GOP Is Striking Out With Hispanics

According to the 2010 census, the population breakdown of the United States by race or ethnicity is as follows:

Whites (non-Hispanic)...............63.7
Hispanics...............16.3%
African-Americans...............12.2%
Asians...............4.7%
Mixed race...............1.9%

This population breakdown makes it unlikely that a political party could expect to win the White House with a fairly significant portion of the non-white vote. To win with only white votes would require a party to get an abnormally high percentage of that white vote -- and that is unlikely to be possible for either party (although with their anti-immigrant and anti-minority policies, that seems to be what the Republicans are trying to do).

It is probably impossible for the Republicans to get more than 7-8% of the African-American vote (in fact, I think that number might be too high). A lot of whites may not be able to see the anti-minority policies and simmering racism inherent in the Republican Party, but it is clear to almost all African-Americans. It would be futile for the Republicans to go fishing for votes in this demographic group.

The only real possibility to get significant votes outside of the white demographic would be among Hispanics. The last time the Republicans elected a president was in 2004. That year George Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote, and squeaked by in a close election. In 2008, John McCain got only 31% of the Hispanic vote and was soundly defeated. The question for the 2012 election is can the Republicans top the 31% Hispanic vote of John McCain, and get close to the 40% Hispanic vote of George Bush?

Another War - Or Two Or Three ?

The United States is already involved in two seemingly endless wars right now -- in Afghanistan and Iraq. The government has already signaled that the Afghan War will be continued at least until the end of 2014 (another three years). And while we are legally supposed to leave Iraq by the end of this year, it now looks like the Iraq government will be pressured to ask us to stay longer -- how much longer is anybody's guess.

For most countries that would be more than enough military action, especially considering it has already gone on for over 10 years. But it seems that the politicians in Washington think two wars are not enough. They think they know what is best for the rest of the world (even though they can't even solve the problems we have here at home), and that U.S. troops can magically solve problems that other countries have been unable to solve for years. These politicians have obviously failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

It was announced yesterday that President Obama is sending about 100 United States combat troops into Africa with full combat gear. Some of the troops are going to Uganda and some to surrounding countries. Their mission is to help these African countries deal with rebel leader Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army. There is no doubt that Kony is a terrible person who has been a thorn in the side of that part of Africa for many years -- killing civilians and soldiers, kidnapping children and forcing them into his army, raping women, etc.

He needs to be dealt with -- of that there is no doubt. But is it the United States that should be doing it? If outside intervention is really necessary, shouldn't it be done by the United Nations and not be a unilateral action by America? I'm an older guy and I still remember that this was how we first got involved in Vietnam. We just sent a few dozen combat "advisors" that were supposed to give the Vietnamese the help and expertise they needed to solve their Viet Cong problem. That turned into a full-fledged war that cost the lives of over 58,000 American soldiers.

Frankly this new war worries me. What are 100 soldiers supposed to accomplish in the African jungle against a rebel army that several African countries have been unable to deal with for years? Do we really think this handful of soldiers can accomplish a miracle in that harsh environment that hundreds of thousands of troops couldn't do in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? But like it or not, we are now involved in three wars -- and all we can do is hope this latest one doesn't turn into an endless quagmire like the other two have become.

But even a new war in Africa is not enough for some of the Washington politicians. Using the foiled attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, many Republicans (and too many Democrats) are ramping up their rhetoric against Iran and Syria. They say the president hasn't done enough to rein in Iran and Syria, and some are even calling for regime change in those countries. The problem is that the president has done about everything that can be done short of taking military action.

These fools in Congress need to make it clear exactly what they want the president to do. Do they want military strikes against these countries? Do they want the United States involved in five military wars -- with no assurance that any of them can be won? And what's even crazier is that many of these same politicians are the ones saying our government is already spending too much. Do they really think that in the middle of this recession, when we can't even seem to find the money to help our own hurting citizens, we should be trying to pick a couple of new wars?

For a nation that claims to be peace-loving, the United States sure has a lot of very blood-thirsty politicians. It's time to let them know that we need to stop the wars we're already in -- not start some new wars.

GOP Playing With Fire On Jobs Bill

Today President Obama's jobs bill is coming up for a vote in the Senate. They'll probably vote on both versions of the bill -- the one that raises taxes for everyone making over $250,000 a year and the one that just imposes a surtax of slightly more than 5%on people making $1 million or more. But it doesn't matter which version you like best, because the Senate Republicans have said they will not allow a cloture vote to succeed and stop their filibuster of the bill (which requires 60 votes).

But even if by some miracle the jobs bill did pass the Senate, it stands absolutely no chance of passing the Republican-dominated House of Representatives. Republican economic leader Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin says it is because President Obama has refused to "negotiate" a compromise that is acceptable to both parties. That may be one of the biggest lies he has ever told.

If we've learned anything from the last couple of years in Washington, it's this -- it's not the president who's unwilling to compromise, it's the Republicans. The president has tried to compromise time and time again, but every effort has been rebuffed by the congressional Republicans. And they're not willing to compromise on this jobs bill either.

The Republicans have already shown there is no part of the president's jobs bill that they could accept. They don't like giving a payroll tax break to the bottom 90% of Americans. They don't like appropriating money to renovate and upgrade our transportation infrastructure. They don't like the idea of fixing up around 35,000 school buildings. And they don't like tying tax breaks for small businesses to job creation.

In fact, there is only one thing they do like. They still want to give the richest Americans and the biggest corporations more and bigger tax breaks. It doesn't matter to the Republicans that these people already control more of the country's wealth and income than since the 1920s, and are not producing any new jobs. There is no reason to believe that giving the richest Americans even more money will produce jobs either.

What the Republicans don't seem to understand is that President Obama knew they wouldn't pass the jobs plan when he introduced it. He's laying an electoral trap for them, and they are walking straight into it -- either willingly or unknowingly. A huge majority of Americans have said that the number one issue in America is job creation, and they've been saying this for a while now. They're not going to be happy with the killing of any jobs bill right now -- even one as modest as the one proposed by the president.

When the Republicans kill this jobs bill, the president is going to beat them over the head with that for the next year. And if he's smart, he'll make insignificant changes to the bill and re-introduce it over and over again -- forcing the Republicans to repeatedly vote against job creation. And when they do that they're playing with electoral fire -- a fire that could burn more than their fingers in November 2012.

The Republicans look at the president's approval numbers (around 40% right now) and think they can beat him in the next election. But they are overlooking their own abysmal approval numbers (around 15% currently). And while the public is not too happy with either party right now, they are more unhappy with the congressional Republicans -- and killing a bill to create jobs is not going to help those pathetic numbers.

It looks like the president has finally found his backbone. He's virtually daring the Republicans to kill the jobs bill. And they are falling right into his trap.

American Public Supports Obama's Jobs Bill

The Republicans have been trying to convince Americans that the main problem this country faces is a large and growing deficit and national debt. But the only solution they are offering, to continue the failed trickle-down economic policies of George Bush, would just drive the country further into recession. They don't mind that because it would keep anyone from doing the one thing that would solve the nation's economic problems (and lower the deficit and national debt) -- the creation of a significant amount of new jobs in America.

Significant job creation would not just put Americans back to work (a worthy goal by itself), but it would also increase the amount of taxpayers (and tax revenues), and increase the demand for American products, which would spur more job growth and tax revenues, and essentially create an upward spiral of economic growth. This, of course, is why the Republicans don't want to spur job creation. They have pegged their hopes of winning the next election on the economy still being bad in 2012.

President Obama seems to have finally realized all of this (after giving in to the Republicans on economic policy for the last two years). He has introduced a jobs bill that actually has a chance of working, and he has proposed a way to pay for it that would not do further damage to the bottom 90% of Americans. And even better, he is making noises like he will actually stand his ground this time and not give in to the Republicans -- leaving progressives across the country with crossed fingers and high hopes.

Fortunately there is something that may help President Obama stick to his guns this time -- a significant majority of the American people support the president's jobs plan. A new Gallup Poll (done between September 15th and 18th with a random national sample of 1,004 adults and a margin of error of 4 points) shows that the public likes the plan and would like to see it enacted. About 27% think the plan would help a lot in creating jobs and 38% believe it would at least help a little. That's 65% of the public who think Obama's plan would have a positive effect on job creation.

A good majority (60%) also think the plan would help the economy in general -- with 23% saying it would help a lot and another 37% saying it would at least help a little. Here is what people think about individual parts of the president's program:

FAVOR PROVIDING TAX CUTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, INCLUDING INCENTIVES TO HIRE NEW WORKERS.
General public...............85%
Democrats...............87%
Republicans...............84%

FAVOR PROVIDING FUNDS TO HIRE MORE TEACHERS, POLICE OFFICERS, AND FIREFIGHTERS.
General public...............75%
Democrats...............89%
Republicans...............56%

FAVOR GIVING TAX BREAKS TO COMPANIES HIRING PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED FOR OVER 6 MONTHS.
General public...............73%
Democrats...............82%
Republicans...............64%

FAVOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS (INCLUDING FOR 30,000 SCHOOLS).
General public...............72%
Democrats...............88%
Republicans...............50%

FAVOR INCREASING TAXES ON SOME CORPORATIONS BY ELIMINATING CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS.
General public...............70%
Democrats...............86%
Republicans...............53%

FAVOR INCREASING TAXES ON INDIVIDUALS MAKING OVER $200,000 AND FAMILIES MAKING OVER $250,000.
General public...............66%
Democrats...............85%
Republicans...............41%

FAVOR EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.
General public...............56%
Democrats...............75%
Republicans...............34%

REDUCING SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES FOR WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS.
General public...............47%
Democrats...............52%
Republicans...............41%

As you can see, the only part of the president's plan that has less than 50% support from the general public is the decrease in FICA (Social Security) taxes. I can understand that since I'm not real crazy about that one myself. With all of the attacks on the adequacy of Social Security funding right now, does it really make sense to lower that funding? Is the small bump to the economy it might give worth giving the Republicans more ammunition in their fight to cut benefits, or to abolish or privatize Social Security?

However, all of the rest of the president's program has the support of the American public. This is his opportunity to use his "bully pulpit" to put the Republicans on the hot seat for opposing job creation. If he can find the political courage to take this fight over job creation to the very end and stand his ground, there are two possible outcomes. The first (although not the most likely) is that the Republicans will cave in to public demand and pass the jobs bill. The other is that the public will be so angry at the Republicans for killing job creation that they will punish them at the polls in 2012.

Either outcome would be good for the president and the country. But it all depends on President Obama now -- on whether he has finally grown a political backbone, or not. I am keeping my fingers crossed, hoping that he finally has.

Republicans Will Kill The Jobs Bill

The other day President Obama introduced the outline of his new jobs bill -- a bill that some say would create 1,000,000 new jobs at least if passed as it is currently outlined. It's not a perfect bill, but it is a lot better than doing nothing (which is what's been going on now for more than a year). And while a million new jobs won't solve the unemployment problem, it would be a good start on that. It would spur the economy, increase demand for the goods and services of private businesses, and hopefully give the president the political courage to take even bolder action to fight unemployment.

At the time the president made his proposal, the Republicans were surprisingly quiet about the upcoming bill. They knew they wanted to oppose it, but they weren't quite sure how they would do that. They couldn't accuse the president of massive new deficit spending (a favorite tactic of theirs) because the president promised he would pay for the program without increasing the deficit. And coming out against job creation without one hell of a good reason is not a good way to keep the voters happy.

But the Republicans are starting to figure out how to attack the job creation bill. The bill contains $30 billion in spending to repair and renovate about 35,000 American schools (a modest proposal considering that 10 times that much would be needed to fix all of the country's schools). And you know what the teabagger politicians think about spending on education -- they're against it, and in their perfect world, they would abolish the whole Department of Education. They know they can sell this to their teabagger base.

Leading the charge against education spending and the jobs bill is House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia). He said yesterday that he will oppose the $30 billion for school renovation. This is more than a little hypocritical since Cantor voted in favor of spending $120 billion to rebuild Afghan schools. It is even crazier when you consider the $120 billion for Afghan schools was done through deficit spending while the $30 billion for American schools was not.

Why is Cantor (and his fellow teabagger Republicans) willing to increase the deficit to help Afghan school children, but opposes the deficit-neutral help for American school children? Does he like Afghan children more than American children? Not at all. He doesn't care about the children of either nation. He's protecting corporate profits. The money sent to Afghanistan was to buy the cooperation of the Afghan government, so the war can continue unabated and American corporate profits from that war (billions of dollars) will continue to pile up.

Nothing and nobody is more important to Republican politicians than corporate profits (and the profits of rich people in general). And therein lies the second excuse the Republicans have come up with to oppose the president's jobs bill. The president wants to pay for the jobs bill by limiting the tax deductions for people making more than $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples), removing some tax breaks for the oil & gas industry, changing the rules on carried interest so it is treated as regular income, and changing how depreciation is figured for aircraft. These sensible moves will raise $467 billion dollars -- $20 billion more than the proposed spending for the jobs plan.

The Republicans are now screaming that this amounts to a tax increase. I think they hope if they scream "tax increase" long and loud enough they will fool most Americans into thinking their own taxes will be raised -- and that is just not true. While the rich and the corporations will pay more (which makes sense as their incomes are at record-breaking levels), the taxes for most Americans (payroll taxes) and the taxes for most small businesses would be reduced.

But those are just excuses the Republicans will use to kill the jobs bill, which they can do by refusing to let it pass in the House of Representatives. The real reason they want to kill the bill is political. They believe if they can keep jobs from being created and keep the economy in the dumper, they will be able to beat the president in November 2012. A senior Republican  legislative aide (who wanted to remain anonymous) admitted as much when he said, "Obama is on the ropes; why do we appear ready to hand him a win?"

This has been the Republican strategy ever since President Obama took office. They want to make sure no progress is made with the economy or unemployment, in the hopes they can convince Americans that the Democrats are as bad with the economy as they were when they had the White House. They see this as their only path to electoral victory. They may be right about that.

Unemployment Shows No Improvement In August

President Obama is scheduled to speak to Congress about his new jobs program on September 8th, and it couldn't come soon enough. What he proposes probably won't be nearly enough, and regardless of how inadequate it is, the Republican House will probably kill it. They seem determined to kill any effort that might actually create some jobs, and they have been very successful in that.

Yesterday the Labor Department released its unemployment figures for the month of August, and they weren't good. According to them the country's net production of jobs was zero last month. Although private industry created a pathetic 17,000 jobs, the government laid off an equal number. The official government unemployment rate remained at 9.1%. Since it takes about 150,000 new jobs just to take care of new entrants to the work force, that means about that same number of unemployed people gave up in August (and are no longer being counted by the government). So while the government says the rate remained steady, there are actually more people out of work than in July. Here are the official government numbers:

Unemployment rate..........9.1%
Number of unemployed (counted)..........14 million
Number of unemployed (not counted)..........2.6 million
Total unemployed (probably an undercount)..........16.6 million
Total workforce..........153.6 million
Real unemployment rate..........10.8%
Underemployed (working part-time but want full-time)..........8.8 million
unemployment/underemployment rate..........16.5%

Adult men..........8.9%
Adult women..........8.0%
Teenagers..........25.4%
Whites..........8.0%
Blacks..........16.7%
Hispanics..........11.3%
Asians..........7.1%
Remember, these are probably lower than the real unemployment rates for all these groups since the government stops counting anyone who became frustrated and hasn't looked for work in the last four weeks.

The Republicans keep telling us that lowering taxes for the rich will result in new job creation, but the massive Bush tax cuts were extended months ago and there is yet to be any substantial job production from private industry. The August figure of 17,000 is not substantial and not even close to the job creation numbers needed to get the economy moving again (and the much ballyhooed but inadequate numbers for June and July have been lowered by the Labor Department -- from 46,000 down to 20,000 for June, and from 117,000 down to 85,000 for July).

The truth is that taxes and regulations, the two things Republicans want to adjust to create jobs, really have nothing to do with job creation. Businesses hire workers when they need them to make or deliver their product or service, and lay them off when they don't -- regardless of the level of taxes and regulations. That is a fundamental tenet of good business practice.

This is verified by a recent McClatchy Poll. While the Republicans have been busy protecting the interests of the giant corporations, McClatchy decided to find out why small businesses, the main creators of jobs in this country, weren't hiring. Unsurprisingly, they found it had nothing to do with taxes or government regulations. Here are the top three reasons:

Lack of demand (consumers aren't buying)
Cost of insurance (both business and health)
Cost of workman's compensation

The tax rates, government regulations, and the budget deficit are not the biggest problem facing America right now. The biggest problem by far is unemployment. It must be fixed before any of our other economic problems can be fixed (and fixing unemployment combined with asking the rich to pay their fair share of taxes would solve the budget deficit without massive cuts to government). The Republicans won't admit it, but that's just the way it is.

Firebaggers ?

It seems that an Obama campaign official is upset that not everyone is happy with the president's cave-in on the debt ceiling deal. Ray Sandoval, the head of the Obama for America campaign in New Mexico, recently sent an e-mail to Democrats in his state. The e-mail was a defense of Obama's "compromise" on the debt ceiling deal, but it was also an attack on those who disagreed with it.

The e-mail denigrated Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman (the only economist telling the truth about the recession and Washington's ineptitude in dealing with it) by calling him a "political rookie". He also struck out at the "Firebagger Lefty blogosphere" (evidently a combination of the excellent progressive blog FireDogLake and the term "teabagger"). I can only assume that he includes me as one of these "firebaggers", since I am a proud member of the lefty blogosphere and have been very critical of the president's debt ceiling agreement.

Is Sandoval trying to divide those who supported the election of Obama in the last election? Without the support of progressives, Obama would never have even been nominated. A spokesman from the national campaign quickly distanced the Obama campaign from the remarks by Sandoval, but I have to wonder if they are not secretly pleased. This is not the first time a representative of the president has slammed progressives. Just last year White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called us the "professional left", and said we were "crazy" and needed to be "drug-tested".

Maybe it's time to remind the president of the wise words of Will Rogers. He said he was not a member of any organized political party -- he was a Democrat. The fact is that Democrats do not as a whole drink the colored kool-aid, and dutifully spout the party line as defined by their leaders. Democrats, especially progressives, tend to think for themselves (and they are not afraid to say what they think). And the only way to change our minds is through reason and logic -- not name-calling.

Frankly, those of us on the left have been called a lot worse names and it hasn't fazed us. Being an older lefty, this sort of reminds me of the early sixties when a prosecutor (in Chicago, I think) called the anti-establishment people "freaks". He meant it as a slam, but instead of being insulted they took the word as their own and wore it with pride. From that point on they called themselves "Freaks" (not hippies as is thought -- hippie was a term used more by the establishment).

I know the term "firebagger" was supposed to shame those of us in the lefty blogosphere, but I suspect if it has any effect it will be to further unify us. It would not surprise me at all to see the term proudly adopted as our own. But one thing it will not do is make us toe the party line. When we believe the president (or anyone else) is wrong we will say so.

So I'm a firebagger. OK. Now what are you going to do to get my support and vote, Mr. President? Or do you even care that you are alienating many of those who helped put you in office?

Obama Is Breaking Another Promise

President Obama is not anywhere near as bad a president as his predecessor was (George Bush). But he has disappointed many progressives by leaving a string of broken promises. Just to name a few, he has not ended either one of Bush's unnecessary and illegal wars, he has not closed the military prison in Guantanamo Bay (or given fair trials to those who are held there), he has not instituted sufficient measures for job creation, he has not ended the outsourcing of American jobs, he has not eliminated Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and he has not covered all Americans with adequate health insurance (although he did make some minor improvements to our broken system).

Now it looks like he is breaking another promise (or allowing his Justice Department to do it for him). Both during his presidential campaign and after he was sworn in as president, Obama (and his Attorney General) promised to stop the DEA and other federal police agencies from arresting or harassing individuals or businesses who were obeying state laws regarding medical marijuana. Here is some of what they said:

March 22, 2008 (Barack Obama) -

 “What I'm not going to be doing is using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue simply because I want folks to be investigating violent crimes and potential terrorism. We've got a lot of things for our law enforcement officers to deal with.”

February 5, 2009 (White House spokesman Nick Shapiro) -

 “The president believes that federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws, and as he continues to appoint senior leadership to fill out the ranks of the federal government, he expects them to review their policies with that in mind.”

February 25, 2009 (Attorney General Eric Holder) -

“No. What the president said during the campaign, you'll be surprised to know, will be consistent with what we'll be doing in law enforcement. He was my boss during the campaign. He is formally and technically and by law my boss now. What he said during the campaign is now American policy.”

March 18, 2009 (Attorney General Eric Holder) -

“The policy is to go after those people who violate both federal and state law ... Given the limited resources that we have, our focus will be on people, organizations that are growing, cultivating substantial amounts of marijuana and doing so in a way that's inconsistent with federal and state law.”

June 5, 2009 (Attorney General Eric Holder) -

 “For those organizations that are doing so sanctioned by state law and do it in a way that is consistent with state law, and given the limited resources that we have, that will not be an emphasis for this administration.”

Now all of those statements seem pretty clear. They say the federal government will not harass consumers or businesses that are complying with state laws regarding the sale and use of medical marijuana. But now it looks like the administration has broken its repeated promise on medical marijuana.

A June 29, 2011 memo from Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole says the following:

A number of states have enacted some form of legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana. Accordingly,theOgdenMemoreiteratedtoyouthatprosecutionofsignificant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, remains a core priority, but advised that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or their caregivers. The term "caregiver" as used in the memorandummeantjustthat: individualsprovidingcaretoindividualswithcancerorother serious illnesses, not commercial operations cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana.

The Ogden Memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, regardlessofstatelaw. Consistentwithresourceconstraintsandthediscretionyoumayexercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution. State laws or local ordinances are not a defense to civil or criminal enforcement of federal law with respect to such conduct, including enforcement of the CSA. Those who engage in transactions involving the proceeds of such activity may also be in violation of federal money laundering statutes and other federal financial laws.

That means they discourage arresting patients with serious medical problems (probably because of the bad publicity it would bring to be throwing sick people in federal prison). But they will arrest anyone who grows, distributes, or sells that marijuana to those sick people (even if they are obeying all state laws). In plain English, sick people can get a prescription for marijuana, but the feds will arrest anyone who tries to legally fill that prescription. Does that make any sense at all?

Following this kind of ridiculous "logic", it would be legal for a doctor to give you a prescription for pain-killers (or any other controlled medication) but it would be illegal for a pharmacist to fill that prescription or for a drug company to make the drug. What good is a prescription that cannot be filled legally?

They may not be throwing sick people in jail, but they are denying those same sick people the right to fill their legal prescription -- and that is just as bad. Marijuana should be legal for use by any adult, but I know the president (and most other politicians) don't have the moral courage to do that. He could at least keep his repeated promise to let sick people fill their prescriptions though.

I have just about had enough of the broken promises. I do not use marijuana and do not live in a state that has approved medical use of marijuana. But this is the kind of broken promise that could justify my voting for a third-party candidate in the 2012 presidential election. Promises are made to be kept -- not broken.

Obama To Continue "Endless War"

The president announced last night that he would withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan this summer, and by September 2012 (14 months from now) he says he will withdraw another 23,000 American soldiers. But don't get too excited. That just takes care of his second troop surge (announced in December 2009). It still leaves over 65,000 soldiers in Afghanistan -- about twice as many as were there when President Obama took office. And the soonest that the rest can be expected to come home is the end of 2014 (another 3 1/2 years).

That's a long way from Obama's campaign promise of bringing the American troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2011. And there are some who want to leave a significant amount of American soldiers in that country far past 2014. These are the fools that still believe "nation-building" can be accomplished with military force -- even though that has been disproven by our misadventures in Vietnam and Iraq (where 50,000 troops still remain).

Since he took office, President Obama seems to have been listening only to the war-lovers. He keeps telling us that progress is being made in Afghanistan, but that view is disputed by the U.N. aid organizations trying to help the citizens of that war-torn country. They report that the security situation in Afghanistan is getting worse -- not better. It is very doubtful that another 3 1/2 years of war, with fewer soldiers, is going to accomplish anything that couldn't be accomplished in the first 10 years of war in Afghanistan.

This makes me wonder, does the president really think he can rebuild Afghanistan with the American military? Or is he just playing politics with the lives of our soldiers (and innocent Afghan citizens)? Is he afraid he'd be accused of not being strong enough against terrorism if he kept his campaign promise and withdrew our troops by the end of this year? If so, he should read the results of the new Pew Research Poll.

The survey (conducted June 15th through June 19th of 1,502 adults nationwide with a 3.5 point margin of error) shows that 56% of the population would support a withdrawal of our troops as soon as possible -- including 67% of Democrats and 57% of Independents -- while only 39% say we should stay until the country is stabilized. This is very different from a year ago, when the same poll showed 40% wanted our troops withdrawn and 53% supported continuing the war.

The American people are tired of this endless war. And they are starting to realize that the $2 billion a week we are spending there is the equivalent of throwing money away, because nothing lasting is being accomplished.

Netroots Nation Gives Obama 80% Support

Going into the 2008 election Barack Obama had the support of nearly all of the progressives in this country -- even most of those who had supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. After the horrible years under George Bush, they were ready for a change -- a return to progressive values and policy.

But since then a lot of those progressives, including me, have been very disappointed. The president has been far more interested in bipartisanship with the party of NO than he has been in pushing progressive initiatives. The wars are still raging in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where together more than 150,000 troops are still in harm's way. Virtually nothing has been done to kickstart the economy and get some healthy job creation going. The health care plan that was passed looked far more like a Republican program (RomneyCare) than a progressive one (and a public option was never seriously considered). And very little has been done to rein in Wall Street greed.

Obama seems to have staked out a picture in the middle and is taking his progressive base for granted. It's as though he believes they have no choice except to support him in the 2012 election. Maybe he's right, because the alternative is pretty unpalatable.

This last week many of the nation's top progressive bloggers met at Netroots Nation in their yearly confab (alas, yours truly was too broke to attend). Anyway, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research decided to take the opportunity to take the pulse of progressives by doing a straw poll of those attending the event. They asked the bloggers if they still supported President Obama. Here's what they said:

Strongly approve...............27%
Somewhat approve...............53%
Somewhat disapprove...............13%
Strongly disapprove...............7%

Roll Call took this as a good sign for the president, and their headline said, "Netroots Straw Poll Shows Obama Still Strong". I guess that's one way of looking at it. He did get 80% approval, even though 53% of that support was rather tepid (but this 53% will no doubt support him in the upcoming election).

I read this poll a little differently. I saw it as he has lost 20% of his support, and I wonder if he can really afford that -- even against the weak opposition the Republicans seem to want to send against him in 2012.

There is no chance of the president having any real opposition in the primaries. He has the nomination locked up (and even the 20% realize that). President Obama will be the Democratic nominee in 2012. But the primaries aren't the problem. It's the Fall election where the president can't afford to lose the support of that 20%.

I know the president and his handlers think this 20% will come home for the general election. He may be wrong. These are not die-hard Democrats. They are progressives first and foremost, and they are tired of being disappointed by the Democrats. And many of these people have voted for a third-party candidate in the past (remember Ralph Nader?). They won't be afraid to do it again.

The president may think these progressives have nowhere to go and will have to vote for him. He's wrong if he thinks that. There's always somewhere else to go -- even if it's just to make a point or stage a protest.

I hope the president realizes he's got some fence-mending to do, because getting only 80% of progressives just might not be good enough.

Another Virulent Right-Wing E-Mail

The right-wing teabaggers love their e-mails. They love them because they can tell all the lies they want to and no one can call them out on them. They send these computer lies to everyone they can and ask that it be forwarded to other people, and there are plenty enough people in the world to believe those lies (especially if it's something they wish was true).

And no one has had more virulent hate-filled lying e-mails about him than the current president of the United States. Many of these right-wingers are so upset at having an African-American in the White House that they will do anything and tell any lie to try and get him out of office. And they justify this complete absence of morals and ethics by telling themselves they are "saving" the country.

The latest anti-Obama e-mail that's going around is an effort to deny him any credit for Osama's being apprehended and killed. Here is how it reads:

"Here are the facts, you be the judge. These words were spoken by the same man in 2008 and then again in 2011.

"Short and  sweet…

"OBAMA'S OWN  WORDS TRAP HIM:  

"2008: ‘Navy Seal Team 6 is Cheney's private assassination team.’
"2011: ‘I put together Seal Team 6 to take out Bin Laden.’

"2008: ‘Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty, and must be captured alive and given a fair trial.’
"2011: ‘I authorized Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden.’

"2008: ‘Guantanamo is entirely unnecessary, and the detainees should not be interrogated.’
"2011: ‘Vital intelligence was obtained from Guantanamo detainees that led to our locating Bin Laden.’

"I HOPE THIS  GETS SENT AROUND TO PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THE  TRUTH!"


But they made the mistake of sending a copy of the e-mail to the folks at Politifact -- a website dedicated to finding the truth in a bipartisan way. Politifact doesn't care which side of the political spectrum a person is on -- only that they tell the truth (and if they don't, Politifact will publicly say so).

So Politifact searched the records for any evidence that President Obama ever made any of the above statements. They could find no evidence that he had. All of the statements attributed to the president in the e-mail were lies made up by the e-mail originator.The e-mail talks about truth, but there is not a word of truth in it. here's what Politifact concluded (and their "pants on fire" category is saved for the most outrageous lies they find):

The critics may have wished Obama had made these statements, but appears the statements have no basis in reality. It's clear from our research that all six quotes are fabrications. Once again a widely circulated chain e-mail is spreading ridiculous falsehoods about Obama. We rate this e-mail Pants on Fire.

If You're Poor, You're Screwed

Now that the Republicans have once again taken control of the House of Representatives, they have decided that the deficit must be cut. And with their recent massive tax cut for the rich, they'd made it abundantly clear that the deficit will not be reduced by taxing the super-rich who are making record profits. The Republicans will protect the rich at all costs -- even if it means the rest of America will be hurt.

And they've also made it clear that the deficit will not be reduced by making cuts to the Defense Department. There's a lot of fat there that could be cut. The two wars that are sucking billions from our economy and accomplishing nothing could be stopped. And unnecessary programs like a second engine for the F-35 fighter jet (which the military doesn't even want) could be cut. But making cuts like that would interfere with the profits of the super-rich, and like I said, the Republicans would never do that.

So where are these cuts going to come from? It'll start with the people who have no political power in this country -- the poor. In our corporatocracy, political power is bought and paid for, and since the poor can't afford to pay they will be the first to suffer. In the past, they have been protected by progressives in the Democratic Party. But they no longer control the House and if the "blue dogs" vote with the Republicans they will be outvoted in the Senate also.

That just leaves the White House, and sadly, it looks like President Obama is ready to knuckle under to the Republicans also. It was just announced that President Obama's 2012 budget is proposing drastic cuts to the program that helps low-income people to pay their energy bills when the temperatures get extreme in the winter and the summer. In fact, the program will be cut nearly in half -- with $2.5 billion being cut from the $5.1 billion program. That'll keep a lot of low-income people, many of them children or the elderly, from being able to meet their energy needs in extremely cold or hot weather.

That would be bad enough, but I doubt that'll be enough to satisfy the Republicans. They have never liked giving money to poor people, and they'll probably want to eliminate the program completely. Will the president or the Senate Democrats stop them from doing that? Probably not. They haven't shown yet that they have the political courage to stand up to the Republicans. Why would they start doing so by defending people with no political power?

This is only going to be the start. We can expect to see vicious cuts to all programs that help the poor and working classes. These draconian cuts will start in the House, and they'll be approved by the Senate and the White House. I hope I'm wrong, but it looks like the Republicans are going to make their deficit cuts on the backs of those Americans who can least afford it. If you're poor, then you're screwed. At least for the next couple of years.

Obama Refuses To Help Mexico Stop Guns

The United States is quick to blame Mexico for not stopping the illegal smuggling of drugs across the border. There are consistent and repeated calls for Mexico to do more to stop the smugglers, especially from the American right-wing. But this should be a two-way street. While the drugs may be moving north from Mexico, the guns the drug cartels use to protect those drugs and kill the Mexican police and army that tries to stop them, move south from the United States in to Mexico.

It would be good for both countries to staunch the flow of guns into Mexico, especially the military-type weapons like the AK-47 and other high-powered weapons. But the right-wing organizations, like the National Rifle Association (NRA), throw a fit anytime it is suggested that the U.S. government take action against gun sellers that feed the pipeline into Mexico.

Now it looks like President Obama is acting to help the gun runners, or at least knuckling under to the NRA-type organizations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requested the president give it the emergency authority to require the gun dealers in the four states that border Mexico to report anyone who buys more than one rifle to the same customer within a 5-day period (there is already a similar rule in effect for handguns).

This seems to be an imminently sensible request. It would not deny any American the ability to purchase a rifle, but it would allow the ATF to check out anyone purchasing large quantities of rifles (which would likely be shipped into Mexico). In addition, it would only be in effect in the four Border states (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California). And it would probably go a long way toward stopping some of the gun smuggling.

But President Obama turned down the request from the ATF. Instead, the proposal will undergo a three-month review period, where it will be open to public comment. And you can bet there will be plenty of comment from gun groups like the NRA -- all of it opposed to the proposal. And it is likely that right-wing Republicans will do their best to kill the proposal, and probably be successful at it.

This is very disappointing and I have to believe that the president is giving in to political pressure -- afraid to be accused of imposing gun regulations. This action is needed, but now it very likely will never get done.

If we really want Mexico to cooperate with us, maybe we should start helping them solve their problem. Good neighbors help each other. A one-way relationship creates nothing but ill will and accomplishes little.

More Proof That "Trickle Down" Doesn't Work

The era of the Bush administration was a great time for the rich and the corporations.   Taxes were at their lowest point since World War II, Wall Street and the financial giants were freed of most regulations, corporate profits and management bonuses were at record-breaking levels, and the rich were able to amass a huge portion of the nation's total wealth and income.   It was truly the golden age of Republican "trickle down" economics.

Ever since the presidency of Ronald Reagan the Republicans had been touting the benefits of their trickle down theory of economics -- that said if the rich were allowed to make unfettered profits much of that money would trickle down the economy to be shared by the rest of us in the form of new jobs and high wages.   If their economic theory was correct, then the effects of that trickle down should have evidenced itself during the Bush administration.  

The previous administration of Bill Clinton had produced about 21 million jobs in eight years.   If Republican trickle down economics worked like they promised it would, then the Bush administration should have produced significantly more jobs than the Clinton administration did.   Unfortunately, that didn't happen.  

In the eight years of the Bush administration only about 1 million jobs were produced in America.   And this doesn't take into account the record number of jobs that were outsourced to other countries during that eight years, nullifying the paltry amount of jobs created during those years.   In addition, while the rich were getting much richer, the wages were stagnant for the rest of America (with buying power falling behind 1970s levels).

It is obvious that nothing was "trickling down" during those supposed golden years.   Further proof that the Republican economic theory was a fraud is the fact that all it really produced was the current recession, which actually cost the country 12-15 million jobs.   That's not too good a record -- to create a million jobs and then lose 12-15 million jobs.

Now we have further proof of just how ineffectual the Bush/Republican economic policy really was.   During the single year of 2010, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress created 1.1 million jobs.   Let me repeat that.   Obama and the Democrats created more jobs in one year than the Bush administration did in eight years.   And they did it in the midst of a recession with the Republicans trying to obstruct everything they tried to accomplish.

The sad part is that the 1.1 million jobs created don't even begin to make up for all the millions of jobs lost by the Republican economic policies.   It has done little more than keep up with the number of new workers entering the workforce, and the unemployment number remains well over 9% (over 18% if those who've given up finding a job and those working part-time but looking for full-time work are counted).   Even though Obama's job creation numbers are more than 8 times higher than Bush's, at this rate it will take many years to replace the jobs lost by the Republican policies.

It should be obvious to anyone by now that the Republican "trickle down" economic policy simply doesn't work (unless you're trying to destroy an economy instead of growing it).   But the Republicans were recently put back in power by the voters -- taking control of the House of Representatives and increasing their strength in the Senate.   And they want to go straight back to their failed trickle down economic policies.   Some people never learn.

This Is Not The Time For Tax Reform

The politicians in Washington have just finished giving Americans a tax break by continuing the Bush administrations tax cuts.   Of course most Americans got a tiny cut in taxes while the rich got cuts of hundreds of thousands of dollars.   These cuts didn't make any economic sense with a large and growing federal deficit, but they happened anyway.  

Now economists and politicians are talking about reforming the tax code.   Even more worrying, President Obama and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke are both voicing their support for an effort to reform taxes -- specifically income taxes.   The White House says they want to simplify the tax system by lowering the tax rate and eliminating most tax deductions.

The Republicans also want to change the tax system, and they've been talking about doing it for several years.   But they want to do it because they hate progressive tax codes -- codes that say the more money you make the higher tax rate you pay.   They like regressive tax systems much better, like sales taxes or value-added taxes which would take a larger percentage of income from the poor and a much smaller percentage from the rich.   Some of them are pushing a flat tax, which would lower tax rates for the rich to those being paid by working class folks.

The Republicans have shown for years that they only care for the rich, and they have drove that point home recently.   They have killed efforts to make it easier for workers to create and join a union, they have killed efforts to stop the outsourcing of American jobs, they opposed raising the minimum wage, they opposed extending health insurance to covers millions more people, they killed efforts to stimulate more job creation, and opposed the extension of unemployment benefits.

The things they did support was shutting down the government to avoid more spending to help ordinary Americans hurting from the recession and stopping the modest tax cuts for 98% of Americans if the rich didn't get massive tax cuts.  

They were able to get those tax cuts for the rich in spite of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress.   In January, the Republicans will have the majority in the House of Representatives and cut the Democratic majority in the Senate.   Considering that, is there any reason at all to believe any tax reform they would pass wouldn't favor the rich while penalizing the middle and working classes?   Of course not, that would be like asking a leopard to change his spots or a zebra his stripes -- it just isn't going to happen.

Some might think the Democratic White House would make sure any new tax reform would be fair to the middle and working classes.   But after seeing his capitulation to the Republicans over tax cuts for the rich (which most Americans opposed), I'm not at all sure President Obama has the political courage to stand up to the Republicans and insure fairness.

I think the best idea is to just put tax reform back on the shelf, at least for the next couple of years.   The Republicans can't be trusted to do it fairly and Obama (and Senate Democrats) can't be trusted to make them be fair.   Any reform in the next two years will just be another giveaway to the very richest Americans (who already control far too much of the nation's wealth and income).

The kind of reform the Republicans would initiate would just turn the current recession into a full-blown depression.

Texas Democrats Run From Obama

On August 9th, President Obama is coming to Texas. He will be attending private fundraisers in Austin and Dallas, but it is expected that he will also have a public event in Austin to tout the accomplishments of Democrats in the last year and a half. Some might think Texas Democratic candidates would flock to Austin to show their support for the president and their party, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

In fact, only one statewide candidate is willing to be seen with the president -- Linda Chavez-Thompson, candidate for Lt. Governor. Ms. Chavez-Thompson will be attending a luncheon for President Obama at Austin's Four Seasons Hotel. But then Ms. Chavez-Thompson has never been ashamed of her progressive and union roots or her party.

But the other statewide candidates are running away from President Obama like he had a combination of ebola and swine flu, and they could catch it just by being caught in the same county as the president. They may be running on the Democratic ticket, but they'd just as soon the voters of Texas forgot that when they go to the polls in November.

Democratic candidate for governor, Bill White, will be campaigning in Johnson county while the president is in Austin -- a couple of hundred miles away. This doesn't surprise me since White has never claimed to be a progressive or a supporter of the national party's goals anyway. He's an unashamed corporate-owned conservative Blue Dog, and he's trying to convince voters that he's not like those "Washington Democrats".

I'm a little more disappointed in the other statewide candidates. They ran as true progressives in the state primary, but are now trying to run away from that label. Candidate for Attorney General, Barbara Radnofsky, says she preoccupied with her own race and won't be appearing with Obama. Ditto for Land Commissioner candidate Hector Uribe. Agriculture Commissioner candidate Hank Gilbert and Railroad Commissioner candidate Jeff Weems have not said where they'll be, but I'll bet it's nowhere near President Obama.

Now I'll admit that Texas is a pretty solidly Republican state (there are no statewide Democratic officeholders), but it's pretty sad when Democratic candidates run away from the leader of their party. How do these candidates expect voters to vote for them when they act like they are ashamed of their own party?

Even worse is the fact that the state Democratic Party, led by chairman Boyd Richie, is not planning any kind of welcoming event for the president. Richie said, "Texans are patriotic people and proud to support our president, but at the end of the day, we've been winning Texas elections on Texas issues, and that will again be the case this November." What a load of crap!

The truth is that Texas Democrats have NOT been winning any statewide races on any kind of issues during Richie's tenure, and that's very likely to be repeated again this November (to my disgust). And why should they win? Why should any Texan vote for any Democrat who's afraid or ashamed of the party label?

Texans (and voters everywhere) like candidates who are proud of their beliefs and their party, and Texas Democrats will not start winning again until they get some of those candidates (and state party leaders willing to support proud progressive Democrats) -- not a bunch of wimps running away from their own leader.

-------------------------

Meanwhile, in other Texas political news, the Fort Worth Star Telegram has printed a list of the 10 richest and poorest Texas members of the U.S. Congress. Here is their list (which does not take into account their congressional salary):

RICHEST

1. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Houston).....$38.08 million

2. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Coppell).....$11.89 million

3. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin).....$7.14 million

4. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Lubbock).....$5.19 million

5. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-San Antonio).....$2.81 million

6. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas).....$2.76 million

7. Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Midland).....$2.08 million

8. Rep. Al Green (D-Houston).....$1.65 million

9. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson).....$1.64 million

10. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Dallas).....$1.44 million

POOREST

1. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tyler).....-$150,000

2. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-San Antonio).....-$45,000

3. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-El Paso).....$16,000

4. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Plano).....$17,000

5. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Dallas).....$18,000

6. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Humble).....$22,000

7. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Arlington).....$32,000

8. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Waco).....$106,000

9. Rep. John Culberson (R-Houston).....$190,000

10. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-The Woodlands).....$229,000

Cheney Is Still An Idiot

It looks like Dick Cheney was not content with being part of the worst presidential administration this country has ever had. He wants us to remember that he is still as big an idiot as ever. I can think of no other reason for his latest tirade against President Obama.

Cheney said that Obama "is trying to pretend we are not at war" and has made America "less safe". He said, "He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al Queda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war."

What a gigantic load of horse manure! Of course we'll still be at war. You and your partner in crime made sure of that with your colossal bungling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks to the incredible incompetence of the Bush/Cheney regime, we will probably be embroiled in those wars for years to come. I'm surprised Cheney even had the temerity to mention those wars.

As for giving terrorists a fair trial with a lawyer and the same rights as anyone in an American court, that's because of a couple of little things called the "Constitution" and the "rule of law". That's what we do in this country, and it's what separates us from most other nations. EVERYONE deserves and should get a fair trial in America, because if that can be denied to anyone then it can be denied to everyone.

It doesn't surprise me though that Cheney is unfamiliar with the "Constitution" and the "rule of law". The moment that he and Bush took office they threw both out the window and assumed they had the "divine right" to break all laws, both legal and moral, whenever they wished.

Cheney needs to slink back to his "undisclosed location" and put his head back up his ass (where he kept it the eight years of the Bush administration).

Is U.S. Still Torturing Suspects ?

One of the most damaging things to the United States' reputation worldwide, was when the Bush administration resorted to using torture against captured and arrested suspects. It was the policy of that administration that torture was permitted as long as it was not called torture.

When Obama was elected, many of us had hoped that the days of torturing suspects were behind us, and that we could return to living by rule of law and a belief in the supremacy of human rights. Obama assured us that was the case and we wanted to believe it was true. But that may have just been wishful thinking.

Two Afghani teenagers who have just been released from U.S. custody after no ties could be found with the Taliban, are saying they were tortured at a United States military "black" prison in Bagram. They are 17 year-old Issa Mohammad and Abdul Rashid, who is yet to turn 16.

The two say they were stripped naked and photographed, beaten, kept in solitary confinement, denied sleep, kept in a concrete cell, interrogated daily, and shown pornography while being forced to look at a picture of their mother. While this treatment can't be confirmed, it is consistent with stories told by other releasees.

The facility they were held at appears to be one run by American Special Forces that is separate from the regular Bagram prison facility. Their treatment contravenes both the Army Field Manuel, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Geneva Conventions.

This is very troubling. This kind of prisoner treatment was dastardly and totally unacceptable when George Bush was president, and it still is. A Democrat being in the White House doesn't make this type of behavior any better or more acceptable. Torture is still torture no matter who is president or what you call it.

President Obama had promised us this type of thing would cease to happen. If he's serious about that, he needs to take immediate and forceful action. Otherwise, he will be no better than Bush.

NOTE -- Picture above is of torture in Iraq - not Afghanistan.

Obama Would Continue "Patriot Act"

A few years ago, the Bush administration used America's fear of terrorism to push through Congress the Patriot Act. This misnamed law had nothing to do with patriotism, but was instead one of the most far-reaching destruction of individual rights this country has ever seen. It gave the federal government the right to eavesdrop on Americans and seize records without ever having to apply for and justify a search warrant.

When the law was passed, I thought it was unconstitutional, and I still believe that. Our Founding Fathers knew how oppressive and intrusive government could be. That's why they made search warrants a constitutional requirement before government could snoop into the correspondence or records of private citizens.

I had hoped that one of the things President Obama would do upon coming into office would be to restore the individual rights taken from Americans through the Patriot Act. It looks like that hope will soon be dashed. Three provisions of the Patriot Act will soon expire, and the Obama administration has said it will ask that those provisions be extended.

One of the provisions gives the government the right to seize "business records" without a warrant. This is slightly misnamed, since it really applies to all of a person's records right down to the library books they read. There is no reason for this provision to exist. The government should have to apply for and justify issuance of a search warrant before seizing any kind of records from an individual citizen or organization.

The other two provisions regard the governments ability to use wiretaps without getting a search warrant first. These provisions can even be used when the individual has no known connections to terrorists or foreign governments or groups (in other words, it can apply to any American the government singles out -- without any probable cause and regardless of how innocent they may be).

It was wrong for the Bush administration to pass these laws, and it is just as wrong for the Obama administration to try to extend them into the future. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. It is an issue of restoring the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution to every American.

Not a single provision of this bad law should be extended. In fact, every single provision of the Patriot Act should be extinguished as soon as possible.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Must Be Changed

About 16 years ago, one of our country's more stupid laws was passed. It was called "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" (DADT), and it laid down the rules for military service by homosexuals in the United States. Basically, it said the military would not ask if a person was gay/lesbian, and that person could serve in the military -- as long as they kept their sexual preference a secret.

The reason given at the time for this silly law was that "unit cohesion" would be damaged if homosexuals were to serve openly in the military. This wasn't just based on bad information -- it was based on no information at all, but just bigotry. As Dr. Nathaniel Frank said, “The ban on openly gay service was not based on sound research because no research has ever shown that openly gay service hurts the military.”

Maybe the venerable conservative politician Senator Barry Goldwater put it best when he said, "You don’t have to be straight in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

But for the last 16 years, this ridiculous law has damaged both personal lives and our military. Over that period, at least 13,000 qualified men and women have been discharged from the military simply because their sexual preference became public knowledge in some way. Another 4,000 soldiers voluntarily leave each year because of this policy.

For the good of our country, the military and the soldiers who bravely serve our country, it is time to end this nonsense. On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to end DADT. But so far, he has done nothing to keep this promise. In fact, since he became president, 265 service members have been discharged because of DADT -- some of them with badly needed specialities.

President Obama says the law needs to be changed by Congress. It does, but in the meantime, he could issue an executive order banning military discharges based on DADT. This could and should be done immediately, and then followed up with congressional action.

But instead, President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates and military leaders are discussing ways to make DADT "more flexible". Gates said, "One of the things we're looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law....What I discovered when I got into it was it's a very restrictive law. It doesn't leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility." He went on to say, "That's the kind of thing we're looking at -- seeing if there's a more humane way to apply the law until it gets changed."

They want to exchange a lot of discrimination for a little bit of discrimination. That's unacceptable. Discrimination is evil and unconstitutional -- it doesn't matter whether it's a little or a lot. DADT is not improved by making the discharge decisions on a case-by-case basis.

There simply is no way to improve DADT. It needs to be eliminated completely.