Immigrants Are Not Our Greatest Problem. Republicans Are.

I wouldn't beat up on Republicans so often if it weren't for the fact that they always stick their chin out every time I'm feeling politically punchy.

I consider myself "THE" Conservative Socialist because I stand firmly for the destruction of the welfare state and I love God and the Bible just like Donald Trump.  I firmly believe that proactive health care and education investments (socialism) have the power to disintegrate all other forms of social welfare since educated and healthy people rarely need welfare (conservatism). I believe we owe it to our future generations to eliminate the welfare mentality more so than welfare itself, which is actually hard as hell to get and keep these days.

Welfare is an ugly word that started in the 20's but became any ugly blight on its recipients during the politically polarized and economically challenged years of the late 60's and  early 70's.  Once Bill Clinton got his hands all over it, it got rightfully relabeled into TANF (TEMPORARY Assistance for Needy Families) .  Consequently, it is no longer the stereotypical handout that it used to be.  Those who get any services these days get them because they are American born or have American born children (anchor or whatever you like to call babies who could be our president one day).

Benefits are temporary because Bill Clinton insured that all welfare recipients return to work via services designed to connect people to jobs. Some poor folks will tell you that welfare is currently the best way for the needy to get connected to a good job because it insure access to the additional (free) training support (education) and (free) health care connections that are needed to make a the transition from welfare to work a success.

In this post-Clinton era, food stamp benefits in particular demand part time work or volunteer hours just to maintain them or get them at all in between any proven period  of absence or reduction of work.  As a result of the Clinton clamp down on welfare,  (almost no one remains on welfare for more than 5 years) because the system NO LONGER ALLOWS IT.

The challenges with getting and keeping any welfare benefit these days is immense for an actual American citizen. Any non-citizen without American born children has no access to anything accept emergency medical benefits, and this only helps to reduce overall health care increases from the proliferation of unpaid emergency care.  In other words, paying a premium for the emergency room or clinic is immensely cheaper than absorbing the entire unpaid bill on the back side.

Welfare in America does insure that American children are eating, but focuses these benefits towards the children only, so even the families who try to hang from the "Anchor" must try diligently to under report the entire household size and incomes just to avoid weighing the anchor down and losing benefits altogether.

Most poor working families that could probably use a little help with food and bills don't care to bother with the struggle Clinton created getting Food Stamps or TANF  because they are dehumanized by the challenge to constantly jump through hoops to prove you really need help.

In some ways welfare has always been dehumanizing for very proud people.
Now it is only worse.

Because of  the diminishing size of all families in America- even poor ones- the old theory of broke and downtrodden welfare recipients bleeding the system and having more and more babies is totally mythical as well.

Yet, if you listen to the current patch of republican leaders (leaders for the lack of a better word), you start to wonder if regular poor people who actually can use welfare are still the target of republicans anymore who now seem more apt to blame the ruination of this nation on the welfare state that immigrants create?

Minorities rarely vote so they typically make for great political targets.  Immigrants can't vote but are assumed to be eligible for welfare so they are also an easy target for blame when a little inspirational blame becomes necessary during voting season.  Women, on the other hand, vote in droves and have exercised their voting privileges for as long as they've had them (1920).

I guess I understand the calculation of upsetting immigrants and inspiring ignorant's who think welfare and the illegals are destroying our nation; although I don't quite understand what message such an attack sends to the mass proliferation of legal Mexicans and Asians who can vote and didn't vote particularly strong for republicans last time around.

You Call This Outreach?

If there is one thing that makes me think that Donald Trump is in fact an internal plant from the Hillary Clinton campaign, it might be his single handed destruction of the republican platform promise to reach out to MINORITIES as a result of the last two presidential campaign failures; failures that Trump criticizes but is doomed to repeat without Hispanics or Asians or Blacks or Women or any strong support from minority groups.

 Among organized American minorities, women lead the power rankings list but remain at the back of the pack in the perception of way too many republicans. Say for example, those foolish republicans who are co-signing the video terror attack being leveled at Planned Parenthood.  These attacks falsely assume that WOMEN who believe choice is important also HAD NO CLUE THAT FETAL RESEARCH EXISTED IN AMERICA. Fetal research has never been a field that we hire women to have babies exclusively for research purposes, and smart women have NEVER been stupid about abortion or fetal research.

In fact, many clueless republicans all throughout the land think welfare is mostly for illegals because they actually tried to get help during these trying years; help that hardworking people who really need temporary help can't really get it anymore, so they blame immigrants for changing our job market and for our stringent temporary assistance laws.

In reality, the conservative Clinton's are responsible for welfare stringency, our job market transition (caused primarily when NAFTA forced Mexican farm workers into America), and might be responsible for finally getting that Keystone Pipeline drilled and all of those infrastructure jobs since Hillary, who's been very vocally opposed to drilling in Alaska, won't tip her hat on Keystone one way or another.  If she's shutting up about Keystone though vocal about Alaska, it's because the distorted structure of today's Super PAC's allows her to get secret donation's (10 time's more than ever before in case you forgot) that a few of her conservative oil loving friends (maybe even Trump) won't regret once she gets elected.


WE Didn't Create Capitalism Nor Do WE Control Its Advance

The Clinton's are not only neo-conservatives just like me and Donald Trump for that matter, they are Global Initiative capitalistic conservatives with a mission to expand capitalism to a universally hyper level in which the nation at the top will ultimately gain the most from capitalism's destined design.  A globalized mission is maniacal  in some ways but so is capitalism.

If capitalism's global advance is inevitable (and it is), America may as well be positioned to benefit the most, since often times WE are asked to sacrifice the most for the sake of capitalism too.

I totally support the make a buck to help me rub more backs approach that the Clinton's are using towards worldwide diplomacy because the nation who gains the most from capitalism will always be challenged by the existence and the needs of the needy.  Even Christ was bestowed with wealth though he shunned it. Because our power to perform Christ-like miracles is limited, our need for money is great if in fact we are to do greater things as Christ' suggested we will.


Make America Great Again By Redefining Conservatism

 I wish the Clinton's could help me recapture the conservative label so that it goes back to only meaning God(Grace....forgiveness...tolerance) and Country(that place made up of a bunch of immigrants) instead of  this distorted meaning of conservatism that republicans are crafting for their own purpose. I'm not sure if republicans or conservatives are driving the Trump frenzy, but I know for certain that they are not the same group of people since the same people who are voting for Donald Trump could never be willing to settle for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush instead.

 (check out Trump's performance with evangelical's)

I would totally be on board the Hillary bandwagon if not for the Run Hillary Run prelude to this kiss. Hillary is trying to give us her best smooch while avoiding the Jeb Bush label of being dry and flat. Bush is fighting for energy because he too was encouraged into doing all of this by a crowd of normal conservatives like me who keep searching for an electable candidate while wondering why the republicans can only uncover the best of a bad bunch of options.

Now we've got the Draft Biden camp working hard to encourage another presidential run from somebody who wasn't already encouraged to be our president.  While I TOTALLY understand the hesitation to run for this job that produces Teleprompter Hillary or SuperDry Jeb, I also find myself a bit leery of anyone who is already justifiably weary.  I hope Jeb Bush survives to go head to head with Donald so us neo-conservatives can rest assured of holding office like we basically have since way back when trickle-down economics didn't stop the Bush boys from raising taxes anyway.

I am Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and every neo-conservative socialist that appreciates immigrants and enjoys praise and worship service too much to accept that kids started struggling in school right about the same time they kicked God out the door. From the sounds of it, I am Jeb Bush too.  All of us neo-conservatives want to do something RIGHT NOW about immigration, but none of us cared for gay marriage until we discovered that our gay friends and family had been struggling to breathe for years. Abortion is hardly preferable to neo-conservatives, but we certainly accept the intelligence of both women and the Roe .v. Wade decision enough to leave that topic alone too.

The Clinton's and I are in lock step on the importance of a global economy for the sake of diplomatic outreach and for America's vibrancy over time. Trump clearly agrees, and we all know how the Bush family reacts to the word oil.  Whether we like it or not, the global economy WE resist already exists but begrudgingly, which is what creates so much counter productive competitive corporate sabotage like the Chinese did with their inflated market valuations in the hopes of helping themselves and hurting the dollar at the same time.

As we recently discovered ourselves, all balloons will eventually pop. What we are now waiting to uncover is how attached to the struggling Chinese market are WE really, and what long term impact does China's market struggles have on U.S. economic strength?

My market hunch is that our economy has inflated enough rich Americans in recent years for US to totally exploit the self off in China, of China.  Aside from cheap loans from China that our economy is fully positioned to re-pay if necessary, we are disconnected to China just enough to use them more than they use us since their citizens do the back breaking work that allows us to enjoy the benefits of The Dollar Tree, and our farmers export enough products to insure the health of the American farmer and the long term necessity of farm work in America.


Now That Oil Has Fallen, Are Cheap Workers The Greatest World Commodity?

In reality, rich Americans are perfectly positioned to take full advantage of Mexicans or Asians, including the one's who stay in America on visa's and are now working illegally all over America as we speak.  Since the common immigrant flies into America, none of them will be stopped by Donald's big wall or Donald's big rhetoric that keeps placing the most valuable assets in the American economy in full opposition to the republican party and its fence building, gobble up and deport, change the 14th Amendment and, oh yeah- defund Planned Parenthood agenda. (did I miss anything)

Donald Trump might be really good at pretending that he doesn't call anyone a bimbo except Rosie O'Donnell and Megan Kelly (via retweet), but the rest of the republican field is not so good at this media trick.  They will be held to account for the direction that the lead polling republican candidate took the entire party when it comes time to really address immigration instead of temporarily using it just to drive primary poll numbers.

These same republicans are currently being asked to own the false fear that they've created of immigrants on welfare just like they are being asked to own the unsubstantiated fear they created of ObamaCare; a fear that they mysteriously refuse to address now even while a few of those fear mongering republican governors gave in already and adopted the very program they denigrated.

A real conservative would have quickly taken advantage of the opportunity to receive federal financial support for the vital duty of providing health care access to the people who need it the most and who elected officials are duty bound to serve.  A real conservative would never accept poor schools that don't offer EVERY American citizens the best of America's educational opportunity.  Most importantly, a real conservative would never give a man a fish, or not share one, when he could feed that man while teaching the skills to acquire a good job in the fishing or food processing industries.


Republicans Are Not Necessarily Conservatives

I'm drawing the lines between those republicans and US conservatives because I want to make it clear that creating free benefits to insure life long healthy and educated Americans who don't need welfare or excuses makes me much more a conservative than socialist. Once Hillary comes clean on Keystone,  I will probably decide to join her in support of the Keystone Pipeline because creating really good pipelines that don't actually burst open and spill everywhere will someday minimize the environmental impact on our roads and railways- that just so happen to need to be rebuilt as they've become human death traps. These bills have long since been jammed together as one.  Both need to move forward and get Americans back to work.
        _______________________

Trump Supports Rebuilding Roads & Bridges Too (does he know about that jobs bill that republicans jammed up in Congress over the Keystone pipeline?)
      _________________________

Continuing to destroy our roads and rails with oil transport won't be a great way to fix or maintain our infrastructure,  or achieve cleaner air, an initiative we've promise to lead the world in as well.

Why do we have droughts in California at the same time we have
floods in Colorado?  Can't one problem address the other?...
..and whatever happened to that jobs bill to fix our roads and bridges?
Are republicans using the Keystone Pipeline to get people killed?

In the long run, increasing oil production to the point of extreme saturation is the best way to devalue the price of the commodity and usher in the era of alternative fuels and the era of alternative thinking. Smart companies who currently produce oil, have already anticipated the coming change and are transitioning into the future of alternative fuels,



Being A Conservative Is A Good Thing.

My greater vision relative to alternative thinking is the day when we consider the greater good of people and the economy as mutually achievable; when we embrace conservative sensibilities like pipeline technology for its value and its worth instead of run from it and never use it to mitigate the impact of oil transport or the floods in Colorado at the same time we deal with droughts in California.

Or when we realize that you don't have to agree with climate change to recognize the value of destroying the grip of oil and dominating the alternative energy industry at the same time we minimize the emissions
causing this debate.

It seems plausible to my small brain that people who are dying to carry humans into space or dirty oil across risky pipelines could also transform floods from immigrants or water into resources and not problems.

There will probably come a time when we have no choice with either.

America's Founding Wasn't Flawless. Neither Were The Founders

Who do we get to blame for congress and its absolute fear of accountability if not the founding fathers?  Didn't they realize that partisanship would someday become the subordinate of our demise? Some in congress have begun to excuse their uselessness by saying "no legislation is better than bad legislation".  Meanwhile, they allow all legislation and decisions of war to come exclusively through the executive branch and executive orders, functionally turning the office of the president into the king we abhor.  For Americans, choosing our next king has just gotten serious.

The founding design was flawed, and it still is.  Apparently, I am suppose to be afraid to say that, especially if I hope to declare myself as a truly conservative republican.  Not that I am striving to own one label or another, but there are people out there (Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Rand Ryan, Paul Paul, Iyn Rand) who are. Any one of these offshoots of the republican Medusa would love to solidify their place within a conservative electorate that has no true identity as a result of an unrecognizable face. Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party or Tea Party Libertarian's are all distinct aspects of a segmented party searching to coalesce around an identity that average Americans won't be afraid to look at, and a candidate who can best express this fractured face.

Paul Paul is actually a formidable candidate for republicans to put forth, in that he marries most aspects of what the party seems willing to accept as their identity.  The problem is that Paul Paul doesn't exist.  Neither does Rand Ryan, who could also connect the dots on conservative confusion if he were a person. The Tea Party is not reflected in any of these examples (real or mythical), because they remain the marginalized group under the republican umbrella.  As they continue to lose primary elections to traditional republicans or Libertarian up shoots, the impetus to put forth a Tea Party presidential candidate has lost much of the steam that it had at the start of Barack Obama's presidency. Libertarian's might remind you that they were originally described as Tea Party Libertarians, but their two famous faces in that crowd, Rand Paul and his father Ron, do not express the Tea Party aspects of the Libertarian banner.

In fact, Rand Paul will be the one conservative candidate in this election for president who, much like myself, sees plenty of errors in the founding documents, especially as they've disproportionately impacted brown skinned American's that are currently incarcerated in US prisons. Those who blame laws and regulations for our economic and social problems rarely see how our founding documents have always allowed whatever capitalism could afford. Regulations have never been designed to stop business, just to insure that only a select few maintain quick access to certain industry.  Big money can move mountains of regulations out of the way, or financially absorb them to speed things along. Everyone else must get in line.

The big money provision is firmly established and maintained within the founding documents, and little has changed since our founding.  If that is okay, which it very well might be, lets admit it and stop pretending that the founders wrote a flawless document of supreme opportunity for all.  We can easily disagree about how much industry owes society(socialism), but we shouldn't continue to argue about our imperialistic model, its intent, or its initial and remaining flaws.

What the founders created is the democratic freedom to be heard. That's it.  To be certain, democratic freedom is a powerful tool. Many capitalistic newsrooms use it daily to manipulate the masses.  Constitutionally condoned misogyny continues to force women to fight their way into a founding document that finally insists on equality, but can't undo the imbalance that former founding language fostered for way too long.  We will leave the racial stuff alone for now.

It might  be harsh to hold the founding fathers to task for misogyny that ruled their era and before them.  In fact, I only hope to reveal that any document made within the belly of imbalance was also vomited from that belly. Yet, despite all of that, the beauty of the constitution is not the surety of its founders but the surety of its foundation of freedom, in which democracy could overcome the natural failures of man, even theirs.

Would we have established an electoral college if the founders had advanced technology like today?  Technology is currently challenging all traditional means of voting, but it has yet to address the founding failures in how we actually vote for our president.

Conservatives deserve the lion share of credit for a clear understanding of this key issue for our nation.  The founders locked us into a two party reality that robs our ability to stand on principle and vote that way as well. Principled stands, like that of the Tea Party republicans, is what started this conservative segmentation, and both Tea Party and Libertarians will have to either wait their turn (Tea Party) or get behind Rand Paul (Libertarians) as a third party alternative.  For legitimacy sake, Libertarians may be forced to put forth a viable candidate regardless of the uncertain republican plan.  Four more years of Libertarians waiting to bear the face of the republican party for a run at the presidency could be the formula for the same kind of,  "waiting for our chance" decline that the Tea Party  is experiencing now.

Despite the distinct divide, if you asked any conservative segmentation of today's republicans to articulate their movement, the words "founding fathers" will certainly make their way into the explanation.  In essence, the hope is to insure that the concept of conservatism and the actual thing being conserved is easily repeatable and connectable in a short sound bite.  Modern conservatism is being segmented by economic motivations, social motivations or both.  The segmentation is correct and the founders were wrong.  Until a viable alternative party candidate wins the Presidency, the two party divide, securely established, designed and protected by our founders, will eventually split America into a handicapped nation.  Already, we lack the collective resolve to address the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) threat and groups like them WILL be emboldened to take advantage of this time in our history to increase their stature.

The founders should have given the president the freedom to destroy foreign enemies as needed just as they should have given American citizens the power to ouster a sitting president who doesn't act in our collective interest relative to war.

Oh! They did do that?

So what is the real problem then?

Congress (aka., power grabbers)

Congress was, and is, full of a bunch of people who think they could be president too.  A few are happy to simply represent their constituents at home, but most are power grabbers with ego's that afford them this character flaw.  The founders, seeking to be smarter than the country they were rejecting in this whole founding process, diminished the role of the president, or king, or whatever you call the person in charge, by sharing his responsibility with power grabbers, but leaving accountability at the foot of the king. Agreement becomes weakness to a power grabber. At its worst form, power grabbing turns into a stalemate stare down like we are witnessing in congress today.

Is congress still at the mercy of lobbyist and the likes as we used to suspect?  Only if they choose to be.  No congressional representative remains in office long if they do not play the game a little, but even that becomes a further indictment on those who place power above principle. Terms limits should be dictated by personal integrity, or an unwillingness to sale out.  Some of our nations best politicians will never ascend to national politics because state and local politics is a dirty challenge.  National politics is downright filthy.

Thanks to our founding, political principles are dictated by personal priorities resulting in the politics of lesser evils.  The founders probably intended for a closer connection to God then what we've maintained, but capitalistic compulsions (i.e., lawsuits that ran God away) ruled the day on that matter as well.

Now, God is still in schools, just only at the big money Catholic and Jesuit schools that can afford to circumvent the "No God" regulation, which poor people who love God can't easily navigate around (I got sent to the office several times while learning evolution in high school). An alternative party candidate will address this problem, but are we currently taking a 50 year approach towards dismantling the two party grip? Those currently on this route don't think so, but the remedy they seek lies in a fractured founding document that instituted an electoral methodology which marginalizes any state that dares put forth a third party candidate. Marginalized states will have to continue to put forth marginalized candidates for 50 years in my estimation before enough states will finally see the wisdom in the approach since the electoral process demands that ALL electoral votes from each state be cast on one candidate, regardless of what the other votes in that state reflect. Disinterested voters had better move to states where their vote can bear weight or they risk feeling further disinterest given the electoral process.

Is that simply losers lament?  No way.  It is discontent with a process that feels forgone long before you've gone off to stand in a long line just to receive a conclusion that you already expected. On presidential election nights, only a handful of states actually hang in the balance, and those states get pounded with campaign artillery for their troubles. Actually voting is important because turnout is not a forgone conclusion, but the polls make voters feel as if the conclusion is foregone, and seldom do polls significantly miss.

When a person's vote doesn't feel valuable, than voting loses virtue. The founders may not be responsible for that, but they can't get an ounce of credit for their lack of effort in protecting the sanctity of the voting process when they started out allowing shoddy behaviors, most notably the electoral college, as well as the systematic exclusion of millions from the two party electoral trick. However strongly you defend the founders for the use of it at our founding should be the same vigor at which you adjudicate them for not foreshadowing its eventual uselessness.

This is, in small part, an effort to discredit the flawless founding, but in large part it is a hope to convey a bigger concept.  Thank you founding fathers!  We know that creating a more perfect union could never mean perfection, and that electoral thing was good when it was good.  Now, its time to count the freakin' votes.  Its the only way to functionally destroy the dysfunctional two party system as we know it.  Through counting the vote and accessing all presidential candidates, and their campaigns, through public television (free TV only) and a free web- based campaign tool, we can force big money out of the presidency and the voice of America into it. If big money wants your vote, they can pay for door to door workers who come out and ask for your vote like they used to do in the good ole' days, when people respected the voting process.


.....or we could keep political gridlock instead.

Modern Conservatives Make Us All Miss George W. Bush

       "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice?.......well you ain't gonna get to do that again"

       Back when he was our president we made it tough on him.  Not so tough that he couldn't get re-elected, but tough.  George W. Bush moved from being president Bush in to dub-ya, the much maligned leader of the free world with a tendency to speak with a less than stellar grasp of the English language.  Some of the verbal gaffs that he spewed make Sarah Palin appear scholarly.

     By the time we saw his presidency come to an end, we were weary of a couple of wars that we could no longer justify and staring face to face with the next great depression.  The first black president might have won the election anyway, but it was not a hard sell at the time to try something different.

      Bush committed himself to ending Apartheid.  His dedication in the nation of Africa sparked one of the cable news shows to bring up the Jay Leno show clips of George W. Bush dancing in Africa and it prompted me to reflect on how comfortable he was in his own skin.  If he ran into a curtain trying to exit a room after a press conference he would flash that sheepish, boyish grin that made you join him in laughter.  He was a serious man, that never took himself too seriously

      He got us into a war that we all wanted as the anger from 9-11 boiled into a fever for retribution.  We needed a place to spill our anger and 'W' understood that.  He shared the same sentiment.  With all that we complain about from presidents when they are in office (especially as they reach the end of terms) it is a lot easier to see the truth in hindsight.

      The truth about George W. Bush is that he loves America....deeply.  He was party driven, but not blinded by party.  If he became the disgraced face of the Republican party than his opponents owe him and all of America an apology for the new faces who've surfaced in his absence.

       I would take another George Bush over Ted Cruz any day of the week. We miss ya president dub-ya.

Falling In Love With Conflict Leaves Conservatives Lonely For Love

This is my Valentine's Day political report.  I know, the marriage of politics and love is a stretch, but flex with me anyway.

Donny Hathaway and Roberta Flack once sang an amazing song called "Where Is The Love".  Because they sang it with such beautiful harmony, it is a song that few recount as a death of a relationship song.  Conservatives have come to the "End of the Road" (Boyz II Men, another death of love song) and must separate themselves from those they call RINO's or accept that politician formerly known as Republican is just like the Democrat, the names we currently use to win elections.  Over time those names and their meanings have changed to harm the innocent and protect the guilty.

Republicans have to recognize that the country's heart is breaking in two over this war that is destroying our understanding of conservatism.  Modern political party's are more challenged than ever to define a clear direction for an internet electorate that is too smart to keep falling for the old tax and spend shell game, or the reducing of taxes only for the people who fund elections.

Rogue republicans have gone out on their own with the notion that only democrats are poor and that only republicans are interested in ending the need for welfare.  The act of "going rogue" has been transformed by republicans into their business as usual.  In fact, without an agreement about message, there technically is no stream to swim against.

The mythical character Captain Kirk always made the final call about what the Star Trek Enterprise would do in the midst of their travails, but it was rarely without disagreement and discourse.  On occasion, the episode involved failed decisions that had drastic ramifications, but decision makers in this futuristic example were more likely to beat themselves up than to have it done by subordinates.

John Boehner should be so lucky.



Boehner is now being painted (or photoshop'd) with a sombrero for his unwillingness to continue to obstruct an immigration bill that is ready for signature. He got a similar line of attack when he allowed a vote on a clean debt bill..  Boehner believes that there are many republican voters, including Hispanic voters, who insist we bring the immigration bill before congress.  Boehner does not hear America screaming for him to swim against this tide;  to accept that we are forever married to the Mexican immigrant

The only real value of long term recession is that it squeezes the masses into action.  Needs of the common man that were once ignored become significant electoral issue's that suddenly steer elections.  Income equality, a living wage and healthcare changes have all conspired to make the economy the direct and indirect issue of this campaign season. Obamacare threatens to cause economic loss for some, but should be an economic benefit to most.  Will those impacted be a significant enough number to turn the fate of an election?

The Hatfield and the McCoys fought for so long, that they probably found themselves a bit empty when the fighting came to an end. Similarly, the democrats are now looking over the fence as the republican family gets a weekly sheriff visit from all of the domestic violence going on in their house. No matter how bad you disagree with your neighbor, you never celebrate such demise.  Unfortunately, its hard to find love when your mind is immersed in hate.

Obama bashing is starting to feel like a harmless prank.  When you listen to internal republican strife, it makes Obama hate feel  like getting TP'd by your neighbors compared to the domestic war that they are waging against one another over who shall determine the conservative agenda.  Every egg that democrats throw on republican windows in response is simply adding to the mess of egg that they've created for themselves in becoming the anti-everything (except war and oil) party.

During this Valentine season of love, we need to remind the republicans to promote more love and not more war and oil production. If it were not for the Keystone pipeline or fracking, I would not know how to explain the current republican agenda. What the world needs now is love, sweet love.  Its the only thing that there's just too little of.  War and oil have their place, but they are hardly the instruments of unity.

What Is A Conservative Socialist Liberal Republican?....I hate labels

Socialism is both necessary and dangerous. If I were Monarch Obama, I would add to ObamaCare free, or highly subsidized education in exchange for the GRADUAL dismantling of the inefficient systems of reactionary socialism that we call welfare. Frankly, healthy and educated people are typically strong contributors to a society, and the mere existence of our current system of welfare is shameful and a blight on America- one we should work to make it go away.

I used to believe that to be educated and healthy made us self sufficient.  The truth is, no one is self sufficient.  Even the ones who think they are tend to take their welfare from the government in April and not each month like medicaid/food stamp/welfare recipients. I have come to realize that being a strong contributor does not make any of us "self sufficient" because on some level or another, we will always need the positive collective programs socialism provides(i.e. roads,military, schools, emergency response, a government option in healthcare and in banking to competitively regulate both industries better). We wouldn't be the United States of America if unity was not a necessary part of the equation, however, sitting on the shadowy side of unity is the demonic reality of what we are all up against.


Do you know why it is so hard to stay married? Because marriage and family are so vital to the future of humanity. If you aren't spiritual and do not believe that evil forces are at work to divide marriages, and thus families, then I will not be able to convince you that evil has a vested interest in dividing America, the worlds beacon of hope. A divided and polarized (code word for labeled) America threatens the entire worlds existence. Our labels are only helping evil out.

The two party divide is so intense in America that we have a version of it growing within one party. As a Christian, I get it. True conservative doctrine, as defined by President Limbaugh, does not allow for compromise with liberal air space, much less liberal ideology. If you even smell of liberal air(sorry Chris Christie.....their rules, not mine) you shall be battered and bludgeoned in favor of a properly labeled conservative........who probably can't win a general election.

To all who follow HIS spirit be warned. Religion has become a conservative crutch for intolerance. The word denomination is code for disagreements that spawned another church. Sarah Palin calling the Pope "somewhat liberal" is all the proof you need that conservatives have claimed religion so much as their own, they can't relate to the liberality of Grace. Why do we need so many Christian labels? Did Christ really come to have several thousand interpretations of the simple Gospel of Grace? (another blog...another day)

Labels are the tool of division and serve only to allow us all to retreat to our corner of righteous indignation. Humans are just as flawed as the political and religious ideologies we dream up. The notion that any one of them is purely right and righteous enough for us to impose on each other is arrogant and dangerous.

While Obama's liberalism did not stop him from using a conservative plan to create ObamaCare, conservative disdain for government does not stop them from taking government tax credits or using loopholes in the code every year around April, although some are claiming that they won't take a healthcare subsidy. If I claim to be a socialist but wish God wasn't kicked out of our schools so that we could have an LGBT club instead, is there a label for me? Are there no LGBT Christians? I hate labels......All of them!

https://twitter.com/squarebiztweet

Socialism .vs. Capitalism. Is this a war or a marriage?

I love to smile inside at times when I think about the years of my early adulthood when I was raising babies and trying to find my way.  At the time, my very dear friend was raising his own babies, so we often spent time together raising our babies and exploring the joy of beer.

John Sherffius is the creator of this.

We were close, close friends from middle school, so our influence on each other is immense.  I can recall how he came to be deeply involved with unions.  As a politically charged young person, I found myself standing outside of a grocery store during a strike and I jumped right in with the workers to fight the good fight.  At the time, I don't think my friend cared much about stuff like that but he joined me anyway.  As we departed I explained to him what I believed about unions then, and what I believe about them now.  Unions dictate work standards for everyone, even those who do not pay the cost for their existence.

Unions rose out of a natural reaction to capitalism run amok.  A great example of the importance of unions is our current insurance debate.  The reason that 85% of the insurance market is employer based insurance is not because employers are so considerate of people, but because companies who did not have unions ran the risk of becoming unionized if they did not move to meet union level standards.  They still do.

As a result of unions in this country, every company tries to stay ahead of employee dissent that could result in a unionization effort.  The rise of unions and the cost of having them does not and did not destroy companies, it just forced them to see the cost of doing business in a broader perspective.  This broader perspective allows 85% of America to currently work for a company that subsidizes each employee in order to pay for the current socialized health insurance program called group insurance.

If companies can justify paying this expense right now (it will go away in 2015 for most ), do you think it will be hard to pay for increased wages when this expense goes away?  Companies take any expense, increased supply cost, increased wages or whatever and treat it like all expenses; as a cost of doing business. That's it.

Most socialism is just a cost of doing business that we disperse among the masses to ease the pain.  Sometimes we call it taxes, other times we call it fee's, but in the end whether its paid out in the form of group insurance or military spending, or food stamps, it is socialism nonetheless.

Socialism demands pragmatism.  Group insurance is pragmatic.  Generally American socialism is not pragmatic but reactionary and therefore expensive as hell. As a result of American socialism, the forces of capitalism and competition have learned to lurk for opportunity to consume  the crumbs and waste from this reactionary beast.  The big crumbs fall from military and healthcare socialism.  Other forms of socialism nip at the edges of our wasteful government but don't consume nearly as much as the big two.

Military waste abroad will be consumed by private security firms and other corporations (have you heard about camp leatherneck). The rest needs to go away to deal with our deficit a bit.  Since war is such a major industry in this world, the military has become an example of socialism and capitalism playing twister. Good luck unraveling those two lovers.  Before the ACA, that's what was happening in healthcare.

In the end, socialism and capitalism are like a husband and wife.  Both compete for power even though they already know who is the boss............s/he is.