RSS

Tag Archives: LGBT

The Next American President And Where I Fit Into All of This

I was never a Republican. I was always a Democrat, thinking, Democrats are for the people, that’s why they called themselves Democrats. It’s a bad word relation that unless I knew what they were and what they stood for, I was just simply going on word familiarity.

What I learned about politics came from family and friends and their expressed opinions and views about the presidential and congressional debates. Stuff I don’t really care too much about so I take everyone at their word for it. My family and friends aren’t idiots. They know what they’re talking about. Facebook memes just helps to push their view points across.

According to EnkiVillage’s 10 Differences Between Democrats and Republicans (http://www.enkivillage.com/differences-between-democrats-and-republicans.html), my personal viewpoint is Democratic for numbers 3,5,6,7, and 9. That means that my viewpoint is Republican for numbers 1,2,4,8, and 10. If I’m split down the middle, does that make me an Independent party?

In Salon’s Trump’s America VS. Hillary’s America: The Most Shocking Contrasts Between the Democratic and Republican Debates (http://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/trumps_america_vs_hillarys_america_the_most_shocking_contrasts_between_the_democratic_republican_debates/), the article ends with these two scenarios:

Republican America is a dystopian hellscape in which evil, violent foreigners are trying to kill us in our beds while rapacious jackbooted government thugs try to wrestle our guns from our cold, dead fingers and Planned Parenthood sociopaths are committing mayhem on children and selling the body parts. And that’s just for starters.

Democratic America is a very powerful nation struggling with a declining middle class and economic insecurity at the hands of the ultra-rich, requiring some energetic government intervention to mitigate income inequality, solve the looming crisis of climate change and manage global crises without plunging the nation into more wars. They also must hold off that anarchistic opposition which sees the world as a dystopian hellscape and that may be the greatest challenge of all.

A little over a year from now voters are going to decide which country they want to live in. Let’s hope they choose wisely. The rest of us are going to have to live in it too.

Wait. Why does Republican America have to be a dystopian hell while Democratic America is a very powerful nation? Right off the bat, I know what political viewpoint this writer is. This writer is Democratic. But they’re wrong about Republican America. Planned Parenthood sociopaths committing mayhem on children and selling body parts can’t be what Republicans are for especially since #2 in EnkiVillage’s article had Republicans opposing abortions. Planned Parenthood is all for abortions. So where did Democratics who favor abortions try to make it seem like Republicans support something they don’t?

Marie Claire’s There’s a Long History of Republicans Supporting Planned Parenthood — Why Is No One Talking About It? (http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a16149/planned-parenthood-republicans/) does a quick rundown of Republicans supporting Planned Parenthood. In fact, Planned Parenthood was started by a Republican, back in the days when Republicans did support Planned Parenthood. Note that abortions weren’t legal back in those days and Planned Parenthood was mainly for family planning, for contraception uses and for education. In 1973, Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion. In 1976, Republican’s adopted the anti-abortion stance and since the 1980’s, overwhelmingly Republicans have been trying to shut down federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon enacted the Title X Family Planning Program as part of the Public Health Services Act.The purpose of the bill was never to use federal funding for abortions. It was meant to be used for family planning and preventive care as well as the provision of contraception, education, and counseling to families with low income who typically couldn’t afford these services.

According to OPA, Title X operates by granting funds to a network of community-based clinics that provide contraceptive services, related counseling, and other preventive health services. Typical grantees include State and local health departments, tribal organizations, hospitals, university health centers, independent clinics, community health centers, faith-based organizations, and various public and private nonprofit entities.

The services provided by Title X grantees include family planning and provision of contraception, education and counseling, breast and pelvic exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), education about preventing STDs and HIV and counseling for affected patients, referrals to other health care resources, pregnancy diagnosis, and pregnancy counseling.

By preventing unintended pregnancies, Title X reduces the number of abortions in the United States.[7] Since its inception, Title X has not provided funds for programs that use abortion as a family planning method.[3][8][9]

Title X grantees and sub-recipients must be in full compliance with Section 1008 of the Title X statute and 42 CFR 59.5(a)(5), which prohibit abortion as a method of family planning. Grantees and sub-recipients must have written policies that clearly indicate that none of the funds will be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning. Additional guidance on this topic can be found in the July 3, 2000, Federal Register Notice entitled Provision of Abortion-Related Services in Family Planning Services Projects, which is available at 65 Fed. Reg. 41281, and the final rule entitled Standards of Compliance for Abortion-Related Services in Family Planning Services Projects, which is available at 65 Fed. Reg. 41270.

Planned Parenthood started out as such an organization, providing family services to people of low income or no income. That was an admirable thing, to provide care, education, counseling, and contraception to people who couldn’t otherwise afford it. But with the legalization of abortion in 1973, Planned Parenthood took a turn that Republicans weren’t comfortable with. Instead, it became the nation’s biggest provider of abortions. Federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives isn’t allowed, by law, to be used for abortions. Many people say that federal funding for Planned Parenthood allows nonfederal money to be used for abortions and Republicans understand this, which is why they’re trying to shut federal funding for Planned Parenthood down.

On February 2, 2016, the US House failed to override President Obama’s veto of H.R.3762 which would have prohibited Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal Medicaid funds for one year. (https://www.healthreformvotes.org/congress/roll-call-votes/h53-114.2016)

So who is allowing Planned Parenthood sociopaths to commit mayhem on children and sell the body parts now? Democrats.

Salon’s quote of, “evil, violent foreigners are trying to kill us in our beds while rapacious jackbooted government thugs try to wrestle our guns from our cold, dead fingers” is absurd. Trump has repeatedly and often savagely stated his views on foreigners. He wants to build a wall between the United States and Mexico to keep illegals out. Not only that, but Trump pretty much detests all other nationalities and races that doesn’t equal white. While that’s a bit extreme, republicans have had a long stance on people being able to own guns to defend themselves while Democrats are in favor of taking away our guns through gun control.

Al Hoffman, a top GOP donor and “conservative Republican” was quoted in Huffington Post saying, “I believe the Republican Party faces irrelevancy if we as a party don’t gain a little rational nexus as far as gun control is concerned. I personally believe President Obama is right on the issue of gun control…We really ought to follow what the American public wants and there’s a clear consensus that they’re in favor of stricter gun control,” he said.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/al-hoffman-republican_n_3094804.html)

The American public wants stricter gun laws, laws that would prevent people from obtaining a weapon legally to protect themselves. Sure, it’s tragic with all the mass shootings and with corrupt cops killing people, but America’s solution is to take guns away from people? That makes a lot of sense, because everyone knows that bad people will always find ways to get guns. Let’s just totally ignore the fact that some shootings are from people allowed to carry guns like cops. Remind me when unarmed men aren’t shot to death by police brutality.

I was in a small town in Georgia called Lincolnton for a few years back in 2008. I was talking to local law enforcement about the rate of murders that occurred there. There was none. There were no murders. They told me that every person in that town owned a gun. Of course they still had their share of drugs and drug dealers and crazy people, but no one tried to kill anyone and there were no break-ins into someone’s house because everyone knew that they all owned guns.

When it’s public knowledge that everyone has a weapon and can use that weapon, how many people will risk their lives to get killed? The reason why people die from things like mass shootings is because there isn’t enough guns. If people can shoot back and defend themselves against some armed person who starts shooting, less people will have to die because they can all defend themselves.

Obviously, it worked for that small town. Would it work on a bigger town? A city? I don’t know, but I do know that taking away someone’s second amendment and taking away their ability to protect themselves is a big mistake. It’s the first in breaking down the men and women in this country’s reliance on themselves and forcing them to be totally dependent on the federal government for protection.

On The Issue’s Republican Party on Gun Control (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/republican_party_gun_control.htm) states the Republican Party Platform on the topics of Gun Control:

Right to obtain and store ammunition without registration

We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Source: 2012 Republican Party Platform , Aug 27, 2012

Open more public land to hunting

Republicans and President Bush strongly support an individual right to own guns, which is explicitly protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment. Our Party honors the great American tradition of hunting and we applaud efforts by the Bush Administration to make more public lands available to hunters, to increase access to hunting clinics and safety programs for children and adults, and to improve opportunities for hunting for Americans with disabilities. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 74 , Sep 1, 2004

No frivolous gun lawsuits, no gun licensing

We believe the 2nd Amendment and all the rights guaranteed by it should enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for self-defense. We applaud those seeking to stop frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers which is a transparent attempt to deprive citizens of their 2nd Amendment rights. We oppose federal licensing of lawabiding gun owners & national gun registration as a violation of the 2nd Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 74 , Sep 1, 2004

Will protect right to bear arms

We defend the constitutional right to bear arms. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens. Through programs like Project Exile, we will hold criminals individually accountable for their actions by strong enforcement of federal and state firearm laws, especially when guns are used in violent or drug-related crimes. Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention , Aug 12, 2000

On The Issue’s Democratic Party On Gun Control Party Platform states (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm):

Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements–like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole–so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few. Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform , Sep 4, 2012

Reauthorize assault weapons ban, close gun show loophole

We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do. Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.18 , Jul 10, 2004

Strengthen gun control to reduce violence

Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime. Source: 2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000

Gun control has no effect on murder rates. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia has had bans on guns. The numbers before and after aren’t of any significance, save Australia who saw a small spike in murders after the ban, and then numbers returned to normal. (http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/)

Like I said, people who want guns to hurt others will always find a way to get them.

I recently learned that Democrats want to give tax cuts to the middle class. While that’s admirable, there’s a misconception that the Republicans want to give tax cuts to the wealthy. That’s not true. Republicans want a flat rate tax. Compared to the Democratic tax cuts, that means that the wealthy will no longer be taxed as heavily because the tax rate will be a flat rate for all. Now, most people mistaken that as the Republicans wanting to increase the wealth of the wealthy. No. Republicans want to make it fair. The wealthy make money just like everyone else. It’s unfair to tax them more because they make more money.

In America, there’s this envy in which people who are capable of earning a higher income shouldn’t be allowed so much money. People who don’t make enough money should just be given free money. But the distribution of wealth in America goes like this: taxes from the rich gives excess money to pay for federal programs to support those in need. A flat tax rate would indeed cut back taxes on the rich, but it will not increase taxes on the middle class since the tax rate will be a flat rate. Ballotpedia does a better job at explaining current Presidential candidates and their stance on taxes. Note that this is income tax.

(https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_taxes)

Hillary Clinton

According to a study conducted by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, “Clinton’s tax plan would raise taxes on the 1 percent by an average of $78,000 per person while keeping taxes for the rest of Americans largely the same.” In addition, her “plan would generate $1 trillion in additional revenue for the government over the first decade and an additional $2 trillion over the next 20 years. Yet three-quarters of those additional funds will come from the top 1 percent of earners. … The top 1 percent — those who earn more than $732,000 a year — would see their taxes increase by an average of $78,284 in 2017… The top 0.1 percent, or those with incomes of over $3.8 million, would see their taxes increase by an average of $519,741. The bottom 20 percent of earners, or those making $23,000 or less, would see their taxes go up by $4 a year in 2017. The middle quintile, or those making $80,000 to $142,000, would see their taxes go up by $44 a year. And the top 20 percent, who make $209,000 or more, would see an average tax hike of $4,527.”[2]

Bernie Sanders

Sanders released a tax proposal as part of an effort to explain how he would pay for his Medicare-for-all, single-payer healthcare plan. Sanders said the plan would cost $1.38 trillion per year—a figure that has been criticized as low[7][8]— and that it would be paid for with a 6.2 percent income-based healthcare premium paid by employers, which is expected to raise $630 billion per year. Sanders’ proposal also called for a 2.2 percent income-based premium paid by households, which is expected to raise $210 billion a year. The plan also would raise income tax rates on households making $250,000 and above. Under Sanders’ plan, rates would rise to 37 percent on income between $250,000 and $500,000; 43 percent on income between $500,000 and $2 million; and 48 percent on income between $2 million and $10 million. The current highest income tax rate is 39.6 percent. Sanders would also raise taxes on capital gains and dividends for households making over $250,000, which would raise $92 billion per year. Limits on deductions for households making over $250,000 would raise $15 billion per year, and increases to the estate tax—focused specifically on people making more than $250,000 a year or inheriting estates larger than $3.5 million—would yield $21 billion a year. Sanders also said that $310 billion a year would be raised by eliminating several tax breaks that subsidize healthcare, which would become obsolete and disappear under a single-payer healthcare system. Currently, health insurance benefits are exempt from both income and payroll taxes, and some economists believe that, eventually, employer spending on health would translate into higher wages and salaries. Minus what would be needed to pay the 6.2 percent tax, Sanders believes that there would be $310 billion a year in new income and payroll taxes, on average over the next 10 years.[9][10][11][12]<

Ted Cruz

On October 28, 2015, Ted Cruz unveiled his tax plan. He proposed a 10 percent flat tax on all individual income from wages. He also proposed elimination of the payroll tax and the corporate income tax, to be replaced by a 16 percent Business flat tax. Cruz said that social security and medicare will remain fully funded, despite elimination of the payroll tax, which funds those programs. Cruz’s plan also included a Universal Savings Account, which would allow every American to save up to $25,000 annually on a tax-deferred basis for any purpose. Cruz also promised no estate tax, alternative minimum tax or ObamaCare taxes, and would do away with taxes on profits earned abroad.[17] An analysis by the Tax Foundation, a group that supports lower tax rates, said the senator’s reforms would “represent a significant shift from the current tax code.” The group estimated Cruz’s proposals would increase the deficit by as much as $3.6 trillion over the next 10 years, but that figure drops to a $768 billion deficit when including possible economic growth.[18] The libertarian Cato Institute said Cruz’s corporate business activity tax is essentially a value-added tax. The proposal is similar to a sales tax, since it’s assumed that businesses will pass the cost of paying it onto consumers. “He says he wants a ‘business flat tax,’ but what he’s really proposing is a value-added tax,” Cato said.[19][20]

John Kasich

Kasich unveiled “The Kasich Action Plan” on October 15, 2015. The proposal called for reducing the number of tax brackets to three from seven; lowering the top individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 28 percent; and capping the long-term capital gains tax rate at 15 percent, helping those in the highest income tax bracket. Kasich’s plan also included a drop in the top business tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent. The proposal would also eliminate the estate tax; double the research and development tax credit for small businesses; and increase by 10 percent the earned income tax credit, which designed to help lower-income taxpayers. Kaisch said he would also balance the budget in eight years by freezing most spending except for the military.[24][25]

In the run up to the launch of his campaign to run for president on July 21, 2015, Kasich had said that he has been exploring a flat tax. [26][27]

Marco Rubio

Rubio introduced his tax overhaul plan on March 4, 2015 as a Senate bill. It was cosponsored with U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). The proposal would reduce the number of brackets from seven to three: 15%, 25%, and 35% and eliminate all exemptions and deductions, except for a charitable contribution deduction and a reformed home mortgage interest deduction. Instead, taxpayers would receive a personal tax credit that phases out for higher-income Americans. The plan would cuts corporate tax rates for all businesses to no higher than 25%, and end federal taxation of business investment by allowing for immediate expensing. Rubio also proposed shifting to a territorial tax system, ending the double-taxation of profits earned abroad for both businesses and individuals. The plan would also eliminate the double-taxation on saving and investment income and would provide a transition period during which the nation would move to a 0% tax rate on dividends and capital gains. Rubio would also eliminate the estate tax. The plan would provide a new child tax credit of up to $2,500, which phases out for wealthier Americans and would offer a limited 25% non-refundable tax credit to any business that offers between four and twelve weeks of paid leave to workers with qualifying family or medical issues, such as, a newborn child in need of care, an elderly parent with declining health, a personal health crisis, or a spouse’s deployment.[33][34][35]

Donald Trump

Trump unveiled his tax policy on September 28, 2015. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump’s platform would remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25,000 and couples earning less than $50,000, reduce the highest individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, and cut corporate taxes to no higher than 15 percent.[39]During September 2015, the Center for Tax Justice claimed Trump’s tax plan would reduce tax revenues by $9 trillion over 10 years. the Tax Foundation similarly estimated his plan would cost $10 trillion over the same time period. Trump’s campaign maintained that the plan was designed to be “revenue neutral.”[40]

Wait. Donald Trump wants to remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25k and couples earning less than $50k per year? Huh? How come no one is talking about this? Everyone is talking about lowering income taxes for the middle class. Everyone is talking about how the rich will get richer due to Republican tax cuts for the rich, but how come no one is talking about how Donald Trump wants to remove the income tax for everyone earning less than $25k per year as an individual or $50k per year as a couple?

Donald Trump proposes to remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25,000 and couples earning less than $50,000 per year.

There. I said it. And I just learned about it.

So what if his highest tax bracket goes from the current 39.6% to 25% for taxing income on the wealthy? Trump is not taxing anyone within those parameters of his tax plan which brings the current record of federal taxes for $25k to have the first $20k taxed at 10% and the remaining $5k taxed at 20% (https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/General-Tax-Tips/What-is-My-Tax-Bracket-/INF26080.html). For a couple, that would be 10% of taxes on $20k and the remaining $30k taxed at 20%.

But wait! The wealthy gets a 14.6% decrease in income taxes?

Considering that the income taxes of the wealthy is used for the federal budget to have money to pay for things, that’s bad, right? Well, in a society of envy and greed where no taxes for the poor and less taxes for the rich means that there’s less money to spend on things like social programs, it’s a complete and utter abomination (for a lack of a better word) to pretty much force the wealthy to take their money and spend it however the government wants it, which is distributing it to the poor, which will never be enough free money for the middle class or the poor to catch up to the wealthy.

I find it funny now that there are self righteous people who complain about how their taxes goes to pay for things like federal prisons so they are entitled to determine what prisoners can and cannot do or what prisoners can and cannot have on commissary (prisoners pay for food on commissary), or how they want everyone on food stamps to be able to only buy rice and potatoes when the rich doesn’t say anything, who also pays more taxes so the middle class can complain and whine. Imagine if the wealthy class said, “we want to limit what kind of food the middle class and the poor can eat, what kind of food is served in public schools, and how the middle class and the poor should spend their tax returns because our money pays for them and the services they use.” At least the wealthy has enough class to not dictate how someone else should live off the money that they pay in taxes to the federal government.

There is never enough of this envy that the middle class feels they should punish the rich and also punish the poor for. They believe they’re the victims of all this unfair taxation done to unfairly punish them. This pity stance is what most people have believed about the middle class and will go to lengths to help the middle class out of their misery, which is exactly what the middle class wants. We’ve been tricked that the middle class is so poor, we should all help the middle class become rich by ignoring the actual poor people and homeless people and people in need in our country. Thankfully, most middle class people (I hope most) are not playing victims and are not trying to dictate what the federal government does with their tax money and not trying to enforce this perversion of how other people should live who receive federal funding of some sort or any sort.

Investopedia’s Parties For Taxes: Republicans VS. Democrats (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/us-parties-republican-democrat-taxes.asp) states:<

Political Ideology: Republican
“We believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions,” the Republicans state their case plainly on the Republican National Convention web site. That is, Republicans believe government should spend money only to enforce contracts, maintain basic infrastructure and national security, and protect citizens against criminals.

The literature of the House Republican Conference goes on to illuminate the role of the government and how tax policies affect individuals: “The money the government spends does not belong to the government; it belongs to the taxpayers who earned it. Republicans believe Americans deserve to keep more of their own money to save and invest for the future, and low tax policies help drive a strong and healthy economy.”

Tax relief is the Republican route to growing the economy. A Republican government would reduce taxes for businesses to allow businesses to grow and thus hire more employees. Republicans also seek to limit income taxes for individuals so that people can hold on to more disposable income, which they can then spend, save or invest.

Political Ideology: Democrat
The tax policy for the Democratic Party calls for raising certain taxes to provide money for government spending, which in turn generates business. The party platform asserts that government spending provides “good jobs and will help the economy today.”

Many Democrats are adherents to Keynesian economics, or aggregate demand, which holds that when the government funds programs, those programs pump new money into the economy. Keynesians believe that prices tend to stay relatively stable and therefore any kind of spending, whether by consumers or the government, will grow the economy. (Check out Giants Of Finance: John Maynard Keynes, to learn more about Keynes’ theories.)

Like the Republicans, Democrats believe the government should subsidize vital services that keep cities, states and the country running: infrastructure such as road and bridge maintenance and repairs for schools. Democrats also call for tax cuts for the middle class. But who benefits most under each platform? The conventional wisdom is that corporations and the wealthy will benefit more with a Republican tax policy while small businesses and middle-class households will benefit from a Democratic tax policy.

Conventional wisdom isn’t actually conventional in this sense. While many people side with Democrats to gather benefits aimed at small businesses and the middle class, the Republican party’s stance isn’t to benefit corporations and the wealthy. It’s to make everyone responsible for their own success, which many people don’t like and will not like because they’re so used to being told they’re special enough that the government will support them. This mentality doesn’t apply to normal people who actually are responsible adults, who strive for success, who can budget and invest their money, but this mentality applies to a group consciousness that we really don’t have to work hard for anything because the federal government will help us.

There are people on welfare who needs the support of that particular program. Then there are other people on welfare who abuse the program and is simply on because it’s free money. While government assistance is indeed a good thing, sometimes, it doesn’t get to the people who actually need the programs because of the people who abuse the programs. I’m not for abolishing federal programs and aid, but I am for people being responsible and taking responsibility for themselves.

Education should be key. People need to be educated.

Salon’s article states, “Democratic America is a very powerful nation struggling with a declining middle class and economic insecurity at the hands of the ultra-rich, requiring some energetic government intervention to mitigate income inequality…

Inequality isn’t what people want. The middle class wants to be the rich class, ridiculing and governing the poor. The lbgt movement wants special rights which allows them to infringe upon the rights of others with no backlash. Democrats want common core math. I think that really says it all for me. Common core math is the most insidious confusion ever injected into America. Sure, it makes sense…if laws and rules and theories didn’t apply and you did math however you wanted which isn’t called math anymore. It’s now simply called, making things up.

Sure, Donald Trump is unfiltered and racist and not the brightest crayon in the Crayola box, but he can still color. Whatever color he is, he lays it on thick. And how many of us aren’t racist or prejudice against someone or something or many things or many people? I for one, am racist against cannibals. I don’t know if they only eat certain people or if they’re going to try and eat me so if I meet one, I am running far, far away if that’s an option. If not, I am not becoming food so I might have to kill them before they kill me. It’s logical reasoning although extreme and hopefully unrealistic. The point is, we don’t like everything and everyone. And I do not know of one person that doesn’t judge anyone based on how they look. Not a single person. What we see first is the outside. And most of us sum up people we meet immediately by how they look before we start to judge them on how they carry themselves and how their character is. While most of us have the ability to not voice our thoughts out loud, Donald Trump doesn’t have that filter so he voices his thoughts out loud. Like, really loud.

So while Trump is an outwardly jerk of what kind of jerks we really are, I commend him in being honest to himself at whatever moment he decides to be himself. There’s a freedom and liberty in being yourself, using Trump as an example, in which we should never be ourselves. Whether in public or in private, we should never really be ourselves.

I’m starting to understand this great love for Donald Trump that everyone has which isn’t easily summed up as insanity. Trump has won 12 states so far: New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Nevada, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Louisiana.

I can easily see Trump becoming the next president. And if that’s so, we might get walls put up soon, but we’ll all have our guns and keep whatever wages we make as long as it’s under $25k an individual or $50k per couple. You win some, you lose some. You can’t win it all, but Trump is certainly winning.

Advertisements
 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 8, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Innocent People Like Janet Marcusse is Still Incarcerated After a Decade of Fighting for Her Freedom

Janet Marcusse is 58 years old and has spent the past decade fighting for her freedom behind federal prison walls after being falsely incarcerated, slandered, and sentenced to 25 years behind bars for a crime she didn’t commit.

Federal Prosecutors initially charged her with a “Ponzi scheme” in 2004, then switched their allegations when they were caught lying about the $7.5 million in investments to honest services fraud in which corrupt federal judge Robert Holmes Bell changed the jury instructions to advise that the government didn’t need to prove the defendants obtained any money or property or that anyone lost any money or property, basically uprooting the government’s burden to actually substantiate any evidence of the alleged crime.

After the jury voted “guilty” on the new charge, prosecutors resurrected their old, abandoned “Ponzi scheme” charge for sentencing and appeal, now lying that it was the jury who determined the Ponzi scheme to be a “fact” when the jury voted according to federal judge Bell’s jury changed instructions. Jan was given a 25-year sentence based on losses caused by others, making it an illegal sentence.

While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted permission for Jan to file a pro se brief on her own behalf, Judges William Bertelsman, Jeffrey Sutton, and John Rogers ignored it in their 2008 decision in order to agree with prosecutors the jury found a “Ponzi scheme”. When Jan challenged the decision, the panel attested her issues had been “fully considered”, causing her “convictions” to be made “final”. When Jan challenged the panel in a petition for recall of the mandate for attorney and judicial fraud, they admitted they had “declined” to consider her issues, but refused to do anything about it.

In March, 2011, in response to Jan’s collateral attack petition under §2255, Judge Bell reversed course and held “a ‘Ponzi scheme’ was not an element of any charges brought”. Judge Bell has also refused to allow Jan’s innocence claim to even be filed, as based on the previously unavailable evidence obtained from the Dept. of Justice proving IRS Agent James Flink committed perjury over at least $9 million at trial, and as based on a new Supreme Court decision repudiating the charge as amended in the jury instructions to honest services fraud.

On June 17, 2011, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder appointed Michael Schipper as a judge for his part in successfully prosecuting this case, describing it as a “Ponzi scheme”.

On January 9, 2013, the evidence was obtained in FOIA litigation to prove a criminal fraudulent scheme was concocted at trial in which prosecutors, IRS agents, Judge Bell and defense counsel all colluded in the deliberate spoliation of Jan’s bank record evidence. They allowed her access to original bank record documents and even provided copies, except then objected to the use of these copies as defense evidence at trial as not in the bulk bank record exhibits by having removed the original documents and replaced them with the records supplied from the banks under subpoena.

The original bank records had been stolen from Jan by co-defendants Wesley and Diane Boss to conceal the evidence of their embezzlement of $1.5 million and given to the IRS. During the trial, however, prosecutors stacked the bulk bank record exhibits in boxes in front of the jury box, but first removed the original documents from them, leaving only the similar content documents provided under subpoena by the banks in the exhibits–documents to which Jan was not allowed access–a scheme which they believed allowed them to object every time Jan wanted to submit any of her copies as defense evidence as not from the bulk exhibits, acting as if she must have fabricated her evidence. This constitutes criminal activity in violation of 18 USC §§ 2,3, 2071 and 26 USC § 7214.

More information on Janet Marcusse can be found here: http://www.ipiw.com

It’s because of reasons like this MSNBC article that Janet cannot get out of prison. The media only cares about things like Kim Kardashian’s butt or someone bashing a gay person. Everyone wants to jump in and help defend false freedoms of people’s lifestyles, why not defend something or someone worth defending? Obviously, many people’s lifestyles aren’t going to be accepted.

No offense to the entire LGBT community, but unless there’s ANY truth in the lies that were told in this article by the only non-transgender female quoted, then there’s no point in the advocacy of a more wicked society in which both the government and its people are corrupted. Those who have been at Tallahassee long enough to know how it works there will know that the very last sentence in this article is the biggest lie of all. There is no “ghetto” in Tallahassee and Tallahassee was where she spent the rest of her sentence until she was released months ago.

What aggravates me is that narcissistic arrogant selfish people can get the media to believe in their lies, but I can’t get one news station, even fake news, to write an article on Jan’s false incarceration with the mountain of evidence from court documents and tax court wins and transcripts and actual facts. But one day, she will be free. No thanks to all the people who try so hard to keep her there.

Here is the article link and the actual full article below. And if anyone is interested, below all this is my email reply to the ignorant reporter who wrote this article.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lgbt-prisoners-abuse

***

Does the LGBT movement ignore inmates?
11/14/14 09:49 PM By Emma Margolin-emma.margolin@nbcuni.com

More than 20 years have passed since the Supreme Court ruled in Farmer v. Brennan that prisoners could hold prison officials accountable for “deliberate indifference” to their safety. The landmark decision, issued on June 6, 1994, affirmed a constitutional responsibility on the part of custodial officials to protect those in their custody.

Today, however, LGBT inmates – particularly transgender women of color – experience harassment, discrimination, and violence while incarcerated, as well as alarming rates of being sucked into the criminal justice system. Prisoners’ rights advocates claim that the mainstream LGBT movement, now riding high on an unprecedented streak of victories in recent years, has largely ignored this set of concerns.

On Friday, the Columbia Center for Gender and Sexuality Law held a conference to discuss the legacy of Farmer, the movement to end abuse in detention centers, and the state of health care for LGBT prisoners, among other issues. If there were any positive takeaways to draw from the event, the best that could be said – as one audience member put it – was simply that “it could be worse.”

The negatives, however, were far more resounding.

“We have LGBT people now that’s hurting, hurting now and no action is taking place,” said Troy Isaac, a former juvenile hall and state prison inmate who now works with the group Just Detention International. At 12 years-old, Isaac was raped for being “effeminate” in the shower area of a California juvenile facility. “Staff members never listened to me,” he said.

Thirty-nine percent of gay male inmates said they’d been assaulted by other prisoners in a 2008 Department of Justice report. To compare, 3.5% of heterosexual male prisoners reported being sexually victimized by other inmates.

The statistics grow more grim when talking about transgender prisoners. Sexual assault is 13 times more prevalent among transgender inmates, a 2007 survey of California correctional facilities found, with 59% of transgender respondents reporting instances of sexual assault in detention. By comparison, 4.4% of the general inmate population reported experiencing sexual assault while in a California correctional facility.

Dee Farmer

In 1989, three years into her 20-year federal sentence for credit card fraud, Dee Farmer, a transgender woman, was transferred to a maximum-security penitentiary. Despite dressing as a woman, undergoing estrogen treatments, and having silicone breast implants, Farmer was held in custody in all-male prisons. Days after being transferred to USP-Terre Haute in Indiana, Farmer was raped at knife-point by another prisoner. She then filed a quixotic lawsuit without legal counsel against the Bureau of Prisons director, regional director, and other officials, alleging that they knew she would be sexually assaulted at USP-Terre Haute due to her feminine appearance.

After losing at both the federal district and appellate levels, Farmer successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for review.

“I really, really didn’t think I had a chance of getting approved,” said Farmer, who is currently incarcerated in a West Virginia federal prison, during a November interview with Just Detention International and the ACLU. In 1994, the Supreme Court agreed to hear .5% of cases filed by indigent plaintiffs, according to the human rights groups.

The high court ended up handing down a unanimous victory for Farmer stating that prison officials had a duty under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, to protect prisoners from harm at the hands of other prisoners. In law, “deliberate indifference” occurs when a professional knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety.

“There have been some inmates I met in my journey who have come up and gave me a hug,” said Farmer in the phone interview that organizers played at the beginning of Friday’s conference. However, she said, “the struggle for transgenderism is still very much alive and very much in need.”

For starters, transgender individuals, especially non-white women, find themselves wrapped up in the criminal justice system at disproportionate rates. In the 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 47% of black transgender respondents said they had been incarcerated “for any reason,” compared to 8.9% of the general black population.

That result is due in large part to factors that put LGBT individuals at risk of being arrested before they even reach adulthood. Data shows LGBT youth are overrepresented in the nation’s homeless population, having left home in many cases because their families didn’t accept them. Once on the street, they’re exposed to myriad dangers, including violence, sex work, and incarceration.

CeCe McDonald

Such was the experience of transgender folk hero CeCe McDonald, who, after surviving homelessness, prostitution, and one near fatal transphobic attack, served 28 months behind bars for second-degree manslaughter, a charge to which she pleaded guilty. At 23 years-old in 2011, McDonald stabbed and killed a man after he and his friends verbally and physically assaulted her.

“I ended up defending myself,” McDonald recalled on Friday, her normally ebullient voice raspy with a cold. “Of course the system did not allow me to flourish in a way where I could successfully go through the trial and actually win.”

Faced with up to 40 years for second-degree murder, McDonald pleaded guilty to a lesser charge that carried a 41-month sentence in a state men’s prison. Though the only LGBT person in her prison pod, McDonald said she was far more concerned about what the prison staff would do to her. “The reality is that staff and people who work there are more than likely to attack you,” said McDonald. “Knowing that put me on a different level of paranoia when I was in prison.”

In an attempt to hold prison officials accountable to their duties under Farmer, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003. From that law grew a set of standards designed to eliminate sexual abuse in prison. But critics denounce the PREA regulations as far too soft on prison officials who assault inmates. “PREA is a joke,” exclaimed Evie Litwok, president of Ex-Offender Nation, during Friday’s conference. “These men could never get laid in the free world to the extent that they’re getting laid in prison,” she said of male staffers working in female jails.

Prisoners’ rights advocates have called for greater transparency within jail facilities – in particular, more cameras. They’ve also implored members of the mainstream LGBT equality movement to strengthen their connection with inmates, through advocacy or, more simply, through writing letters. They stress, however, that the only way to truly reduce the rate of prisoner abuse is to reduce the rate of mass incarceration.

“It’s hard to figure out how to work with people who have caused an enormous amount of harm, but we’re already living with them,” said the Rev. Jason Lydon, founding director of the group Black and Pink. “The rate of homicides being solved are low … Domestic violence goes on and on without police being involved. We’re already living with people causing enormous amount of harm, and prisons aren’t fixing that.”

Short of rape, there are a number of other ways in which inmates face abuse. Litwok, 63, has served a total of 20 months in federal prison for tax evasion. When she first arrived in 2009, she immediately came out as a lesbian – a move she believes subjected her to “harassment, torture, and sadism.”

Inmate.com got the word around immediately,” said Litwok to msnbc during a lunch break. “It’s like old-school telephone. That’s how we get our news.”

Within two weeks of her prison stay, the manager of Litwok’s quiet orientation unit accused her of groping other women.

“I got angry immediately because I hadn’t been involved with anybody for over ten years because of my case,” said Litwok. “I told her I wanted to see the women who accused me of that now.”

No such women were presented. Instead, Litwok was transferred to a different unit known as “The Ghetto,” the loudest most unpleasant area.

“In front of ‘The Ghetto,’ there are 20 beds for punishment called ‘The Bus Stop,” said Litwok. “You sleep under 24-hour, seven-day-a-week florescent lights that don’t go off, and you sleep next to an ice machine that crushes ice every 20 minutes. On either side of you are the bathrooms, which 150 women use … It may not be waterboarding, but it’s torture.”

Litwok stayed there for the rest of her sentence.

***

Dear Emma,

I understand your advocacy for the LGBT movement and equality for that community, but your article on LGBT inmates is largely incorrect. Do you not research as a reporter to uncover the truth instead of simply believing someone who told you something?

It all sounds very much like the criminal justice system, where hearsay can incarcerate an individual with no evidence and no substantial proof of any kind for years and a decade more for conspiracy of which the person doesn’t even know they’re committing conspiracy. The true conspiracy is the lies that the government’s witnesses have told, and in this case, perhaps your faulty sources. It’s sad that people are so blinded with ridiculous notions that it’s them against the world and that anyone who isn’t like them is against them, therein the cause of corruption and evil in this world that many will suffer for the selfishness of others.

Why not then do an actual article on how many people are incarcerated innocently? There are far greater numbers of people incarcerated that should never have been there in the first place, the majority of which are still behind bars today. And no one speaks for them because in today’s society of Hollywood and self-made reality tv stars, it’s more important to discuss whether someone’s butt is too big or whether spikes should be erected under bridges and highways to deter the homeless.

That last one aggravates me because, where does someone who has a place to sleep at night with a warm bed, a comfy blanket, and a nice home ever think of where a homeless person would go if not under bridges and along park benches when the shelters are too full. It would’ve been a better use of government resources to erect more shelters to help the homeless instead of harm them by erecting spikes so that they have nowhere to lay their head. And much like the homeless, falsely incarcerated people exist and will not simply go away if we turn the other eye and pretend not to notice.

There are innocent people in prison fighting to get out and not even the media or any reporters who still seek actual truth will listen, not even with the overwhelming evidence of corrupted federal judges, prosecutors, and civil court wins would help set someone free. Yet, everyone wants to hop on the gravy train of fighting for false freedoms in a bound and slave system worse than any third world country in the world, and no one wants to touch base on the corruption of the people who are here to serve and protect us, the very same ones who throw us behind lock and key to fatten their paychecks and please their own conceited egos of how many they can throw into America’s slave labor system.

If I was in the position to be a reporter, I’d at least fight for something worth fighting for: ivory poaching which kills and drives rhinos and elephants towards extinction, rhinos particularly; deforestation which is humanity destroying itself slowly; and people who can’t speak for themselves because the world is so corrupt that unless we’re just like them, there’s no chance for us who don’t belong to live in it.

But this is the modern age, isn’t it? And the age of technology and computers. Everyone has a Facebook and a Twitter and YouTube and followers. Perhaps one day, no thanks to all the ones who try so hard in hiding up the truth and their own wickedness, will there be a real freedom for everyone, and not simply because everyone wants to throw in their own perspective lifestyle or decisions, but a real freedom with a transparent government who is for the people instead of for themselves while riding on the backs of the people.

Have a good night.

Sincerely,
Xao Thao

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 21, 2014 in Janet Marcusse, Things Worth Fighting For

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,