side of history, and we know the road to justice is long. The 400 have been planning for a very long time, and have got some very effective systems in place....the Patriot Act and the  Citizens United decisions were a real coup for them... but, then again, they knew the make up of the Supreme Court was ripe for that decision... After all, they had bought those people a long time ago...

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Herman Cain: “Performance Art Project;” Serious Candidate for President; Author, gathering material for his next book; or Motivational Speaker Seeking to Increase his Value on the Lecture Circuit? You decide.

The concept of Herman Cain is an interesting one. If we accept the premise that he may earn the Republican nomination and run against President Obama next year, there are certainly some hard questions that we need to ask: Do we want an individual with absolutely no government experience in the highest office in the land? Really?  Even in our current state of disillusionment? Do we want someone who has the potential character issues that the revelations of the last few weeks have potentially uncovered?

I am not sure we want to turn the reins of the US over to someone so woefully unqualified for the job. I know we totally distrust the current set of folks in various elected offices, and they have the lowest approval ratings they have ever had. Whether we “throw all the bums out,” next November will remain to be seen. I have to remain hopeful that we do not turn that distrust into a collectively stupid decision to throw in a rookie when a seasoned quarterback is required. I have to think the American voting populace is smarter, that we realize that the person we place in that office will have to have at least some knowledge of how government works, and have some experience working with some of the players already in the game. Even the last president we elected who had not served in other elected office, Dwight D Eisenhower, had worked in some capacity with the people in Washington before, so we weren’t sending in a total rookie. He was new to that team, but he had played the game before. Herman Cain has not.  It is interesting to note that Eisenhower was courted by both the Democrats and the Republicans to be their candidate. He chose the Republicans because his experience had shown him that they were the party with stronger support of the military. By the end of his presidency, he had changed his mind, giving his famous address on the dangers of the "military industrial complex." In fact, we get that turn of phrase from that very address. President Eisenhower would barely recognize the Republican party today since it has very little resemblance to the Republican party he joined.

Questions of character plague Cain, even if his inexperience in government does not. There are questions regarding possible abuses of power in past positions. Statements he makes now show that some of those questions may be valid ones. The current statements from his campaign, “go ahead, come forward to accuse me of sexual harassment and make my day,” show that it is within Cain’s character to be heavy handed and threatening. His consistent use of disparaging terms to refer to women  in highly regarded positions, specifically using the term “Princess Pelosi,” on more than one occasion to refer to current House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi; exposes that it is well within his character to have a disrespectful view of women in general, and specifically of women in the workplace. This lends credibility to the sexual harassment allegations made in recent weeks. 

A person who claims that none of these things are true does not use these terms; that person uses the standard terms of respect, even if he does not like the current (or former) officeholder. Bob Schieffer in his recent interview with Newt Gingrich showed the appropriate decorum and addressed Mr Gingrich using, “Mr Speaker,” even though it has been more than 12 years since Mr Gingrich has held that position, and in fact, left the position due to scandal. Mr Cain should have done the same when referring to Rep Pelosi, and either addressed her as “former Speaker Pelosi,” or “Speaker Pelosi.” Regardless of how he feels about Ms Pelosi’s politics; she earned that position, and is deserving of the same respect for having earned it as any previous Speaker of the House.

Even if we decide that Mr Cain is acceptable, despite the previously discussed issues; we still have to address Mr Cain’s affiliations with the TEA Party, the Koch Brothers, The Heritage Foundation, Americans For Prosperity, and any other political organizations as we discover them.  Mr Cain’s employment with Americans For Prosperity is of greatest concern. If we are going to “throw the bums out,” we desperately need to replace them with people who are not beholden to the same lobby groups that current members of Congress are, including those who claim TEA party status.

Using this standard, Herman Cain does not qualify. He is cut from the same cloth as those we are dissatisfied with. He himself said that he “was a Koch brother from another mother and proud of it,” that statement didn't come from a political opponent. We need to take him at his word; that he will bring the Koch brothers’ agenda with him to the office of the president. We have seen that agenda: union busting, dismantling of any regulations that provide for the safety of workers, consumers, or the general public, total disregard for the health and well being of future generations; a set of political goals contrary to desires of the vast majority of Americans, and we do not agree with it. The results of the 2011 elections, recalling and repealing those actions taken by the elected officials who were bought and paid for by the Koch brothers or affiliated Political Action Committees proves that.

We have a moral and ethical standard as a people that calls for us to be thankful for those who sacrificed so that we may live so well, and a basic understanding that the only payment owed to them is to “pay it forward,” onto the next generation and beyond.  We fell asleep on that job, and let the Koch brothers and other like minded individuals steal the narrative. We allowed them: the Koch brothers, the Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, Focus on the Family, Tom Lycus, Rush Limbaugh, the whole of the Fox contributors ... unchecked and unchallenged.... to spew their venom of despair to such a degree that our young people believe what they have heard consistently for the last 30 years.  That they will be the first generation that will not have a life better than their parents', that we have let them down, abandoned them, made like “Billy Joe and Bobby Sue:” and left them out in the cold without a future. Let’s show the Koch brothers, others of their ilk and our young people that they are all wrong. That we see Herman Cain and others of his ilk for what they are: Koch brothers puppets, representatives of the top 400, and not the “anti-Washington answer,” that we are looking for.  There is hope and prosperity in our future.