Irony Alert!
Jan 9: The EPA announces that there should be new standards in West Virginia for coal. West Virginia politicians hold a press conferences to say that they are not needed.
Jan 10: West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin calls for a state of emergency after coal industry dumps toxic chemicals into drinking water.
Not making this up.
Based on media coverage of Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz and everyone else, it’s time for a Presidential election!
Oh wait, the election isn’t in 2014, is it?
Hmm. And it’s not in 2015 either.
Guess it’s almost exactly three years away, which makes sense because the last one was just a year ago.
But hey, might as well start discussing this endlessly on the news now, because what happens now is very important for what happens in the election three years from now!
After all, three years before the 2008 election, we all knew that the Democratic candidate would be Hillary Clinton and the Republican one would be Rudy Guiliani. Clearly. (And this State Senator named Barack Obama? Don’t make us laugh!)
Nothing sarcastic or political today; just a heartfelt thanks for doing a job I could never do. 
The draft ended before I turned 18. By the time young men had to register, I was too old. I am fortunate in that — I don’t think I could handle combat. I always imagined that if I were drafted, I would end up as the kind of soldier who sat behind a desk and did menial work, like Radar O’Reilly.
My father was drafted into the army just as World War II was ending. He spent the next four years never leaving America, enjoying peacetime, for which I am obviously grateful. As a child of immigrants, he demonstrated to me the glory of America — that within one generation, one could stop being an Italian and instead become an American.
So thanks to all who serve and have served.
The Republican Party has today, on the 11th day of the Shutdown, admitted to what we always knew: This is a hostage situation.
Previously, the hostage was Obamacare: “Defund this or we won’t take care of our financial obligations.”
That didn’t work, so now there is a new hostage. “OK, then how about Medicare? Will you change that?”
At least they are admitting at this point that they are holding a gun to America’s head until they can get what they couldn’t accomplish through democratic means.
Seriously, what is the message they are sending? If you don’t win elections and don’t have enough votes to get what you want, then threaten to destroy everyone until you get your way? This is democracy? This is what our forefathers planned?
At least with this new action, the Republicans are pretty much admitting this, because there really is no other explanation that you can give with a straight face.
Let’s recap.
What we now call “Obamacare” was first proposed by the very conservative Heritage Foundation.
During the Clinton administration, the very conservative Newt Gingrich proposed adopting it instead of what they then called “Hillarycare.”
When very conservative Bob Dole ran for President, adopting it was part of the Republican platform.
Later, the very conservative Mitt Romney pushed it in Massachusetts, where it proved to work well and be fairly popular among the citizens of that state.
Now, very conservative people are calling it “socialism” (it clearly isn’t) and claiming that it is the worst idea in the entire world. They of course have no alternative plan, because Obamacare was their alternative plan before.
Just don’t fool yourself: If a Republican were President today, they would be pushing this plan proudly as their own (which it is). But because it was promoted by President Obama, it is clearly the one thing that will destroy our country.
I am constantly amazed by the gigantic hypocrisy we see on the Republican side concerning this issue.
Another state has just spent a ton of taxpayer money forcing welfare recipients to take drug tests only to find that the number of welfare drug users is actually less than the national average. (If you think only poor people use drugs, you’re an idiot.)
Normally, conservatives hate wasting taxpayer money. But when Utah spent thousands of dollars to test drug users only to find twelve who failed the test (yes, you read that right), they considered the money well-spent.
Last year, Florida‘s program had a similar result, when the costs for testing far outweighed the 2% who failed the drug test.
“People who get government money should take these tests, and if they fail they should lose their benefits!” say some. Well, OK, but then let’s be fair about it. We should test all people getting government benefits, the vast majority of whom are elderly and/or disabled (You know, the evil “entitlement kings and queens” Romney warned us about).
Specifically, that would include:
The elderly who get Medicare and Social Security
The Disabled
Veterans who get any sort of veteran service
People who get student loans
Workers who become unemployed
Children who get school lunches
Parents who get child tax write-offs
People who get mortgage credits
Factory farm CEOs who get farm subsidies
Oil company CEOs who get “incentives”
Let’s see … is there anyone left who does not get government benefits?
Like we didn’t see this coming.
It didn’t take long for many states to once more start up their voting suppression drives. Admittedly, some of the examples in the article above are merely politicians talking about doing it (and maybe nothing will come of it) but still, it seems to me that they’re saying “Yee haw! The sheriff is gone! Now we can do whatever we want again!”
This kind of talk really scares me. We should be doing everything in our power to get people to vote, not prevent them from voting. We’re not talking about needing an ID to cash a check, we’re talking about the most basic right we have in America, upon which all other rights are based.
All of these voter laws start with the premise “People are voting who shouldn’t.”
The proper response is, “Yeah? Prove it.”
Until I see evidence that this is indeed a problem (real evidence, not anecdotal and not just one example some election cycle where 100 million people voted), I fail to see why we need a “solution” that only discourages and prevents actual citizens from voting.
If the “we must have these laws to keep everyone honest” brigade was made up of people other than Republicans who have admitted, on the record, and in recordings, that the purpose of these laws is to keep Democrats from voting, then maybe I’d give it more credence. But to me, it just looks like Jim Crow back again, and this time with the Supreme Court’s blessing.
ventrellaquest.com 