January 28, 2016

Not offended, but wondering why the Sanders's campaign is putting out interpretations of the Bible?

While I am all in for Bernie Sanders, I interpret that passage very differently. I reach my conclusion based on my own reading of the Bible and not on the conclusion of any Biblical scholars.

My recollection (too late on the East Coast to be be googling for exact wording, y'all) of the wording in the King James Version is:

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

I do not read that as merely an endorsement of paying taxes. The sentence is imperative, meaning it is a a direct command . For those who believe in the divinity of Christ, this is God in human form, commanding people. To do what? Commanding them to pay to government the taxes one owes government and to tender to God, or to give God, what belongs to God.

It's not either government or God, but government and God. You owe each one different things. For me, there is also an undertone of separation of government and state. I think my interpretation is right in line with, not only the actual wording, but with Democratic Party principles.

Probably also relevant: Tiberius, who was emperor at this time, had refused to be worshipped as a god. However, Augustus Caesar had declared his father, Julius Caesar, a god and himself the son of God. Even Tiberius had allowed one temple to be built for him. So, Jesus (or whomever) may have been saying, in effect, pay your taxes to Caesar, but worship only the God of the Jews, not any Caesar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_%28ancient_Rome%29

January 28, 2016

Now watching Hayes and Kornacki continue the pro-Hillary, anti-Bernie crap that has today

dominated MSNBC, except for the Flint tragedy.


This is inexcusable and as undemocratic as it gets. MSNBC earned low ratings. Now, it's earning no ratings. Watch Tom Hartman, Ed Schultz and Cenk.

January 27, 2016

MSNBC is in undisguised Hillary campaign mode today.

Andrea Mitchell Greenspan and Chris Matthews just had a sit down throwing shade at Bernie and now Hillary's campaign secretary is on with Andrea Mitchell attacking Bernie, including claiming he has a PAC (the PAC associated with the nurse's union, presumably). This is what passes for journalism and fair political commentary on MSNBC anymore.

MSNBC is the media arm of the Hillary campaign. Bernie has Bernie2016TV making videos of Bernie's rallies for YouTube and Hillary has MSNBC. And don't get me started on Tyndall Report or the NYT or the New Yorker.

ETA: Oh, and, according to Chris Matthews, the reason that young women are supporting Bernie rather than Hillary is that they don't understand everything Hillary had to go through to get where she is or how hard it was for a college "girl" to get an abortion before Roe v. Wade. (Apparently, Hillary was somehow connected to legalizing abortion?)

January 27, 2016

OMG! All in With Chris Hayes

Hayes shows a Republican purchased commercial that is anti-Hillary, . The ad focuses on Wall Street money, something that both Sanders and O'Malley and their respective supporters have been stressing as one of her most vulnerable points. Hayes explained that the anti-Hillary commercial means Republicans are afraid of Hillary and don't want her to win

Then, Hayes showed a commercial purchased by the same Republican group that is anti-Sanders. This ad stresses the things that Hillary and her supporters have been saying about Bernie-free this and that, and all paid for by increasing your taxes. So, how does Hayes explain this. The Republicans mentioned issues that will only help Sanders in the Iowa primary (?????). So the anti-Sanders ad also shows that Republicans are afraid of Hillary!!!!

January 27, 2016

Apparently, if a conservative Catholic criticizes the Pope for saying he can't

judge a homosexual priest and a gay secularist criticizes the Pope for homophobic policies, they are both gay secularists, or something of that kind, because they criticized the same person for very different reasons.

That logic is mind boggling.

I guess, if rightists dislike Hillary, and leftists dislike Hillary, and enough people dislike Hillary to make it a 2008 debate issue, and even Obama caustically says "you're likeable enough, Hillary," none of it can possibly have anything to do with Hillary's own words and deeds. It must be that everyone who dislikes Hillary is a Teapublican.

January 26, 2016

Time to donate for Bernie's primary ground game!

Every politician will tell you that the ground game really, truly makes a difference, often THE difference.

One of the many reasons we love Bernie is that his campaign is paid for by us, not the by the billionaires. (Gives Michael Boomberg the fish eye.)

The corollary of that sea change in modern U.S. politics is that we do have to pay for Bernie's campaign. In so doing, you are not only helping Bernie, but also thumbing your nose at Citizens United and proving wrong everyone who claims politicians cannot run unless they are rich or they sell out.

Again, the minimum donation is only $1. I now donate through the Act Blue link for the JackpineRadicals.org board, but the important thing is that the money get to Bernie's campaign chest, so I will give both Act Blue donation links.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jackpineradicals4bernie

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie

Do it, now, before you forget.

You know you want to!

January 24, 2016

Hillary PAC executive, Granholm, on This Week, pulling every possible card on Sanders.

Socialist, atheist, etc.



As if neo liberal attender of The Family's prayer breakfasts is a winning combo.

January 24, 2016

Concord Monitor Board of Contributors endorses Bernie Sanders

The Editorial Board of the Concord Monitor endorsed Hillary Clinton:

Editorial: Clinton is Democrats’ best choice
Sunday, January 24, 2016
(Published in print: Sunday, January 24, 2016)

Only one Democratic candidate for president is truly qualified to hold the job: Hillary Clinton.

No contender’s resume can come within miles of matching Clinton’s. She’s ready to take up the nation’s top job on day one and her knowledge of domestic issues and foreign policy is encyclopedic. There is also a strong chance, should Clinton become president, that the poisonous partisanship that’s paralyzed Washington will be diminished rather than increased. Why? During her eight years as a senator from New York, she proved her ability to find common ground with Republicans, accords that allowed needed legislation to advance.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/20636012-95/editorial-clinton-is-democrats-best-choice


I think this is bs. I think Sanders and O'Malley are very well qualified to hold the job and Clinton is lacking in so many ways, including judgment, empathy, trustworthiness, etc.

The Concord Monitor's Board of Contributors seems to agree with me. It endorsed Sanders. citing some of those things, along with positive things about Sanders

This is an example of the people at the top, the ones with the most money and power--the plutocrats, going for fellow plutocrat Hillary Clinton, while the body of the organization favors Sanders.

Monitor Board of Contributors: Let’s deliver a blow to the wealthy and powerful

By MEL GRAYKIN

For the Monitor
Sunday, January 24, 2016
(Published in print: Sunday, January 24, 2016)

..... (I omitted several paragraphs here.)

Hard-working men and women are suffering and struggling, crippled by an economic system skewed toward the interests of the very few. Trickle-down, hasn’t. Reducing the corporate tax burden and lifting regulations has not led to universal prosperity. It has only provided prosperity for those already prosperous. Our infrastructure continues to crumble, our cities decay and the streets are filled with the homeless, many of whom are the very veterans our present leadership was so eager to send to war, so full of gratitude for their service and then so quick to abandon when they returned.

...

I don’t trust Hillary Clinton. However she may speechify about breaking up the banks and helping the struggling middle and working classes, the fact is that she is an insider, a deal-maker and her campaign has been largely financed by Wall Street and major corporate interests. I don’t believe her when she claims she isn’t beholden to them. That is simply not how the system works.

(paragraph about LOTE voting omitted here)

We have got to recover control of our government while we still can, before we sink further into oligarchy. This election has presented us with an amazing opportunity that we must seize. Bernie Sanders has come from behind, energizing voters with his message. Whether you support the idea of democratic socialism or not, the fact is that Sanders is a huge danger to the interests of the wealthy and powerful. He has taken no money from them. He is truly beholden to no one but the voters.

Sanders has run a clean campaign, emphasizing what he believes and stands for, and his record supports his credibility. He has not resorted to attacks or negative ads. He strives to be genuine and to take the moral high road whenever possible. No matter what you think of his agenda, it must be acknowledged that Sanders has more integrity than any candidate we have seen in a very long time. He deserves our vote if for no other reason than to send the message that this is the kind of candidate we want.

Our next task as voters would be to get rid of the obstructionist, posturing, hypocrites presently in office and search for candidates who would work hard to truly represent our interests, not special interests or the interests of the wealthy. True public servants who would help to rebuild our infrastructure, fully fund programs for veterans and other people legitimately and desperately in need, and restructure the tax system so that the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share.

much much more at link http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/20635629-95/monitor-board-of-contributors-lets-deliver-a-blow-to-the-wealthy-and-powerful


I hope readers read both pieces and understand that Bernie Sanders should get their votes.

January 22, 2016

I've rated it false as well.

I've posted some version of the following when I reply to something claiming Hillary can get things done and Bernie cannot.

While a Senator, Hillary had zero success working with Republicans to get bills she wrote passed, except for strictly ceremonial bills, such as re-naming a post office, remembering Harriet Tubman's birthday and remembering the anniversary of the American Revolution.

She could not even get her two unconstitutional flag desecration bills passed and Republicans themselves have initiated that kind of bill again and again. Since her Senate days, she has been gratuitously disrespectful to Republicans, calling them the enemy of which she is most proud and acting a certain way during the Benghazi hearings. (For that matter, she could not even get Billarycare through a Democratic Congress when her husband was head of the Democratic Party.)

Contradistinctively, Bernie and McCain worked on a veterans' bill that passed. The Brookings Institute made a case study in working across the aisle. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708 He also got an amendment to the ACA he wrote passed, providing $11 billion in health care to those who would not otherwise have received it.

See also, http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71225/bernie-sanders-is-loud-stubborn-socialist-republicans-like-him-anyway

January 20, 2016

ASTOUNDING

how little I am hearing this morning about the letter of the Inspector General.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-info-above-top-secret-ig-n499886

Instead, the talking heads have been babbling about polls!! Can you spell "corrupt media?"