(Source: politicalwire.com)
Romney Converted His Father-in-Law After He Died
Gawker: “Two readers have sent us confirmation that Edward Davies, Mitt Romney’s militantly atheist father-in-law, was indeed posthumously converted to Mormonism by his family, despite the fact that when he was alive he regarded all religions as ‘hogwash.’”
Context via catholic.com:
“You might be surprised to learn that the Mormon church has teams of men and women microfilming records of Catholic and Protestant parishes, cemetery records, birth and death certificates—virtually any sort of record pertaining to past generations. Temple Mormons hope, in time, to have all of the dead of previous generations baptized posthumously into the Mormon church.”
(Source: catholic.com)
When the conservative financier Charles Koch sent out invitations for a political retreat in Palm Springs later this month, he highlighted past appearances at the gathering of “notable leaders” like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court…
The group, Common Cause, filed a petition with the Justice Department on Wednesday asking it to investigate whether Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves in the case involving Citizens United because of their attendance at past retreats organized by the conservative financier Charles Koch, whose company operates a foundation that is a major [right-wing] contributor to [right-wing] political advocacy groups.
Common Cause also cited the role of Mr. Thomas’s wife, Virginia Thomas, in forming a [right-wing] political group opposed to the Obama administration as grounds for his disqualification.
"Advocacy Group Says Justices May Have Conflict in Campaign Finance Cases
That headline is a perfect example of the media’s bullshit “he said, she said” reporting. There is no “may” about that conflict of interest; Scalia and Thomas should have recused themselves. Period.
(via ryking)
roboticemoticon asked: Reminder that banks are bigger, more "profitable" and more insolvent than ever and that Obama did nothing to rein in banks. He gave them bigger bailouts.Did the US reimpose Glass-Steagall? Because as of RIGHT NOW banks can still partake in all the risky behaviour they like.
Obama gave banks bigger bailouts? When?
Banks are more insolvent and more profitable. Interesting.
Obama did ‘nothing’? I can suggest a few articles.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-signs-sweeping-bank-reform-bill-into-law-2010-07-21-12200
If you are somehow missing the narrative that Obama is bringing these changes and Republicans are doing whatever they can to stop him, I suggest you visit Planet Earth.
Obama’s rule for “living wills” for banks to avoid future collapses
FDIC rule requires banks with at least $50 billion in assets to periodically submit plans outlining, in case they collapse.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-0126-living-wills-banks-20120126,0,5568241.story
If borrowing and deficits are what Republicans care about, why would they ever forget how much and how often all their Presidents and Congressional politicians borrow and spend?
The one issue conservatives complain about in others, is the one thing they do the most themselves.
‘Fiscally responsible’ and ‘Republican’ should NEVER be in the same sentence.
FIRST MEXICAN PRESIDENT?
Four years after electing its first black president, the U.S. could soon have its first presidential nominee whose father was born in Mexico.
It’s already been published: Mitt Romney’s father is Mexican. George Romney was born in 1907 in an American colony in the Mexican state of Chihuahua.
This could could make his son, Mitt, today’s favorite to be the GOP presidential candidate, a potential Mexican citizen, with full rights.
Jumping that border sure paid off for the Romney family.
diggingonexistence asked: I know this sounds pretty ignorant, but can you please explain the full spectrum of Obama care? I think it sounds like it has good intentions, but I don't understand why people hate on it.
Kind of hard for me to explain it all. It comes down to health insurance. Obama is addressing the rising health insurance costs by allowing the Government to offer and streamline health insurance as an option to private and work-based health insurance. It is akin to countries like Japan, France, Germany, Britain, and almost the entire modern world. Iraq has this option. [To give some context, in the UK, every hospital is owned, and every doctor/dentist is paid, by the Government. No one is calling them socialists]
Opponents of this option want the current insurance companies to dominate the market and cast Obama, even though he is a singular person, as someone who wants to take over the entire health care industry and tell doctors how to treat patients. It is simply not true and is impossible to do. Imagine buying every hospital in America.
In closing, people hate on it because, even though most of the provisions have not kicked in yet, the Right Wing is very good at spreading disinformation. They would rather scare you, avoid addressing rising health care costs, and keep insurance companies and their lobbyists happy making billions.
My thoughts: health care should not be ‘for profit’. We need to change the system and single payer/universal health care is what we need to be moving toward.
The notion that the top 1% need extended tax cuts is ridiculous.
Even worse, the extension of these cuts leading to more debt and cuts in services to the 99% is a political platform.
The worst, the candidate who personifies this ridiculous platform is applauded by his middle class followers.
President Obama, 2012 State of the Union.
GOP Response: “Yeh, but….party comes before country. We need to use the debt Republicans created with Bush against Obama so we can get right back to the failed policies that crushed the economy before our voters realize the identity politics we use to scare them actually serves no purpose in debt reduction and only distracts them from real issues we Republicans have no interest in dealing with.
