Clearly

Political Cartoon is by Nate Beeler in The Washington Examiner.

Terrorist Found Guilty Of Murder

American women are a little more free, safer and more in control of what happens with their own bodies. That's because murderer and abortion terrorist Scott Roeder (pictured) was found guilty by a Kansas jury of killing Dr. Tiller as he attended church (a place most Americans would consider to be a safe haven).

It took that jury less than 40 minutes to find the sick bastard guilty -- after all, they did have to take a cigarette break and pick a jury foreman (and that probably took up most of that time). There was no doubt of Roeder's guilt. He even admitted from the stand that he put a gun to Tiller's head and shot him to death, and did it on purpose. And to this date, he has shown no remorse.

Tiller had wanted to put abortion on trial, and claimed he had the right to kill because his religion opposes abortion (although I have no idea where he finds that in his Bible -- his Old Testament god doesn't seem to mind the killing of children of all ages, especially if they aren't Jewish). But Roeder wanted to claim he had the right to kill a human to save fetuses.

The trial judge refused to allow Roeder to do that. It would have been a violation of Kansas law to allow that ridiculous defense. Then Roeder's attorneys tried to sell the jury the lame excuse that Roeder should be acquitted because he had killed over sincerely held beliefs. That's even more ludicrous.

I have a sincerely held belief that Republicans are killing Americans every day by blocking health care reform, but that doesn't give me the right to kill them (or physically harm them in any way). There is simply no way to excuse putting a gun to the head of an unarmed man, who is no threat to you, and pulling the trigger.

They even tried to get the judge to give the jury the option of finding Roeder guilty of voluntary manslaughter. That would have been a huge miscarriage of justice. Fortunately, the judge was not about to fall for that one -- it was either first degree murder or nothing.

The jury found Roeder guilty of first degree murder, and he will be sentenced in March (the law requires a pre-sentence investigation and report). I fully expect he will get a life sentence, and never get out of prison. At least, that's what should happen.

No Centrist Republicans

Political Cartoon is by David Horsey in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

A Steaming Pile Of . . .

There are turds in both political parties -- enough said. Found at the very nice blog Pulp Friction.

"Snowed In" In Amarillo !

This is what the good folks of Amarillo are currently having to put up with. The top picture is right outside my front door. The bottom picture is our parking lot. The pictures were taken about 5pm on 1/28/10. It was still snowing heavily, and the weathermen are telling us it won't end for another 12 to 14 hours. Prediction is for 12 to 16 inches of snow!

I know that doesn't sound like much to you folks that live up north, but I'm a Texan and I grew up in a lower and hotter part of Texas. A place where it only snows about every five or six years, and then it's only two or three inches. Frankly, I don't know how to deal with more than a foot of snow! I know one thing though -- I won't be going anywhere for a couple of days.

My daughter says it's Judgement Day. I'm not so sure she's wrong.

New Senate Apparel

Political Cartoon is by Monte Wolverton at caglecartoons.com.

Will California Legalize Marijuana ?

It is well within the realm of possibility that marijuana could become legal in at least one state this year. And I mean completely legal -- not just legal for medical use. California will be voting on whether to legalize the gentle herb in the November election.

Yesterday, supporters of legalizing marijuana turned in petitions containing over 700,000 signatures. This pretty much insures that the proposition will appear on the November ballot, especially considering that only 433,971 valid signatures were required. Now it is up to the Secretary of State to validate the signatures and assign the proposition a name and number for the ballot.

According to the Los Angeles Times, "The iniative, known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to permit marijuana to be grown and sold, and to impose taxes on marijuana production and sales."

The proposition does have a chance to be approved. A Field Poll taken last April showed that around 56% of California's voters approve of legalizing and taxing marijuana (60% in the Los Angeles area). The only question now is who is going to show up to vote in November.

Fundamentalists, teabaggers and other conservatives are energized and probably will go to the polls in large numbers. But most of these people can be expected to vote against marijuana legalization. For the measure to pass, large numbers of liberals and independents must also vote. I hope they aren't so disgusted with the spineless Democrats that many of them just decide to stay home in November.

This makes a lot of sense, both socially and fiscally. Marijuana does not pose near the danger of other legal drugs (like tobacco and alcohol), and in this recession California (and other states) can certainly use the tax money. But someone has to go first, and if California can't do it, it is unlikely that anyone else will try in the near future.

For now, I'm crossing my fingers and putting my faith in California voters.

Jobs In Peril

Political Cartoon is by David Fitzsimmons in the Arizona Daily Star.

House Members Still Support Public Option

It is clear the a large majority of the American people want real health care reform (about 78% of Americans), and a clear majority want that reform to include a public option. Fortunately, it looks like there are some good progressives in the House of Representatives that are still trying to deliver on their promise of real reform. They are now trying to revive the option for public health insurance.

Representatives Jared Polis (D-Colorado) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) have written a letter to Senate Majority Leader Reid, asking him to consider reviving the idea of the public option and to pass it using the budget reconciliation process (which would only require 51 votes -- not 60). This is a far better idea than to continue working on the pathetic Senate bill (which probably couldn't pass the House anyway, and certainly wouldn't please most voters).

Polis (pictured) and Chingree realize that the best chance Democrats have in November is to have passed a real health care reform bill, including a public option for insurance. And they are not alone. At least 30 other House members have joined Polis and Chingree and signed the letter supporting the public option.

Here is the letter sent to Majority Leader Reid:

January 27, 2010

The Honorable Harry Reid Office of the Majority Leader United States Senate S-221, The Capitol Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

As the Senate continues to work on health reform legislation, we strongly urge you to consider including a public option.

Here are the reasons for this request:

1) The public option is overwhelmingly popular.

A December New York Times poll shows that, despite the attacks of recent months, the American public supports the public option 59% to 29%. And a recent Research 2000 poll found 82% of people who supported President Obama in 2008 and Scott Brown for Senate last week also support the public option. Only 32% of this key constituency is in favor of the current Senate bill – with more saying it "doesn’t go far enough" rather than it "goes too far."

Support for health care legislation started to fall as popular provisions like the public option were stripped out and affordability standards were watered down. The American people want us to fight for them and against special interests like the insurance industry, and it is our responsibility to show them that their voices are being heard.

2) The public option will save billions for taxpayers, speaking to the fiscally-responsible sensibilities of our constituents.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the public option will save taxpayers anywhere from $25 billion to $110 billion and will save billions more when private insurers compete to bring down premium costs. The stronger the public option, the more money it saves. By including the public option, we can simultaneously reduce tax increases and the deficit. This is a common-sense way to temper the frustration of Americans who question whether Congress is spending their money wisely and fighting for the middle class.

3) There is strong support in the Senate for a popular public option.

It is very likely that the public option could have passed the Senate, if brought up under majority-vote "budget reconciliation" rules. While there were valid reasons stated for not using reconciliation before, especially given that some important provisions of health care reform wouldn’t qualify under the reconciliation rules, those reasons no longer exist. The public option would clearly qualify as budget-related under reconciliation, and with the majority support it has garnered in the Senate, it should be included in any healthcare reform legislation that moves under reconciliation.

As Democrats forge "the path forward" on health care, we believe that passing the public option through reconciliation should be part of that path. We urge you to favorably consider our request to include a public option in the reconciliation process.

Sincerely,

Jared Polis Member of Congress

Chellie Pingree Member of Congress

The Awakening

Political Cartoon is by John Trever in The Albuquerque Journal.

Sheer Folly

Found at the blog of The Friendly Atheist.

Is Obama Over-Reaching ?

Last night, President Obama gave his second State of the Union speech. Once again, I have to give him credit for a great speech. When he puts his mind to it, he is without a doubt one of America's great orators. He even had the Republicans on their feet several times.

I am glad he put a premium on job creation and health care reform, but then he went into a long litany of things he wants to accomplish in this year. And he again appealed for bipartisanship. It's almost as though he hasn't learned anything from his first year in office. Bipartisanship is dead in Washington, and the Republicans are going to oppose and try to filibuster everything he tries to do.

Instead of trying to get a huge bipartisan agenda passed, he would be better served to light a partisan fire under Congressional Democrats and try to get a few very important things passed. In the interest of performing a public service, I have pared his long list of wishes down to a few things that must be accomplished in 2010 if the Democrats want to stay in power.

Here are the top 5 things to accomplish:

1. Create new jobs and stop job exporting

2. Pass real health care reform

3. Create new jobs and stop job exporting

4. Regulate the financial industry

5. Create new jobs and stop job exporting

Just do those things and he'll have a very good year. And did I say he needs to create new jobs and stop job exporting?

Number One Issue

Political Cartoon is by Bob Englehart in The Hartford Courant.

Time For Filibuster To Die

The Republican Party has decided to abuse the privilege of the filibuster in the Senate to stop everything the Democrats try to do in this session of Congress. There are 16 more Democrats in the Senate than there are Republicans, but the filibuster guarantees that the Republicans can block any bill, since it only takes 41 votes to block a bill and the Republicans have been voting as a block.

Their idea is that they will block every Democratic effort at reform, and then try to convince American voters that Democrats cannot govern. It might even work in this era when the recession has made most Americans unhappy with Congress as a whole (both parties). They might decide to change votes, because while Republicans made a lot of mistakes while in power, at least they could get a bill passed.

It is time for the Senate to either get rid of the filibuster or scale it back radically. I know there will be many (especially Republicans) who will scream that the filibuster is an honored tradition. That's not exactly true. The first filibuster didn't even happen until 1837 -- 48 years after the creation of Congress.

Furthermore, as the above chart shows, since that time the filibuster has only rarely ever been used. For the first 180 years, cloture (stopping the filibuster) never had to be requested more than 5 to 10 times a year. For the twenty years after that, it never had to be requested more than 50 times in a session. It is now necessary to request cloture more than 140 times a year, and I expect the Republicans will push that up even further this year.

The simple fact is that Republicans are abusing that "tradition". As David Axelrod said, "The Republican strategy in the Senate is to turn 50 into 60, in other words no longer do you need a majority to carry the day in the Senate. We need to call that out, and they need to explain to the American people whether throwing a wrench into everything at a time of national emergency is the appropriate policy."

There are even some people who think the filibuster is unconstitutional. Tom Geoghagen laid out three reasons in the New York Times why he thinks it has always been unconstitutional. It was just not misused enough until now to worry much about it. Here are Geoghagen's three points:

First, the Constitution explicitly requires supermajorities only in a few special cases: ratifying treaties and constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members and for impeachments. With so many lawyers among them, the founders knew and operated under the maxim “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” — the express mention of one thing excludes all others. But one need not leave it at a maxim. In the Federalist Papers, every time Alexander Hamilton or John Jay defends a particular supermajority rule, he does so at length and with an obvious sense of guilt over his departure from majority rule.

Second, Article I, Section 3, expressly says that the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate should cast the deciding vote when senators are “equally divided.” The procedural filibuster does an end run around this constitutional requirement....

Third, Article I pointedly mandates at least one rule of proceeding, namely, that a majority of senators (and House members, for that matter) will constitute a quorum....It would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. Yet that is essentially what Senate Rule 22 achieves on any bill that used to require a majority vote.

Constitutional or not, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has a proposal to rein in the abuses of the filibuster rule. Harkin's new filibuster rules would still require a 60 vote majority on the initial request for cloture. If that failed, a second vote could be held two days later and would only require 57 votes. If that also failed, only a 54 vote majority would be required two days later. A fourth and final cloture vote could be held after another two days and would only require a simple majority.

Harkin's proposal should be adopted, but I doubt that it will be. The Republicans will oppose it en masse, and the Democrats are too gutless to make a real fight over it (especially the blue dogs).