One of the reasons why I vote Bernie…

So I am just going to leave this post short and sweet.

Just got my EOBs for my hernia surgery I recently had. Needless to say I miss my “Obamacare”. It is pretty ridiculous how even having decent insurance is still not enough for this kind of thing. This is why I support a candidate such as Bernie, who truly wants to “make America great again” and catch us up to the modernized world, especially when it comes to health care. It is pretty disgusting when you see average, working Americans needing to set-up GoFundMe accounts just to pay medical bills, meanwhile our neighbors up north enjoy a vast wealth of health benefits, and frankly, better healthcare. Having some medical emergency through no fault of your own (I had a ventral hernia… basically nothing I could have done to prevent it) should not be a debt sentence.

Just my two cents as a concerned citizen of the world who is now looking forward to paying a bill that is nearly what I make in two months.

GoFundMe
https://www.gofundme.com/trevorbwg

If Trump is elected…

Wow, this is one of the most powerful things I have ever read. The Boston Globe ran a faux front page of what they feel will happen one year from today if Trump is elected. The sad thing is, a lot of it looks like it could happen.
 
This is why we must go out and vote, people. We need to keep guys like this out of office. The international community looks at America right now and they’re shaking their heads because of this guy. He is an embarrassment to everything so many brave young men and women have fought for over the decades, and not just in the military, but in the decades of fighting for civil rights and equality.
 
The thing that really gets me the most are the people who say “If Hillary/Sanders lose I won’t vote for the other!” This is ridiculously. I’m not going to lie, I am a huge Sanders supporter. Sanders is, in my opinion, 10x better than Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, however, is still 10x better than Donald Trump. And yes, if you do the math, I am saying that Sanders is 100x better than Donald Trump. It shouldn’t matter whether or not Hillary or Sanders get the Democratic nomination, you need to vote!  Your refusal to vote because you’re upset the other one didn’t win is a vote for either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.  You will officially have enabled 4 years of disaster.
 
Here is the other thing, Ted Cruz is NOT much better either. Ted Cruz might not have the explosive personality that Trump has, but anybody who threatens to “carpet bomb the Middle East” and to see if “sand glows” is NOT fit to run the United States of America. War and killing should NEVER be our first option, it should always be our last option. We see this not only in our politics, but we see it increasingly with our law enforcement, too. We need to be better as a society. We used to be better as a society. We used to be the best country on this planet. It is true, however, every Roman sees his day.
 
 

Some Rambling about People as Mascots…

So lately in the news there has been a lot of talk about about Bomani Jones (Co-Host of ESPN’s Highly Questionable) and his wearing of the Caucasians shirt while on air.  In a nut shell, there are a number of predominately white individuals who have taken issue with this shirt, including a number of higher ups within ESPN.

I think it goes without saying that the fact that there is such uproar about a colored man wearing this shirt, thoroughly aggravating a large enough population of people to make this newsworthy, proves the point that Native American groups and supporters have been trying to make for decades that the Cleveland Indians name and/or logo is highly offensive.

I do not take the complete straight-lined stance of “people are not mascots” like many others do.  I feel that some mascots are very tastefully done.  For example:

  • Cleveland Indians:  This is probably the most offensive of the bunch.  Not only is the term “Indians” completely stupid, but the Chief Wahoo logo is beyond ridiculous and offensive.  Over 500 years ago, white Europeans came here in search of a new trade route to India, what they instead landed on was a continent they had never been to, that was inhabited by a people they had never encountered.  They mistaken thought these people were Indians.  Over 500 years later we haven’t even bothered to correct ourselves, and now a mediocre baseball team out of Ohio has the Chief Wahoo on their cap and call their team the Indians.
  • Washington Redskins:  This is a case where they don’t necessarily have an offensive logo.  In all honesty, I enjoy their logo, it is nothing inflammatory and truthfully is a “prouder” depiction of a Native American.  The main issue that comes from this team is their actual name, “Redskins”.  Truthfully, referring to a Native American as being a “Redskin” is along the same lines as using terms such as Jap, Gook, Spic, Nigger, Beaner, etc.
  • Atlanta Braves: Here is, in my opinion, an example of “using people as mascots” done correct.  A Brave was commonly referred to as a Native American warrior from the North American tribes, primarily located in the Southeast area of the modern day United States.  Truly, the Atlanta Braves are about on par with the Fighting Irish.  The logo is tastefully done, with the tomahawk, and there are no depictions of an actual group of people.  The Atlanta Braves, their namesake and logo are about on par with the New York Yankees or Milwaukee Brewers.
  • UND Fighting Sioux:  Here is, in my opinion, another example of using Native tribes done correctly.  UND was under a lot of fire from the NCAA for their use of the term Fighting Sioux, yet they went and met with the various Sioux Tribes in the area to obtain their blessing to continue to use the moniker.  All tribes agreed that this was okay, except one didn’t bother to give a stance either way, so therefore UND lost their namesake.  UND does not use offensive logos, and again Fighting Sioux is about on part with Fighting Irish (another college team).  I respect that UND currently stays “mascot free” while they are still working with the various powers that be to gain the ability to use the Fighting Sioux as their namesake again, one day.

I always find is so interesting when speaking about such things to other white males and how nonchalant they are about such an issue.  Basically their main argument is that these groups are being too easily offended or being soft.  This is rather ridiculous, and Jones’ use of the Caucasians shirt has brought to the forefront how easily it is to get offended when one is portrayed in a negative light purely based on something such as the color of their skin.  The unfortunate thing is that every single one of these white males will never even have to live a single day knowing what it is like to be disrespected purely based on something such as the color of their skin.  If you’re so sick of hearing about it, imagine how exhausting it must be to live it.

 

The Donald doesn’t know…

So I’ve been hearing a lot in the news lately about how Donald Trump was asked to denounce KKK Grand Wizard David Duke after Duke asked all KKK members to vote for Trump.  Trumps rebuttal to this was that he would not denounce Duke because, “I don’t know anything about David Duke…” and, “I don’t know anything you’re talking about with white supremacy…”

First off, the Donald has called out David Duke as being a racist and a bigot in the past, prior to this.  We are, however, not even going to focus on that point, because who knows, maybe that just slipped his memory.  What I am going to focus on, however, is the fact that Donald J. Trump feels open to run his mouth about so many other things, despite not knowing a lot about it, but when it comes to the KKK and white supremacists voting for him, all of a sudden he doesn’t want to step on any toes.

This is the same man who has openly insulted: Mexicans, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, high members of the democrat party (whom he’d also once supported), high members of the republican party (whom he’d also once supported), journalists, reporters (whom he’d also once supported), Apple, Macy’s, NBC, Fox, women, the handicapped, the Pope, Muslims… and oh my god the list just goes on.  How is it you can openly insult so many groups and so many people and be touted as, “speaking his mind!” yet when it comes to denouncing the KKK, all of a sudden that is good politics?

It is time we get our heads out of our posterities here.  Even normal republicans can agree that this man is crazy.  Many within the GOP are already openly saying a Trump Presidency would shatter their party.  Yet we the people have decided that this is okay.  There is no place in politics or the leadership of the free world for this kind of talk.  This is dusting, plain and simple, but every day it looks more and more like a possibility.  Shame on us.  We have allowed this.

I couldn’t have said it better.

So I already wrote a blog post addressing the current situation of the Senate Republicans claiming they’ll refuse to have any hearings on the newest SCOTUS nominee by POTUS Obama.  This is absurd, and I won’t rehash my rationale on it.  You can read that below.  A senator from Minnesota, however, made another great point that cannot be ignored about the decision the people of the United States made when they chose to elect the President for a 2nd time, and how having nearly a full year left on the Presidential term doesn’t mean that his job is over.  We elected him for four more years and he has a job to do, per the Constitution, much like the Senate has a job to do… per the Constitution.  So without wasting much more of your time, I leave you Senator Franken’s words:

It is our duty to move forward. We must fulfill our constitutional obligation to ensure that the highest court in the land has a full complement of justices.

Unfortunately, it would seem that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not agree—and they wasted no time in making known their objections. Less than an hour after news of Justice Scalia’s death became public, the Majority Leader announced that the Senate would not take up the business of considering a replacement until after the presidential election. Quote, “[t]he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” he said.

The only problem with the Majority Leader’s reasoning, M. PRESIDENT, is that the American people have spoken. Twice. President Barack Obama was elected and reelected by a solid majority of the American people who correctly understood that elections have consequences, not the least of which is that when a vacancy occurs, the President of United States has the constitutional responsibility to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not set a time limit on the President’s ability to fulfill this duty. Nor, by my reading, does the Constitution set a date after which the President is no longer able to fulfill his duties as Commander in Chief, or to exercise his authority to, say, grant pardons or make treaties. It merely states that the President shall hold office for a term of four years. And by my count, there are in the neighborhood of 11 months left.

If we were to truly subscribe to the Majority Leader’s logic and extend it to the legislative branch, it would yield an absurd result. Senators would become ineffective in the last year of their term. The 28 senators who are now in the midst of their reelection campaigns and the 6 senators who are stepping down should be precluded from casting votes in committee or on the Senate floor. Ten committee chairs and 19 subcommittee chairs should pass the gavel to a colleague who is not currently running for reelection or preparing for retirement. Bill introduction, and indeed the cosponsorship of bills, should be limited to those senators who are not yet serving in the sixth year of their terms. If the Majority Leader sincerely believes that the only way to ensure that the voice of the American people is heard is to lop off the last year of an elected official’s term, I trust he will make these changes.

But I suspect he does not. Rather, it seems to me that the Majority Leader believes that the term of just one elected official in particular should be cut short. Which begs the question, M. PRESIDENT, just how short should it be cut? As I said, by my count, approximately 11 months remain in Barack Obama’s presidency. 11. Now, 11 months is a considerable amount of time. Sizable. It has heft, to be sure, but I wouldn’t call it vast. Then again, there’s a certain arbitrariness to settling on 11 months. After all, it’s just shy of a full year. Perhaps, in order to simplify matters, an entire year would be preferable. Or maybe just six months—half a year. It’s a difficult decision, M. PRESIDENT. If only the American people had a voice in selecting precisely how much time we should shave off the President’s term.

-Al Franken

Dear President Obama, they say your term is over.

So with 340 days left in his Presidency, President Obama is [essentially] being informed that his job here is done, by the very say people who have been trying to make sure he isn’t able to do his job for the past 7 years.  Despite that, truly, it is his constitution obligation to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, and it is the constitutional duty of the Congress to approve or disapprove of any nominations based on their ability to be a judge, not a congressman or woman’s feeling about who the appointee is.

We now have a certain Rafael Eduardo Cruz trying to tell us to leave this SCOTUS spot up to the voters, and let them decide in the coming elections.  My question to his is simple, “Why?”  Why is this guy so hell bent on waiting.  We should know by now a Republican is probably not winning the White House.  Why would we wait to go through the long drawn out process of GOP obstructionism and them refusing to do their job?  Haven’t we simply had enough of this?  The voters already have decided to put President Obama into the White House… TWICE.  I’d say that the voters have already decided.  We voted for Obama knowing that for the next four years he would have the opportunity to fill any SCOTUS vacancies that came up during that time.  This is just simply the kid on the playground who didn’t get picked for kickball trying to say that nobody else can play.

I saw something interesting floating around the internet.  It showed a picture of the Dixie Chicks with the caption, “Remember when speaking out against the President was treasonous?”  During the time of G.W. Bush, this country changed.  A lot of things changed.  Our entire world changed.  I’m not going to argue whether or not G.W. Bush did a good job adapting to this change.  I’m not going to blame G.W. Bush for the actions of a group of Saudis and a hurricane.  The question, however, is was he the right man to handle the job?  You can ask a Democrat or a Republican whether or not the years between 2001 and 2007 were good years for the United States and most of them will agree that they were not.  This question is leaving politics and the President out of it.

What do we see now?  We see our elected leaders, many of whom were the same exact leaders who condemned the Dixie Chicks, openly disrespecting a sitting President.  We see somebody who would rather make a mockery of his office by reading Green Eggs and Ham for hours, instead of do his damn job and just vote NO if he feels so inclined.  These same elected leaders bitched and complained when the Democrats filibustered rational things to be against.  The GOP, however, has literally been against every damn piece of legislation that has come there way.  We’ve had members of the GOP opening saying that they’re doing this purely to make Obama look bad.  When he was first elected, you had GOP members saying that they would do everything in their power to make sure he was a one term President.  Why on Earth would somebody try to sabotage this country for 4 years just because they don’t want a certain President?  This is insane!  If they claim to love this country so much, why wouldn’t they do everything in their legal power to push for progress, even if they didn’t have the White House?  You don’t burn the forest down because you’re scared of a single wolf in it.

I will also leave you some brilliant words about the role of the President and the role of the Senate when it comes to nominating Supreme Court Justices from a Mr. Mitch McConnell:

“Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration.  But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent.  The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake.  Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges.  The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent.  But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules.  They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation.  In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”  (States News Service, May 19, 2005)

Now, I understand that McConnell said this in 2005 when G.W. Bush held office.  So what has changed?  Now all of a sudden he feels that the Senate should be able to obstruct?  In 2005 the Constitution was at stake, is it not at stake anymore?  I am so confused.  All of a sudden Mr. McConnell wants to change the rules.  McConnell is one of the loudest voices saying the President should wait and not nominate somebody, despite still having almost an entire year left in office.  He still has one-fourth of a term.  I guess that doesn’t mean a whole lot to the guy who hasn’t shown this POTUS much respect, anyways.  The hypocrisy is too much.

This ultimately goes into a beautiful notion that we, as a nation, need to vote.  When the majority of Americans don’t even vote, this is a problem.  We can all vote together and get some real change.  We can vote in a Congress that actually wants to do their job.  Ultimately, the power is still in our hands.  We need to do something about this.  We need to act.

Ted Cruz: Agent of the Constitut… Bible

Ted Cruz has been quoted to saying, “I am a Christian first, American second.”

How does this not scare you? This should for a few reasons.

First off, imagine somebody running for office said, “I am a Muslim/Jew/Atheist/Hindi/Pastafarian first, American second.” Imagine the outrage we would see on various news outlets. Hell, let’s imagine if Bernie Sanders said, “I am a Jew first, American second.” Fox News would be calling for him to drop out of the Presidential race.  I wouldn’t even be surprised if some in the GOP were calling for his resignation from the Senate.  Yet with Cruz, however, this is tolerated.

Let’s also look at this from another angle. The whole separation of church and state. For as much as Mr. Cruz claims to be a protector the Constitution he claims to love so much, where is his true priority? One of the major pieces of the Constitution was the whole separation of church and state, due to the fact that many Americans came here fleeing the notion of a church run state or a state run church that was persecuting them. If Ted Cruz loves the Constitution so much, then why on Earth is he trying to go back 300 years in the past?

This even brings up another point to the toleration level with Cruz.  With Barack Obama, a man born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a white mother, there was outrage over whether or not he was a Christian, let alone an American.  This was insane.  No amount of  birth certificates or legal documentation could quell that storm.  Yet Ted Cruz, a man born of an American mother and Cuban refugee father in Canada there is barely a murmur about his eligibility.  You also notice that the Democrat side has largely sat silent, as well.  Why is this?  Which side is more prone to throwing out dramatic theatrics in politics?  Which side is more focused on the issues that the American people care about?

Speaking of toleration, since when is threatening to “make sand glow” (in reference) to the Middle East sound politics?  Let alone popular politics.  Somehow a comment such as this makes Cruz an even more popular candidate, despite the threat of [what I could only assume to be] nuclear war being absolutely preposterous.  On that tangent, however, I’ll digress and let you form your own opinion.

With this I simply leave this post reminding readers that in order for these sort of things to stop, we as a society need to stop allowing this.  We cannot sit idly by and say nothing when people make comments like these.  Whether these comments are from politicians or that crazy uncle.  I remember a day when the Dixie Chicks were boycotted and called treasonous for speaking out against G.W. Bush, yet now we have politicians openly disrespecting a sitting POTUS.  We’ve allowed this, however.  We are to blame.