As the word that I have written a book has spread, so have the range of responses I have received from friends, colleagues and readers.  Not only has the book been well received by critics, it has also led to invitations to speak to civic groups, reading cohorts and  opportunities to work on academic curriculum (I'll let you know more about that when I get more details and if I accept the assignments).  But writing the book has also caused me a complaint or two.  Who would complain huh?  I'll tell you who!  Readers demanding I write another book, that's who!  Oh the pressure I am getting, but it is all good!
            Not to worry folks, I have met with my editor/publisher about the framework for another book and I am well on my way towards getting it started.  But first I have to update "How Our Government Really Works, Despite What They Say"  to include the 2012 campaign and elections.  Then, I will begin to write book #2.  Not sure of the title, but it will be more on the role of politics in our current discourse.  The first book took me 14 months to write.  With updating the first book, along with academic opportunities being offered, I cannot tell you when the manuscript for the new book will be ready for publishing.  Trust me though, I will let my loyal readers know when I know. In the meantime, keep spreading the word about "How Our Government Really Works, Despite What They Say," this blog, and the need to have a better educated American electorate.  There is a lot still to do on that front, and I will continue to do my best to alert the public about our government, our history and the role politics is having in our daily lives.  Remember, We the People, have the power of the ballot, and with the Midterm elections in 2014, we have the chance to change our leadership in Congress if it does not get to working for US.

       I know we are all starting to wear down from all of the gun talk, but we had an interesting conversation about gun rights on the air tonight.  Robyn Davis, Joe Newman and I took a call on The Robyn Report from a gentleman, an admitted Libertarian who claimed that he has a Constitutional right under the Second Amendment to possess and carry an assault rifle.  When asked why he felt the Constitution gave him this right, he stated the Amendment was written by our Founders so that citizens could take up arms against an oppressive government.  When asked when in our history anyone would feel it necessary to challenge his own government with assault weapons, he raised the incident involving David Koresh and Waco, which happened in 1993. 
        Folks, you all should know by now that I often will wrap myself in the flag and our Constitution, so hearing someone publicly claim they feel a need to be prepared to violently overthrow the government, got me irritated.  When I asked him if he knew the story behind Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, he indicated he had "an idea" about them.  When I asked him if the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education and the Federal Government's efforts to forcibly integrate universities and schools in the Southern States that opposed integration was cause in his opinion for armed resistance, he did not respond. 
       All the caller kept saying was that citizens needed to be as equipped with weapons just as powerful as the government's when "bullets are needed over ballots."  Huh?  Again, I asked him where he found those rights and he said the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  Now, I can accept an opinion from anyone, but I have a hard time understanding how someone can calmly claim they have a right under the Constitution to overthrow the United States of America as represented by our government!  Where does this right to overthrow the government begin?  Who decides when the fight starts?  More importantly, if Article VI stating the US Government and its laws have supremacy throughout the nation, how can anyone claim to have a "constitutional" right to destroy the government created by that very same constitution?  How can one ignore the rights of other citizens established under the Constitution by believing their own right to bear arms is more important?  I asked him where in the Constitution this right is found, and he could not answer me.  Sure, claim you have a Constitutional right to bear arms, but refuse to acknowledge the power of United States is also based upon the same Constitution.  If you want to overthrow the US Government and therefore, tear up the  Constitution upon which it is based, how can you claim the very same document gives you the right to do so?  Isn't this circular logic? 
        When pressed, the caller claimed he had instead "a natural right to defend himself."   I suggested he take the time to read John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, wherein Locke discussed Natural Law and the need to give up some of your natural rights in order to create a formal society and that some rights had to be set aside in order to create a "community" (ie., a government).
       Ah, but logic and understanding of the Framers (not the Founders) that wrote the Constitution seems to be an inconvenience to some Libertarians.  To them, government is in the way and likely should be reduced and/or eliminated.  But isn't it government that builds and maintains the roads these folks use every day?  Who provides the telephone line the caller was using to call in on?   Who provides us  with hospitals,  safe food and medicines?  Sorry caller, as soon as you believe you have the natural right to overthrow the government of the United States of America due to some perceived or imagined threat, you deserve to be labeled a "Traitor"  and you certainly are no patriot!  Wasn't it Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes that said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins?"  I wonder how he would feel today about the rights of others when they swing their assault rifles into action against the noses of the innocent? 

      Not surprisingly, the topic for discussion in my classes today was the shootings in Connecticut.  Unfortunately, it was during these discussions that I became aware of an Internet rumor that our very own school had been targeted for a shooting this Friday and that a local middle school was targeted with a list of students to be killed by an anonymous killer.  Fortunately, my students appreciated that such threats were simply attempts to instill fear and not credible.  But that did not stop an official response from our administrators and local police authorities (including Homeland Security) that the claims on the Internet were nothing more than a cruel hoax. 
         What comes to anyone's mind to consider doing what the evil shooter did in Connecticut last Friday?  What comes to anyone's mind to create a rumor that killings will come to our local schools, targeting specific students on a specified day?  And how many parents will keep their children out of school on Friday, even if the threats are not real?  I guess it boils down to a simple question.  What the hell is wrong with people?
         As we continue to discuss the problem with gun access and related violence, perhaps we will finally decide that enough is enough when it comes to the senseless killing of Americans?  Perhaps we can begin to appreciate how we view the mentally ill and how we begin to help these folks?  Will we begin to appreciate that the Second Amendment does not promote gun rights above the natural rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as outlined in our Declaration of Independence? As far as I am concerned, those words matter. 
       
For more on this discussion, make sure to tune into www.1490wwpr.com tomorrow on The Robyn Report between 5 and 6pm as we continue the discussion on gun violence, mental health and access to firearms. 

       Why is it that it takes a crisis to begin to have a discussion amongst people about subjects that ultimately lead to everyone being somewhat uncomfortable, but inevitably, defensive?  You see, following the massacre in Newton, Connecticut, I was inundated with messages from friends on both sides of the gun issue claiming their  positions must be heard in the "Gun Debate."  But I didn't write about having a "gun debate,"  I wrote about having a gun "discussion."   I know, what's the difference right? But there is a difference.  The leading definition of a "debate" is defined by Websters as having a "contention by words or an "argument."  See, the mere use of the word debate leads us all into opposite positions to make points of contention.  I am opposed to this rational and believe it is time to have a discussion, one where all aspects of the issue is heard, without "contention" or "argument."
          Immediately after the tragedy, I began receiving memes on Facebook indicating that gun violence can only be stopped by an armed public.  One friend posted a meme indicating that warning signs should be posted at schools that indicate all trespassers on school property would be shot by an armed staff, instead of the usual warning that guns are illegal on school property.  How many teachers do you know are capable of handling firearms?  We already don't pay teachers enough, now we should expect them to also provide armed security on school grounds?   It is important to note however, that arming teachers with handguns would not have stopped the lunatic that shot 20 children plus school staff with a semi-automatic .223 caliber "Bushmaster" loaded with ammunition designed for "maximum damage."  According to the autopsies performed, the children were not just shot and killed, they were slaughtered, each having as many as 11 rounds blasted into their small bodies. 
         Sounds gruesome?  Want to avoid depictions of death and destruction?  Want to put our collective heads into the sand?  If everyone has an assault weapon, who would we be protecting ourselves from?  Isn't it possible the problem would lead to having a society based upon nothing but paranoia, always looking for the "bad guy" instead of living without fear?  
        After the Aurora, Colorado tragedy, I spoke with our school's Resource Officer ("SRO").  For those unfamiliar, the SRO is an Sheriff's deputy trained in defending assaults on schools.  The SRO's are armed and uniformed.  Unfortunately, our schools have only ONE SRO on each campus.  Yes, our schools are located on campuses, with multiple buildings.  I asked him about the idea of arming teachers to prevent a mass assault by an intruder.  His response?  "I would have no problem with teachers being armed!"  Somewhat surprised by his response, I asked if it would really make a difference?  He said "only if the teacher was well qualified in the use of fire arms and only if the fire arm was used in defense of their immediate surroundings, (ie., classroom)."  He indicated that in the event of a "Code Red" (intruder armed and dangerous on campus), we are expected to lock down our classrooms and take a defensive position.  Being on the third floor of a large academic building, trying to exit the building would not be a wise move considering the confusion and panic that would set in should a Code Red be triggered.  Students would be safer inside a locked down school than potentially running into an assault gun toting lunatic hell-bent on "hosing" them with bullets as they exited the building or a SWAT team attempting to comprehend the threat underway. 
         But our SRO then made a chilling statement to me that I believe all those arguing for more guns should know.  He told me, "As the only officer on campus, I am to draw the shooter's attention so that enough time is bought for SWAT to arrive.  I am to confront the intruder to draw him away from students.  By engaging in the intruder, I am expected to give my life to buy that needed time.  My chances of surviving such a scenario is 5%."   FIVE PERCENT?  What if there is more than one armed intruder?  We only have one SRO to deal with any of these scenarios.  Does that mean according to some of argument for more guns, teachers should engage in shootouts with intruders too?  If an officer trained in defending assaults has a life expectancy of 5%, what should we expect the teachers' expectations to survive to be?   As we have seen time and time again, the shooters intending to inflict massive killing know they are engaging in a suicide mission.  Should it be the teachers' responsibility to also engage in a suicide mission too? 
         But where does this "discussion" lead us?  More guns are NOT the answer.  Building security walls should not be the answer either.  Will we now have to build walls surrounding our communities as well?  Where do we draw the line when it comes to gun violence?  We need to STOP arguing about the problem as if it is not real and instead start discussing why these massacres happen and how those that perpetrate them get there hands on firearms.  We need to discuss why citizens really need assault rifles that are designed solely to inflict maximum destruction.  Consider the fact that a star ballplayer, Evan Longoria had his apartment burglarized during Spring Training last Spring.  Among the items stolen from his apartment?  An AK47!  Can anyone please tell me (seriously) why Mr. Longoria needed to possess an AK 47?  And can anyone tell me where that assault rifle is today?  How many legally obtained guns wind up in the hands of the criminal or the insane?  It's time to stop debating, to stop arguing and start admitting, we have a problem! 

      Can we talk?  Please?  Can we please talk about what people can do with firearms? Can we at least begin to have a discussion about what can be done to limit access to guns without some types of background and psychiatric checks?  Can we begin to tell the National Rifle Association that folks like me have no interest in taking anyone's gun(s) away from them?  Can we convince Americans that we DO have a violence problem that is facilitated by access to guns?  Can we stop labeling today's incident in Newtown, Connecticut as a "tragedy" and instead label it for what it really was; a bloody, senseless massacre?  Who was the shooter?  Who cares!  He was obviously possessed by evil and deserved to no longer be walking this earth, but 20 kids and a handful of teachers and/or staff? 
          The tried and true claim of the NRA is that if ANYTHING done to limit access to all guns, no matter what type,  is a "slippery slope" leading to taking away American's Second Amendment Right to possess firearms.  But that narrative is FALSE.  No one wants to take any guns away from law abiding Americans.  But this American wants a rational, intelligent DISCUSSION on what can be done on a National level to help those that need serious psychiatric help AND ensure firearms cannot be easily obtained by these folks.  Should we require gun owners to keep guns locked when not in use?   Should we regulate or ban extended magazines whose sole purpose is to be able to fire multiple rounds?  Should we ban sales of guns at "shows" whose sole purpose is to give free access to firearms so that NO background checks be made?  We have endured more mass killings recently than I can ever remember.  The shootings in Tucson, Aurora, Oregon, and now Newtown, do they cause anyone to give pause and think?  If the shooter had been a Radical Muslim on a terrorist mission, you can bet we would all be ready to GET MAD and seek "consequences."  But this was an American using his Second Amendment Rights to possess a gun.  Unfortunately, he used his guns to commit mass murder.  Is there any difference? Really?
          Am I the only one that wonders why Republican members of Congress and Fox News make the killing of 4 Americans in Benghazi a national concern demanding a full investigation and discussion to ensure it never happens ever again, yet where are those very same leaders and news outlets when 20 innocent school children are killed in cold blood by evil possessing firearms?  Can we talk? Can we please talk?

      Wow, everyday I hear something new that really makes me wonder what planet some folks live on.  Earlier this morning, I heard Al Cardinas, a Republican lobbyist on MSNBC's Morning Joe Show with Joe Scarborough claim that when it comes to American politics, "the Republican Party is America's conscience on spending."  Really?  Does that mean Republicans throughout the George W. Bush Administration were unconscious when the federal debt was larded down with unpaid pork barrel projects, two wars and a Big Pharmacy stimulus package (not to mention T.A.R.P.)?  Does he honestly believe Americans trust the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party to be "fiscally responsible" if they were truly in charge?  Most of those folks live in Red States that pull down far more in Federal revenue sharing than they pay in, so where is their conscience on that front?  When will Republicans realize that until they recognize they are just as much a part of the problem as those on the far Left of the Democratic Party, they will be prolonging their suffering at the National ballot box and suffer lasting damage to their GOP brand?
        On another note, Ambassador Susan Rice has officially withdrawn her name from consideration to serve as Secretary of State when Hillary Clinton steps down.  Now that the "hoopla" has finally settled down (isn't is amazing how fast GOP outrage settles down when the facts are revealed?), Benghazi will officially move to the back of the news files and into oblivion.  Is this move by Ambassador Rice a victory for Senator John McCain, who made it perfectly clear he would use the "Nuclear Option" if Ms. Rice was nominated by the President (See more on the Nuclear Option in "How Our Government Really Works, Despite What They Say")?   Will McCain now actively support Senator John Kerry for the position?  Will his support reflect actual admiration for Kerry?  Or is his "support" based upon the chance Kerry's seat may be opened up in the Senate, allowing Republicans the chance to take it back with the special election of outgoing Senator Scott Brown (outgoing because he was defeated by  Elizabeth Warren)?  Is there a motive for what McCain has been doing on this front or is it simply out of spite and hatred of the President?
         One thing is for sure, the Republicans always claim "we need to take back our country" and I always asked "but from whom?"  Now I know at least one thing.  Please Republicans, can I along with all other Americans have my conscience back?

      I found it amusing this morning when I was heading into work to hear a couple of nationally known political pundits answering questions on the radio about the reasons for all of the deadlock and stalemate going on in Washington.  I found it so amusing, I about ran my car off the road.  The reason both pundits cited for all of the problems?  They declared, "It is due to our political leaders engaged in perpetual re-election campaigns."  Really?  We need two prominent political pundits to tell us this?  Thanks for the revelation guys, but really?  Many of us "in the real World" have been babbling about this obvious fact for months on end, including this babbler in chief!  Both "experts" also mentioned that Congress needs to address the problems of campaign finance reform since the Citizens United Case.  Uhm, nice of you to JOIN THE REST OF US!  Duh!  Our Politicians need to stop running for office and start doing the job of being in office!
         Did any of you see the recent ABC News/Washington Post Poll on who Americans will blame if we are all forced over the fiscal cliff?  The poll released just today (12/12/12...sorry I could not resist!), reveals that Americans overwhelmingly "approve the Presidents work on the issue (Fiscal Cliff) as favor Speaker Boehner."  Really?  What a surprise, I mean Obama won re-election by over 4.5 Million votes, 332 Electoral Votes with close to 70% of Americans agreeing that tax rates on the wealthiest Americans should be raised, and Speaker Boehner insists that he will not agree to raise those tax rates and is willing to allow the entire nation's economy to be at risk because he and his party believe they have the right and obligation to impose their minority views upon the majority.  And what do the pundits say?  They say that Boehner will be blamed initially for the economic damage but the failed economy will be Obama's after it really sinks in.  You know what I think?  I think the American public re-elected Obama because they were tired of the GOP strategy to obstruct the President and I certainly think Boehner will get blamed for the economic fiasco called the "Fiscal Cliff" if it is jumped off of.  And what do I think will happen to Obama?  I think he will secure a huge victory over the GOP in the 2014 Mid-term elections and the GOP may have again, miscalculated the American public's desire to get Washington working again and will suffer a serious wound to their ideological brand.
        Another entity that does not understand the realities after the 2012 elections is the Right Wing Ideologically based for-profit media.  Pundits on the Right proclaim Boehner can't cave in to Obama's grand design to divide and conquer the Republicans in Congress.  As we saw in the elections, the Right Wing Media has been wrong when it comes to the mood of the public, and they are wrong on the issue of the "Fiscal Cliff."  Once again, between the GOP and their ideological electronic and print media, they believe their supporters deserve to be in charge rather than recognizing that in a democracy, the majority takes the reins of control.   One day when they realize this, there might not be much left of the Republican Party!  Just curious, what does a democracy mean if the Majority are not considered the winners in elections?  If there is anything we need to take back for our county, it would be the arrogant belief that the GOP is entitled to lead, even though they are  in a minority.  And please, don't tell me they have a majority in the House...on the "Fiscal Cliff" issue.  Most Americans hired Obama to another term to take control.  Republicans don't seem to understand that when they win elections, they get to lead.  When Democrats win elections, the Republicans don't!  Raise the tax rates and get to work on cutting spending, and while you are at it, turn the ship of state around and away from that damn cliff!

     I had a great telephone conversation with a friend today that I have not seen in quite some time. During our conversation, we covered a lot of topics from Baseball (he is a coach in the National League) to, naturally, politics.  After a while, my friend asked me what suggestions I could make if I was ever asked as it relates to resolving our current deadlock in Washington.  You can bet this question threw me for a loop.  I mean come on, complainers never have any original ideas do they?  They prefer to just complain instead, right?  So how would I answer this "call for answers"?  Here goes, and feel free to agree, disagree or to ponder potential alternatives or negotiable points.
1.  President Obama ran on a platform of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans and I would stick with that as a starting point.  As soon as the GOP would agree that Obama has a mandate to raise tax rates, then I would set forth additional considerations.
2.  I would immediately ask Congress to change the tax code to allow the following changes;
       a).  Either lower student loan interest rates to those offered for mortgages (under 3.5%) and/or make all interest deductible on federal tax.  This will encourage students to make affordable payments back for student loans and to make them reasonable.  Student loans affect more than students, they also affect their families and the economy that misses the money these debtors pay back rather than spend on normal consumer items.' 
      b). Immediately establish a reasonable needs based income test for recipients of Medicare.  In the event a citizen has an annual income, even in retirement of at least $500,000 or more, they are not eligible to receive Medicare benefits.  Instead, they will be eligible to invest in premiums for insurance that would cover their medical needs.  There is no need to provide health benefits under medicare for those making so much income, even in retirement.
       c). Immediately eliminate eligibility for Social Security benefits for children of retirees under the age of 18.  In the event someone elects to have a child within 18 years of retirement, the rest of us should not be subsidizing them.  I know of several  instances where folks have remarried and had children.  In those cases, the parent (father) had the use of both the Social Security and benefits for their children under the age of 18.  What did the parents do with the money?  They stockpiled it to buy a second home and saved for their children's college education.  Why should these folks have Social Security provide these types of benefits while other citizens struggle to afford a home or pay for their children's education?  Provide the benefits only if the parent has passed away before the children reach the age of 18.
       d). Immediately curtail any subsidies to the petroleum and/or petrochemical industries if they have net income of over $1 Billion annually.  For decades, the taxpayers have been subsidizing petroleum companies while they have been enjoying tremendous profits.  If they can make $1 Billion in net income, they certainly do not need any form of corporate welfare!
        e). Immediately reduce, limit or curtail home mortgage interest deductions for second homes where the mortgage exceeds $1 Million.  There are enough Americans struggling to afford one home, we should not be subsidizing those that can afford mortgages that exceed $1 Million for second homes.  Also, no deduction should be available for Boats or RV's that currently qualify as "second homes."
        f). Complete audits of the Defense Department to ensure we are the strongest, most flexible and best trained fighting force in the World equipped with the most technologically advanced weaponry.  In the event this can lead to a savings, make the cuts as needed.  Do we really need as many bases Worldwide?  Plus, we must scrutinize who we give military and financial support to Worldwide. 
        g). Cut taxes on those making less than $200,ooo per year.
        h). Freeze estate taxes for estates valued under $6 Million.  There is no valid reason to protect estates valued over $6 Million from taxation (especially in light of the fact that legal mechanisms already exist in the form of trusts to insulate estates from taxation).
        i). Eliminate all deductions for campaign donations of any kind.  Under the Citizens United ruling and the current tax code, Super PACs may seek tax deductible contributions.  If Billionaires can afford to spend Millions on political campaigns, they can afford the tax on their income that otherwise would be reduced by making political contributions.  Instead, maintain deductions for legitimate charitable giving.
        j). Set aside $1o0 Billion to rebuild our infrastructure.  We have a crumbling highway system originally designed and built under the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations.  We need updated highways, bridges, high speed rail and ports.  Along with these, we must include our computer wireless network to improve connectivity.  Think of the jobs those projects would create as well!
        k). Pass a new form of Glass-Steagall separating commercial banks from investment banks.  This is the only way to safeguard against commercial banks dealing with risky investments that has recently caused so much pain to the public (with the financial safety net provided by the Government - see TARP under Pres. Bush).
        If I had the time, I might even be able to come up with more ideas.  So, sitting on my coach I can come up with a list of ten (10) things we can do to move this country forward.  Any guesses how fast interest groups would be lobbying Congress to ignore these suggestions?  Perhaps Congress should sit on my couch?

       As we approach the final turn on the race to the "Fiscal Cliff", we are seeing obvious signs that our Nation's leaders have forgotten why they are in fact in a position to lead.  Instead of actually leading in ways that are best for our Nation, many are continuing to play to their base in an effort to save their jobs.  But we must have some leaders willing to sacrifice votes in exchange for real progress in doing what is best for America right?  Perhaps, but let's look at the facts as they are known to us.   
        President Obama was recently re-elected after a grueling campaign against the Romney/Ryan ticket.  At the top of the GOP argument to win back the White House was the claim that the economy has been stifled by Obama's policies and that unemployment alone proved the President's economic efforts have slowed our recovery from the Bush era "Great Recession."  Not much more than four weeks ago, the GOP was trying to convince voters that returning to "Trickle Down" economics...cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans would lead to the creation of millions of jobs.  Remember their tried and true claims that the wealthy are really the "Job Creators" and everyone else that holds a job should be beholden to them and that by making them rich, we all will eventually prosper with high paying jobs and wealth?  That the jobs created by the wealthy would increase our Nation's revenues with higher spending and a broader tax base?  Remember how they ran on the idea that cutting taxes and regulations was the only answer to solving our economic woes and that Obama's policies have ruined our country and have taken us down the road to socialism?  Remember?
      Even now,  some folks rationalize that Republicans only meant to say that those that make things are better for this Country's future than those that take things and that we must begin to make those "takers" more responsible for their own lives instead of relying upon the government.   But why is this narrative still being repeated in the media?  Amazingly, many on the Right seem to have amnesia and cannot remember their Party's very own platform that was the focus of the election.  Selective memory?  "Romnesia" as Obama put it in his recent campaign?  Remember when Fox News slammed Obama for using the term Romnesia claiming it was an out of bounds and "derogatory" statement about Romney?  Haven't we heard worse from the Right about Obama though?  And what has happened to Mr. Romney since the election?  His Party and former avid supporters have run as far and as fast from his as possible.  So much for the GOP having great faith in Mr. Romney.  Guess their "strong beliefs" were not as strong as claimed!  Hypocrisy anyone?  For those that follow this blog, you know how often I railed against Mr. Romney for being "transparent" and without any real convictions.  Perhaps after all, he was the right choice to lead the GOP!  Why else would we now see the GOP doing its best to forget who Romney is?
         But to the point of this posting!  With unemployment dipping down to 7.7%, Obama's policies (without any GOP Congressional support) proves something is working, albeit we need more of it.  Since the election, the GOP seems to be in a daze, traumatized to the extent that it can't seem able to figure out what exactly it's next move should be.  Senator Jim DeMint, (R-SC), leader of the Tea Party wing of the GOP, has announced his sudden resignation to pursue the presidency of the Heritage Foundation (and for the $1 Million plus salary it brings).  Dick Armey, leader of the Koch Brothers' supported FreedomWorks, abruptly resigned, taking with him an $8 Million buyout.  Rush Limbaugh is sputtering, unable to comprehend that America rejected his Party's economic and social policies, and the two highest ranking Republicans in Congress can't seem to get their legs under them.  Case in point - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced a Bill in the Senate to grant the President the exclusive authority to raise the debt ceiling as necessary.  Why in the World would he do that?  McConnell's plan (straight out of 2010), was to force the Democrats to vote against the President so that he could publicly proclaim that Obama had (so soon after the election) already lost support of his own Party in the Senate.  So confident was McConnell, that he waived having the bill go through the Cloture Vote process and instead pushed the Bill to an immediate floor vote.  Unfortunately for McConnell, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called his bluff and corralled the necessary 51 votes to pass the Bill!  As soon as McConnell realized that the Bill would pass, the man put a HOLD ON HIS OWN BILL!  Now let's get this straight...McConnell sponsored and proposed legislation in an effort to embarrass the President (even though all future Presidents would have the power granted under the Bill), streamlined it to a floor vote, only to then kill it with his own objection (hold) when he realized it would pass.  Huh?  Is McConnell serious? 
          Next we have House Speaker John Beohner (R-OH) who has agreed to negotiate the terms of a resolution of the Fiscal Cliff directly with the President.  After a week of negotiations, Boehner has declared negotiations have "stalemated" and that Obama has claimed a "my way or the highway attitude" relating to his demands to raise the tax rates on the top 2% of Americans.  But as I mentioned earlier, Obama ran on raising the top tax rates on the wealthiest Americans throughout the campaign, and has publicly declared his position on the topic since the Bush Tax Cuts were extended in 2010.  Did I miss something here? Obama did win re-election didn't he?  Polling has overwhelmingly indicated that close to 70% of Americans approve raising the tax rates, and if Obama was elected with 51.5% of the Popular Vote, are there not some Republican voters also agreeing to raise those rates?  Of course there are!  What does Boehner demand in return?  Cutting deductions and "loopholes" (without specifying which ones to be cut), but keep the tax cuts for the rich "because raising them will have a negative effect on the economy."  But whose economy?
         The Congressional Research Service reported prior to the election (but it was suppressed from going public by, you guessed it, Mitch McConnell), that 65 years of data indicated there is no evidence that tax cuts on the wealthy have produced any jobs, and that all it has produced was more wealth for those receiving the breaks!  McConnell knows this!  Boehner knows this!  Both know Obama WON re-election with the promise to raise taxes.  Then how can we possibly explain the positions of these two Republican leaders?  Frankly, they are clinging to positions taken in 2010 without regard to the strong message sent them in 2012.  I could go on and on, but for brevity's sake, allow me to put it this way.  Until Republican leaders (or any of our leaders for that matter) clear their heads, start thinking straight and working within reality to move this country forward, they should be recognized by all Americans as simply playing "Jokers Wild!"

      Has anyone noticed the backlash created by the Republican loss in the elections held last month?  It has been reported that Dick Armey, former Republican Congressman from Texas and leader of the Koch Brothers supported FreedomWorks has resigned and by doing do, accepted a "buy-out" worth $8 Million.  Not a bad "golden parachute" for the guy.  Perhaps the Koch Brothers felt they too needed a change of leadership? 
        Now we learn that TEA Party favorite, GOP South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has announced his resignation from the Senate in order to take the lead position of the Right Wing Heritage Foundation.  His annual salary is rumored to be around $1 Million (current tax records indicate his predecessor received $1.025 Million annually).  With the elections over, has there been a coordinated effort to change leadership within the GOP?  But it might not be as it appears.  Why?  Because Jim DeMint may have become minimized in the Senate after the election, he may actually be more powerful leading the Heritage Foundation and their related Super PACs to support the candidacy of hard right wing GOP candidates to Congress.  More importantly, perhaps he will lead efforts to challenge current GOP Congressional leadership within Congress or during future elections?  DeMint is no fool.  Why else would he walk away from his Senate seat (the money helps)?!
        As a follow-up to my posting about a friend declaring Obama is a "bum" for not leading, my friend forwarded an Op-Ed by Dan Henninger published in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Obama's Ruinous Course."  Please feel free to look it up and then think real hard if this article is an objective and informative Op-Ed or instead, is one filled with partisan angst.   The comment from my friend before giving me the link?  "Obama is the problem.   Balance, the art of compromise, so essential/foundational to modern Judea Christian culture, western civilization, our nation, its politics, our system of governance he cares and knows nothing about." 
My response?  "Your intensity is noted.  The article has holes in it.  You are entitled to your opinion.  I respectfully disagree."
        Can you guess where my friend gets his information?  Obviously, despite his denials, he watches Fox and reads the WSJ!  He even was satisfied that the Henninger Op-Ed supports his anti-Obama rhetoric!  But take a gander on the Internet to check out some of other Op-Ed articles written by Mr. Henninger for the WSJ.  You will find articles with titles such as "Unsinkable Mitt Romney", "Racialization of American Politics", "Santorum and Freedom", "Obama's Likability Gap", "Why The Left Lost It", and "Bain Capital Saved America."  Now tell me, seriously, would anyone base their entire opinion about anyone based upon the narratives created by Fox News and Wall Street Journal Op-Ed contributors with track records like these.  Even intelligent people can get caught up in political narratives.  But my friend's personal comments are over the top.  Perhaps he has been listening to John Sununu too?

For more on Selective Perception, Selective Reinforcement and Media, check out "How Our Government Really Works, Despite What They Say."