"'If you start cherry-picking science, that's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy,' Tyson said." Tyson is one of the smartest men alive.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  I love how non-partison Neil deGrasse Tyson is. Good to see an interviewee stop an interviewer from attaching his comments to a specific political viewpoint favored by the interviewer. Because in the end, both parties cherry-pick the science that agrees with their political agenda.
*  So we need better scientists! We need scientists that have the balls to call out politicians that cherry pick. You're hired Neil. Go for it.
*  When you have as much money as the Koch Bros you can BUY scientist who will proclaim a lie for a big paycheck.  http://alecclimatechangedenial.org/
*  Science is based on factual evidence. Republicans' cherry picking has no factual basis and unfortunately there are enough ignorant people who believe them. Bias is not factual.
*  How about you just believe whatever you want and stop with the ridiculous accusations. NdT is FAR from just a TV personality, as you're well aware of. Man, some Christians need CONSTANT coddling.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Politicians Who Don't Value Science Could Bring 'The End Of An Informed Democracy'

"If you gain 10 pounds this month, you don't say, 'Repeal gravity!'"

By Ryan Buxton, August 28, 2015

Science plays a role in nearly every aspect of our lives from the economy, to the environment, to global health. But it seems like these science-related issues are not a top priority for the men and women who are vying to lead the country in the 2016 presidential race.

For instance, the first Republication [sic] presidential debate of the year significantly lacked mention of such issues -- and that doesn't sit well with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

The astrophysicist and host of "StarTalk" appeared on HuffPost Live on Thursday to talk with host Josh Zepps about his problem with politicians who don't value science -- or who only value the science that aligns with their political views.

"If you start cherry-picking science, that's the beginning of the end of an informed democracy," Tyson said.

He noted that Abraham Lincoln founded the National Academy of Sciences in 1863 to provide the government with "unbiased" scientific advice. Now, however, more and more politicians prefer to pick and choose what science-related issues are worth focusing on.

"If today you're gonna say, 'I'm gonna pick that and not this because this blends with my political, social, cultural, religious philosophies and that doesn't,' I don't know what kind of country that is, and I don't know what kind of future world that would create," Tyson said. "If you gain 10 pounds this month, you don't say, 'Repeal gravity. I object to gravity.' No, you don't blame gravity. Where do you draw the line here?"

Watch the full HuffPost Live conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson here.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the Department of Veterans Affairs should be folded into the Department of Defense and VA facilities should only be used for specialized care ..." C'mon, Carson, this is foolish.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  I get most of my healthcare from the VA. I have been getting excellent care. I have read negative things about the VA, but have not experienced any problems. I would not trade it for a private clinic.
*  It is clear that Carson never served in the millitary.
*  Out side of the box thinking however a health savings account, funded how much and by whom?  I never trust people who never were in the military with taking care of veterans and Carson has zero military experience and has never worked in a military hospital
*  Says a member of the GOP, who repeatedly votes down any and all assistance to veterans and soldiers, while pushing for more and more war. Hypocrisy has no definition anymore.
*  He just discredit himself. What we need is a GOP that doesn't send our troops into harms way for every trial and tribulation taking place overseas.
*  How can someone be a neurosurgeon and still be this idiotic? Just another unelectable Republican clown.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ben Carson: ‘We Don’t Need a Department of Veterans Affairs’
By Melanie Hunter, August 28, 2015

Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson told the Dave Ramsey show on Wednesday that the Department of Veterans Affairs should be folded into the Department of Defense and VA facilities should only be used for specialized care like traumatic brain injuries and limb replacement procedures.

“The size of government has to be reduced significantly. There’s a lot of stuff that we’re doing that doesn’t make any sense. We have a Department of Veterans Affairs. We don’t need a Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans Affairs should be in under the Department of Defense, and it should be smooth transition,” said Carson.

Video

The Republican presidential candidate said the U.S. should also examine how it cares for soldiers and that they should be in a support system immediately when they enlist, especially when they go into combat.

“We need to be looking at the way that we take care of soldiers. You know 14 percent down recruitment for our voluntary Army right now. Why? Because they’re looking at what we’re doing to our veterans,” he said.

“When a person applies to the military, they should be in a support system immediately from day one, particularly when they go through combat, because that’s when all the trauma is occurring, and we should have people in place a year before their time of discharge to be working on their integration back into society,” Carson added.

“There shouldn’t be a period of unemployment when they come out of the military, and they should have a health savings account, which allows them to go to any medical facility in the country, and we should be delighted to take care of them,” he said.

“We should use the VA facilities for specialized care for traumatic brain injury, limb replacements, and research,” Carson added.
...................................................................................................................................................................

McKoon "has abandoned the pretense that his bill is about anything other than legally disadvantaging LGBT people." Well, "legally" isn't exactly the proper terminology.

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Georgia GOP Is in a Civil War Over Anti-Gay “Religious Liberty” Bill
By Mark Joseph Stern, August 28, 2015

I am a big fan of Sen. Josh McKoon, the rabidly anti-gay Georgia Republican legislator who sponsored a failed “religious liberty” bill last spring. Like most conservatives, McKoon initially peddled the laughable line that his bill wasn’t intended to undercut LGBT rights. But when a moderate Republican called his bluff, proposing a simple amendment to clarify that the bill did not legalize discrimination, McKoon let the façade drop. “That amendment,” he fumed, “would completely undercut the purpose of the bill.” With those words, McKoon finally admitted what so many would not: The whole point of “religious liberty” bills is to nullify LGBT nondiscrimination measures.

Since then, the Georgia GOP has split wide open over McKoon’s bill. Religious conservatives in the party vehemently support it; business-minded moderates, who fear an Indiana-style backlash, vigorously oppose it. (The latter camp is led by Jewish Rep. Mike Jacobs and supported by the Anti-Defamation League, which has led to some disturbing dog whistles.) Now McKoon is lining up his soldiers for the next charge—and, in doing so, dropping all pretexts about the true intentions of his bill. In a remarkable speech, McKoon pilloried companies like Delta, Coca-Cola, and Home Depot, which are headquartered in Georgia and spoke out against the bill. These companies, McKoon claimed, are the main roadblock to the bill’s passage:

We’ve had this problem because very large multi-national corporations that are headquartered in this state—their executives, many of whom are not from Georgia, have different values than you and I do. They think that their cultural norms, their liberal, far-left cultural norms, should be applied to our state.

McKoon should be commended for his honesty. Sure, he’s cribbing the tactics of Southern white supremacist groups in the civil rights era, who regularly complained that groups like the NAACP were just outside agitators who didn’t share or understand Southern values. But in doing so, he has abandoned the pretense that his bill is about anything other than legally disadvantaging LGBT people. Real Georgians, McKoon implies, should reject these liberal elite outsiders’ “far-left cultural norms”—and embrace discrimination.

I recognize that, for more tolerant Americans, it might be uncomfortable to watch lawmakers use white supremacist language to argue openly for the legal debasement of LGBT Georgians. But I promise—it really is better this way. For nearly two years, anti-gay activists were either too pusillanimous or mendacious to own up to the objective of their “religious liberty” measures. If McKoon and his ilk are truly ready to move beyond such obfuscation, we can finally discuss in earnest whether individuals and businesses should be given special rights to discriminate. For conservatives, who are already facing repercussions at the polls for their extremism, that’s a losing debate. Good for McKoon for having the courage to frame it honestly.
...................................................................................................................................................................

What part of "no" don't you understand, Ms Davis? Would "Hell, no" clear it up for you?

...................................................................................................................................................................

COMMENTS: 
*  Interesting argument.  A. It's not up to her. If her conscience won't let her perform her duties, she has to go. B. It is not her Constitutional "Right" to do anything that deprives someone else of their "Constitutional Right."
    *  why is she still in the news? Get a job at the church if you are so into your religion. Quit your good paying job and let someone else do it.
*  I'm sure that like many public servants this woman has taken an oath to uphold the law. She is not doing so. Fire her. Her own beliefs have nothing to do with her job.
*  Because she wants her cake and wants to eat it too, shes a governmnet leech who doesnt want to follow the law she took an oath to uphold, her religion matters not in her position. She needs to get off the taxpayer paid gravy train.
*  I'd just like to add the lady has an inflated view of her role in the process of issuing marriage licenses. She is acting as an agent for the state and not in her own behalf, so her personal viewpoint is a matter of irrelevance.
*  She wants her martydom and her paycheck, too...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Kentucky Clerk Who Refuses To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses Begs Supreme Court For Help

Citing religious reasons, the clerk filed an emergency request with Justice Elena Kagan on Friday.

By Cristian Farias, August 28, 2015

After defying multiple orders to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians, a Kentucky clerk is taking her case to the Supreme Court.

Rowan County clerk Kim Davis on Friday filed an emergency request with the court to put a temporary hold on a lower-court ruling that effectively forces her to begin serving gay couples, saying that complying with the order would violate her religious beliefs.

According to Davis' petition, her "conscience forbids her from approving" marriage licenses to gay couples "because the prescribed form mandates that she authorize the proposed union and issue a license bearing her own name and imprimatur."

"She holds an undisputed sincerely-held religious belief that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, only," the petition continues. "Thus, in her belief, [same-sex marriage] is not, in fact, marriage."

Equality Case Files, a nonprofit that tracks litigation around same-sex marriage, posted a copy of Davis' filing on its website. The filing can be read in full here.

Davis' request was addressed to Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees emergency petitions from Kentucky. Justices from time to time are asked to review such petitions, which are only procedural in scope and are meant to delay implementation of lower-court rulings. Kagan could either act on Davis' petition on her own or refer it to the full court for adjudication.

The Supreme Court ruled in June that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Following the landmark ruling, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear -- who was one of the defendants in that case -- ordered state clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and heterosexual couples alike. 

But Davis refused. And then refused again after she was sued and was ordered by a federal court to comply. On Wednesday, an appellate court told her that she had "little or no likelihood" of winning her case.

In her Friday petition to Kagan, Davis argues that adding her "name, authorization, and approval" to marriages by gay couples would amount to a "searing act of validation" that "would forever echo in her conscience."

The petition goes on: "If Davis’ religious objection cannot be accommodated when Kentucky marriage licenses are available in more than 130 marriage licensing locations ... then elected officials have no real religious freedom when they take public office."

That's the crux of Davis' legal argument, but any Supreme Court action in response would be much narrower in scope. Rather than opining on whether Davis' religious freedom is being violated, a ruling from Kagan or from the full court would be limited to deciding whether to halt the original court order requiring Davis to issue marriage licenses to all couples.

According to BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner, that court order is set to go into effect on Monday.

David Ermold and his partner have been turned away by Davis' office twice. Ermold told The Associated Press that all the back-and-forth is "getting tedious."

"We get torn down, built back up, torn down, built back up," he said. "It's emotionally draining."
...................................................................................................................................................................

"I think Trump's ability to tap into the anger and distrust in the electorate is the sort of thing the political establishment ... has difficulty totally understanding."

...................................................................................................................................................................
Does this cartoon foretell the fate of Donald Trump’s campaign?
By Chris Cillizza, August 28, 2015

Clay Bennett @BennettCartoons
8/28/2015- The Supporter #Trump2016 #TrumpForPresident #MakeAmericaGreatAgain
7:30 AM - 28 Aug 2015

This cartoon, which comes from the pen of Clay Bennett, the editorial cartoonist for the Chattanooga Times Free Press, expresses the belief of almost all of the Republican establishment.

Sure, Donald Trump is leading in the polls everywhere right now, but so was Howard Dean at this point in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary race. And Dean wound up flaming out with Democrats making the "Dated Dean, Married Kerry" bumper sticker a very real thing.

So, eventually, the thinking goes, Trump's support will flame out. The Summer of Trump will turn into the fall of discontent (or something). People who say they are for Trump now are having a laugh but will come to their senses when the actual time to vote nears and they start caring about things like electability. Or Trump will fundamentally disqualify himself in some meaningful way some time soon.

The "sober up" metaphor, of course, isn't entirely new. Seth Meyers has predicted that same thing.

To which I say: I guess? It's hard for me to imagine Trump saying or doing something at this point that would disqualify him in the eyes of his supporters. Trump is starting to approach Edwin Edwards's famous "dead girl/live boy" untouchableness.

And I am wary of predicting that Trump's moment will eventually pass. I was totally wrong about his ability to captivate a significant number of Republican voters in the first place, and lots and lots of other people have been wrong about his ability to sustain that support. I think Trump's ability to tap into the anger and distrust in the electorate is the sort of thing the political establishment -- largely based in Washington -- has difficulty totally understanding.

So, maybe Clay Bennett is right about the future of Trump. But, I'm less certain of that than I have been at any point during Trump's 72 days as a candidate.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Good one.

................................................................

"We’ve seen the Koch brothers’ type of prosperity, and it doesn’t work for regular working folks..." The only way it would work is if the Kochs would split their money with all of us.... never happen, though.

...................................................................................................................................................................
Ohio Unions Upstage Koch Brothers with Big Protest
By Bruce Bostick, August 27, 2015

Three thousand union members and supporters from around the state poured into Columbus, Ohio, August 21 to protest a convention of Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

They stepped off buses and into a carnival atmosphere. The Auto Workers (UAW) sent the largest contingent, 10 buses full of protesters in red T-shirts. AFSCME workers and retirees wore green.

Teamsters in black shirts and Steelworkers in blue mixed with teachers and a huge Food and Commercial Workers delegation. A big group of Bernie Sanders supporters mingled in their “Feel the Bern” shirts. A giant puppet of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was there too.

The Americans for Prosperity confab was slated to showcase appearances by GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Bobby Jindal. The corporate media—obsessed with the horserace of super-wealthy candidates competing to put forward the most pro-corporate program—would have preferred to cover it without distractions.

In what was billed as a “major campaign speech” at the conference, Bush called for Republicans to “reach out” to African Americans and working families. “They’re really conservative,” he claimed, “they just don’t know it.”

But that message was drowned out by the thousands of angry protestors. The demonstration took over the front page of the conservative Columbus Dispatch. All the TV stations had to pull their main coverage away from the Koch brothers’ group, and focus instead on the demonstrators calling for democracy and worker’s rights.

“The corporate politicians love to talk about ‘takers and makers,’ as though they’ve ever made anything in their entire lives,” Rev. Susan Smith told the crowd. She’s an African American leader of a large local progressive faith grouping, BREAD.

“Every road and every bridge, every school and every home, every hotel and building, everything, was made by you!”

RETIREES IN FORCE

Ohio AFL-CIO President Tim Burga said the labor fed had called the rally to “stand up to the Koch Brothers and their billionaire agenda of busting unions, destroying pensions, privatizing Social Security and Medicare so that they can enrich the few while impoverishing the many.”

Organizers had predicted that 1,000-1,500 would attend, and 2,000 would be a tremendous victory. The actual turnout was “overwhelming,” said Ohio AFL-CIO Political Director Matt Smith.

While it was a diverse crowd, the majority of attendees were retired workers.

“I was in Vietnam and worked my whole life in the mill,” said Paul Santilli, president of Massillon chapter of the Steelworkers Organization of Active Retirees. “I’ll be damned if we can let a tiny handful of billionaires steal our nation.”

Local retiree groups have been raising the alarm about another round of Congressional attacks on Social Security and Medicare, “programs that American retirees won, through difficult struggles,” said Norm Wernet, president of the Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans. “They’ve paid into these important programs that keep our entire economy above water.”

Mike Walden led a delegation of Teamsters who are facing pension cuts—the first casualties of a sneaky provision that was tacked onto the Cromnibus spending bill pushed through Congress last year, allowing cuts to the benefits of retirees in multi-employer pensions.

Trustees of the enormous Central States Pension Fund have warned pensioners they intend to make big cuts, and they’re supposed to announce the details around August 31. Meanwhile Teamsters rank and filers are mounting a grassroots campaign to stop them.

“We’ve seen the Koch brothers’ type of prosperity, and it doesn’t work for regular working folks,” Walden said, citing threatened pension cuts of up to 65 percent. “If that’s prosperity, it’s not for us!”

“We’re all with Bernie,” Walden added. “We’ve filed lawsuits and are asking for help. Bernie [Sanders] introduced a bill that would restore our pensions, and Sherrod [Brown], Marcie Kaptur, and [John] Ryan have supported it. He stood up for us while the rest just talk!”

‘WE WON’T GO BACK!’

Betty Thomas, a “proud AFSCME member and Hillary [Clinton] supporter,” led a delegation of public workers from Cincinnati. Unions there beat back a 2013 ballot initiative that would have wiped out public workers’ pensions and replaced them with 401(k) plans.

“They tried to destroy public workers’ bargaining rights in Cincinnati,” Thomas said, “but we all stood up together and showed that we won’t be intimidated.”

“We’ve seen firsthand what these so-called ‘right-to-work’ laws do,” said Ohio UAW Retiree Director Bill Bowers. “It literally wipes out regular working-class communities. Small businesses and local tax bases are killed, as well as hurting workers’ bargaining power.”

As the cheering crowd marched the few blocks to the Convention Center, police lining the route were friendly, even supportive. One cop shouted, “This is the backbone of America! I’m proud to be here!”

“We won’t go back, not even one step,” declared Deidra Reese, leader of a labor and community voting rights coalition.

“The billionaires try to steal everything we’ve fought so hard to gain,” she said, “then try to drive us back a hundred years by denying people the right to vote. We won’t go back!”
...................................................................................................................................................................

"There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around when it comes to Senate obstructionism, but Corker’s complaints are a bit much, even by Capitol Hill standards." Isn't that just too bad, Corker?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  It never fails  , the Republicans seem to never be able to see past the end of their own noses,. Did they really think the filibuster wouldn't be used against them? Astounding the lack of intelligence that this group of so called law makers possess.
*  Stop the whining. You GOPers hold majorities in the House and the Senate yet you whine, and whine. Is whining the governing you all were talking about doing if you got to take over Congress?
*  Ah, the filibuster. It is really irritating when Repub toads comment twisting Obama's name, as if we will admire their cleverness. They often say why didn't Obama get anything done when Dems were in control? Ever heard of the fililbuster? They then deny ever using it and say Obama could have done something. I say, really? What could he have done, especially since you are accusing him of using executive orders illegally.  BTW, I had forgotten that The Donald had staked his ground early by being a birther. He was the one who "sent" someone to Hawaii. Despite Donnie's declaration that his guy was finding lots of stuff, he went silent after that. Never mind.
*   REPUBLICANS  filibustered  500  times  during  Obama's  first  term.
*  So the Party of "No" has been told "No" and they don't like it ...
*  They always seem to forget that big delay with Franken, and replacing the death of Kennedy when they claim that so called majority.
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP discovers it doesn’t like filibusters after all
By Steve Benen, August 27, 2015

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) didn’t just complain this week about the international nuclear agreement with Iran; he also targeted the nature of the Democratic support for the policy. Apparently, Senate Dems expect the Republican majority to get 60 votes for their plan – and Cotton thinks that’s outrageous.

“Harry Reid wants to deny the American people a voice entirely by blocking an up-or-down vote on this terrible deal,” the right-wing freshman complained.

Ah yes, the ol’ “up-or-down” vote – the one thing the majority party loves, until it falls into the minority, at which point it rediscovers the “cooling saucer” metaphor, right up until it reclaims the majority and the cycle begins anew.

Cotton isn’t alone, of course. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), upon learning of the likely Democratic filibuster, responded, “Are you kidding me?” Politico reported today:

“Is that where they really want to be? Do they really want to vote to block consideration of … probably the biggest foreign policy endeavor?” Corker said in an interview. “Do they want to be in a place where they voted to keep from going to the substance [of the Iran debate]?”

Corker may not have fully thought this one through.

First, Democrats were in the Senate majority for eight years prior to this Congress, and Corker was there the whole time. Over those eight years, the Senate Republican minority took obstructionism to levels unseen in American history, creating twisted new norms in which 60-vote super-majorities were required for practically every vote of any consequence.

The institution had never operated this way at any time in its history, but that’s the way Mitch McConnell and GOP senators wanted it to be, and the political world simply went along as if it were normal.

All of a sudden, however, Corker sees Democrats playing by the rules Republicans wrote – and he’s disgusted? As best as I can tell, the Tennessee lawmaker didn’t complain once about his own party’s obstructionist tactics, but now he’s incensed by the minority denying one of his priorities an “up-or-down vote”?

Second, Corker’s concerned about Democrats blocking a debate over the “substance” of the diplomatic agreement, but let’s not play games – the debate has been ongoing for months, and whether there’s a filibuster or not won’t change that. As Jon Chait noted this morning, “Corker seems to be framing the filibuster as the anti-debate method rather than the pro-debate method…. In fact, whether a bill needs 51 or 60 votes to pass is irrelevant to how much debate or consideration it gets. Every senator who wants the chance to read their canned talking points on the Senate floor while the other senators ignore them will have the chance to do so either way.”

For those who want to see the chamber’s filibuster rules changed – a group I belong to, no matter which party is in the majority – there may be a temptation to agree with Corker’s underlying demand. He wants a majority-rule vote on his bill, and proponents of Senate reform ultimately share the same goal.

But let’s not lose sight of the context. Corker isn’t advocating sweeping Senate reforms, and he never raised a finger to improve how the institution functions when his party was blocking every Democratic priority it could. Rather, this is a case of a senator who was perfectly comfortable with an endless stream of filibusters for eight years, no matter the consequences, but who’s now annoyed when confronted with the tactics his party perfected.

There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around when it comes to Senate obstructionism, but Corker’s complaints are a bit much, even by Capitol Hill standards.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the long list of instances of the [Koch] brothers' network of conservative groups attempting to obstruct environmental legislation." Greedy, greedy...

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The best Government money can buy. Legal bribary is now the law of the land. Who's surprised, considering that three Supreme Court Justices are regular guest at any Koch backed functions. Even the Supreme Court has been bought by these scoundrels.
*  Forget about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, this nation has the two Croak brothers to make up for the other two. They have and will continue to spread destruction and pestilence across the land.
*  The GOP doesn't give a tinker's damn about the environment we will leave to our children and grandchildren. They only want their money now.... and more and more and more.
    *  And we enable them by voting for them, or not voting at all.
*  these two brothers need to share a prison cell.
*  And if there were no Koch industries Katrina would have still flooded New Orleans.
    *  Koch Industries oil pipelines south of New Orleans destroyed the wetlands, moving the Gulf of Mexico 30 miles closer to the city. The wetlands act as a buffer, breaking down hurricanes and reducing their wind speed and storm surge. Without those extra 30 miles of wetlands, the Katrina storm surge was able to shatter the shoddy Federal levees. Koch Industries should pay for the coastal restoration.
...................................................................................................................................................................
New Report Highlights Koch Brothers' Role In Hurricane Katrina Damage

Groups backed by the conservative billionaires helped to worsen the impact of the storm and hinder the recovery process.

By Marina Fang, August 27, 2015

A new report from the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge's Bridge Project describes the way Charles and David Koch, the influential conservative billionaires, put their vast resources into actions that exacerbated the impact of Hurricane Katrina and stalled the Gulf Coast’s recovery.

The report, released Thursday, highlights the Koch brothers' influence on the region before and after the storm, including constructing and operating pipelines that destroyed wetlands south of New Orleans and attempting to obstruct legislation that would have aided the recovery.

The report describes a federal class-action lawsuit claiming that Koch Pipeline Company and other major oil companies were “partly responsible for the destruction of 1 million acres of marshlands and also for millions more acres of dying marshland.” The destruction of the marshlands eliminated New Orleans' "natural protection against hurricane winds and storm surges,” according to the lawsuit. The case was later dismissed because a judge deemed it “ambitious.”

The Bridge Project also details an unsuccessful Koch-backed legislative effort to oppose a bill that was intended to promote recovery by limiting premiums for flood insurance. The Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act sought to place a limit on rate increases for people at higher risk of being affected by hurricanes and other damaging storms.

The Koch-funded conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity and other conservative organizations signed a letter in February 2014 urging GOP lawmakers to oppose government intervention in the flood insurance market by voting against the bill. (The legislation had the support of then-Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), whom AFP supported in his successful 2014 Senate campaign.)

As the Bridge Project report points out, AFP defended itself by touting its support for an amendment to the bill that would have slowed down the insurance rate increases. However, the conservative groups sent the letter opposing the bill a month after the amendment had been shelved.

Though some of the findings in the report have been documented previously, it highlights the Kochs' extensive political and economic influence. The findings add to the long list of instances of the brothers' network of conservative groups attempting to obstruct environmental legislation. Koch-backed groups have advocated against state-level proposals that incentivize companies to invest in renewable energy. On the business side, their companies have shut down oil refineries and factories in several states, which many critics have alleged were efforts to avoid incurring environmental cleanup costs.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"The wobbles we’re feeling now are there because the whole world is interconnected and money flows like water. The president can't change that." (In spite of the Republicans' snarkiness.)

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  The real problem with the stock market is that so many speculators are afflicted with "monkey see monkey do" herd mentality.Everything would be fine if the prices were set by rational thinkers.
*  Hey folks, this is not a Crash yet. Right now it is just a correction. It may or may not become a Crash.
*  Repubs cannot have it both ways. They say Obama is responsible for the August dip then he also must be responsible for the rise in the Market (which was awesome) after W destroyed it.
*  On an average, we have one correction of 10% every year. We didn't have one for more than 3 years because of the fed. We are just returning to the statistical norm. Big deal..
*  Darn it, I cut my finger. It's your fault Obama!
*  A correction isn't the end of the world. Why must anyone be blamed for something normal happening? Today my portfolio is up 4.5%. I guess I'll blame the president...
...................................................................................................................................................................
It’s foolish to blame Obama for stock-market woes
By Rick Newman, August 25, 2015

It’s Obama’s fault.

Expect to hear that a lot during the next 15 months as Republican presidential hopefuls blame everything imaginable on the president whose party they want to bounce from the White House.

Recent turmoil in the stock market, for instance, is Obama’s fault, according to Republicans Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Chris Christie and others. Trump, for instance, said of China, “they’ll bring us down. We have nobody that has a clue.” Then he said President Obama should cancel the upcoming state dinner with Chinese president Xi Jinping and give him a double Big Mac instead. Walker argued that “We need to see some backbone from President Obama on U.S.-China relations." And Christie said the stock-market sell-off resulted from “a history of failed policies by this president.”

Obama certainly has some policy liabilities (exhibit A might be his vow to take decisive action in Syria, which never happened), but if you blame Obama for the 9% drop in stocks during the last week, then you’re basically saying Obama is responsible for what happens in the stock market. And if you’re saying that, then you have to give him credit for the huge gains in stock values that have occurred during his presidency.

By that standard, Obama has been a genius and his China policy has worked wonders. Since the day Obama took office, for instance, the S&P 500 stock index has risen by about 125%, or roughly 20% per year. The smartest hedge fund managers don’t get returns that high. The only thing Obama didn’t do is open a trading account for every American and give them a complimentary $10,000 starter fund.

Better to acknowledge that the president—any president, of any party—has little influence over the stock market, or even over the broad direction of the economy. Sure, presidents can talk up the economy and try to convince consumers and investors everything is great. They can also enact laws and policies that trigger growth, if they can get Congress to go along (which Obama pretty much can’t). But the Federal Reserve has much more influence over the direction of markets than the president does, and even the Fed can short-circuit reality only so long. Sooner or later, financial markets always reach equilibrium levels that will be as satisfying or ugly as underlying fundamentals, regardless of presidential policies.

This is a lesson China seems to be learning as government efforts to prop up the rigged stock markets of Shanghai and Shenzen fail repeatedly. China's communist government created incentives for Chinese investors to buy stocks, which now looks a bit like a Ponzi scheme as buyers bail and the government tries to keep them from selling. This isn’t U.S. policy, it’s Chinese policy, and one America probably couldn’t talk them out of under any circumstances. China is prideful and stubborn, and it can behave in ways that make no sense to free marketers longer than anybody would like.

China is the current catalyst for the turmoil in financial markets, but this may only be because markets were fragile—and U.S. stocks possibly overbought—with something likely to crack the eggshell. It just turned out to be China. Investors are now resetting their expectations and factoring in slower growth in China than assumed until recently: 4% or 5% annually, say, down from 7% or so. How could Obama have let this happen?

When the manic behavior ends, investors will realize that China’s economy is much more dependent on the United States than the other way around. We’re their biggest customer, buying much of what they make. China is a big global consumer of raw materials, but they don’t buy much of what we make here in the U.S. (And yes, we still do make some stuff here.) The health of the Chinese economy matters here, and everywhere, but it would take a real rout in Asia to cause lasting harm here. The wobbles we’re feeling now are there because the whole world is interconnected and money flows like water. The president can't change that.

Republican candidates may not care about the details because they’re trying to get the attention of base voters who don’t like Obama anyway. Luckily for them, there’s more than one villain to pin the blame on when markets stumble. The Federal Reserve is about to raise interest rates, and that, too, is beginning to unnerve investors, even though the Fed has done more to stimulate the recovery we're in than any other body. Obama and the Fed: They caused this problem together. You heard it here first.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Xenophobia as a political strategy is the lowest you can go in search of political power." Trump just doesn't care.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Thanks Ricky! You are right on the mark. Xenophobia is the trademark of Trump and his supporters
*  Dear Ricky, a fearful white minority will always need to find a group to attack. Whether it's African Americans, Latinos, Muslims or even other whites who believe different than they do. Just like Hitler put his radar on Jews. The Trump followers have set their sites on decimating Hispanics by putting them all in a corral and calling them "illegals." Maybe this is a way to unite the growing Latino population to stand up for themselves and fight against the white nationalism that has been brewing since 2008 when a black man entered "their" white house and changed the face of American.
*  You can tell from the ugly comments about Ricky that Trumps supporters are indeed xenophobic
*  Amen. Ricky Martin is a lot more eloquent than I thought.
*  ... Only uninformed bullies and angry people like Trump! They name call and just yell louder thinking that makes them smarter when all it does is show their lack of insightful thinking that doesn't reach past their nose!
*   yes he is a bully and I just do not understand how people can think he is so great. All he does is call people names and has not given any plan on what he would do once in office. All he says is "Trust Me", well when people tell me that it scares me.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Read Ricky Martin's Blistering Op-Ed About Donald Trump
By Angie Romero, August 26, 2015

Latin superstar Ricky Martin has put Donald Trump on blast. But rather than sticking to 140 characters, Martin went above and beyond by writing an op-ed for Univision following the presidential candidate’s very public squabble with the network’s news anchor Jorge Ramos at a campaign press event in Iowa Aug. 25.

The following is a translation of Martin’s Spanish-language op-ed: 

“The fact that an individual like Donald Trump, a candidate for the presidency of the United States for the Republican party, has the audacity to continue to gratuitously harass the Latin community makes my blood boil.

When did this character assume he could make comments that are racist, absurd, and above all incoherent and ignorant about us Latinos?

From the beginning his intention was transparent: basically tell barbarities and lies to remain relevant in the public opinion, for votes or simply to stay on the media’s radar.

Yesterday’s episode against journalist Jorge Ramos, one of the most beloved and respected Latinos in world media, has gotten to the point of enough is enough.

Jorge Ramos was doing HIS JOB as a journalist at a press conference in which he appeared freely and democratically, representing one of the most important Latin television networks in the world and with the same right to freely exercise his profession as all other journalists.

But this new character in American politics verbally attacks him and ejects him from the press conference.

This action from Trump doesn’t surprise me, what does surprise me is that as Hispanics we continue to accept the aggressions and accusations of people like him who attack our dignity.

Enough is enough!

If we are united for some things we should be united for others. We have already shown the United States who we are and we cannot allow this behavior.

We have to defeat the power that Trump pretends to have over Latinos, anchored in low rhetoric and xenophobic speech, which his campaign team is convinced works for him.

Let’s show that our Latin race is to be respected, let’s not allow a political hopeful to plant his campaign in insult and humiliation. Let’s demand respect for those first generations of Latinos who came to the United States and opened a path for us. We have fought for every right that we have today.

Xenophobia as a political strategy is the lowest you can go in search of political power.

This is an issue that unites us and we need to battle it together, not just for us but for the evolution of humanity and those to come.” 
...................................................................................................................................................................

What a complicated issue.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  so most civilized nations have birth right citizenship, makes sense the US wants to change this, behind trump and the republican party we are turning into uncivivilized animals
*  Forget about jobs, crumbling infrastructure and failing education, let's worry about anchor babies.
*  Notice, most of these countries say citizenship is "permitted", not "automatically granted".
*  All this concern about people on the government dole, but companies receiving billions upon billions of dollars in corporate welfare every year and not paying one dollar in taxes is OK? LOL
*  Much like they do with the Bible, conservatives pretend the parts of the Constitution they like are incredibly important, then utterly ignore the parts they don't like.
...................................................................................................................................................................
What do other countries’ constitutions say about birthright citizenship?
By Scott Bomboy, August 26, 2015

Birthright citizenship isn’t just an American political and legal issue. Here is a quick look at how other nations deal with the question of citizenship for people born within their borders to non-citizen parents.

In the United States, the current debate is over the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, and whether its Citizenship Clause extends to the children of undocumented immigrants. The 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Since the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in the Wong Kim Ark case, the American legal system has recognized that almost everyone physically born in the United States becomes a citizen at birth.

In recent years, a theory has emerged that undocumented immigrants aren’t covered by the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment, for several reasons. One idea is that the concept of illegal immigration wasn’t considered in the Wong Kim Ark decision; another is that other legal precedents, including a decision about American Indians, allow Congress to set citizenship requirements by passing laws that don’t require a constitutional amendment.

So how do other countries deal with the complicated issue of citizenship for the children of non-citizens? In at least 30 countries, birthright citizenship is permitted under their constitutions or their laws.

If you are curious about the constitutions of these countries and their citizenship provisions, you can use the Constitution Center’s new Constitutional Rights: Origins and Travels feature to see the exact wording. Just click on the term “Birthright Citizenship” on the right side of the “Rights Around The World” page.

In general, birthright citizenship is common among Western Hemisphere countries and uncommon in other parts of the world. The political fact checking site PolitiFact says about 33 countries have some type of birthright citizenship law on the books, with many enshrined in their constitutions. (Canada uses its statutes to make birthright citizenship a right.)

For example, Mexico’s constitution states that citizens are “those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents.” Title II of Brazil’s constitution has similar language: “Brazilians are by birth those in the Federative Republic of Brazil, even though of foreign parents, provided they are not in the service of their country.”

In Europe, Africa and Asia, constitutions specify that the nations’ laws determine birthright citizenship. France’s constitution reflects many of the broad provisions that grant lawmakers the power to determine citizenship: “Statutes shall determine the nationality, the status and capacity of persons.” Likewise in Indonesia, its constitution specifies that, “matters concerning citizens and residents shall be regulated by the law.” And South Africa specifies that “national legislation must provide for the acquisition, loss and restoration of citizenship.”

Some North African and Middle Eastern nations clearly restrict citizenship to people who have at least one parent who is a legal citizen of that country. For example, Egypt’s constitution says that “citizenship is a right to anyone born to an Egyptian father or an Egyptian mother.”

The situation in Europe is similar. In 2012, the Law Library of Congress looked at birthright citizenship in major European Union nations. In most cases, birthright citizenship was tied to the nationality of a child’s parents, requiring at least one parent to be a citizen of a country where a child was born. Citizenship was granted, with conditions, to children who were abandoned by their parents at birth.

France and the Dominican Republic are two countries that changed the birthright citizenship laws in recent years. In 2013, the Dominican Republic’s Supreme Court upheld a legal change that stripped about 250,000 former Dominicans of their citizenship, because their parents weren’t citizens at the time of their birth.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves ..." Hot damn! Truth from a Republican......

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  The reason is that most of the tax cuts go to the wealthy who put it into the stock market rather than the economy as the middle class and poor would do!!
*  LOL...so, the GOP appoints a fellow Republican to the CBO and even he says, "TAX CUTS DO NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES". Are they going to fire him for stating a fact most of us already knew? LOL...wow...
*  an honest man in dc ....wow ...to bad he'll be looking for another job tommorrow
    *  no an honest republican in DC that is something that is unheard of and yes he will be looking for a new job
*  Heck...even a first semester macroeconomic student should know the nonsense about tax-cut generating more revenue is political hog-wash....
*  A Republican who told the truth? He'll soon fell the wrath of the "you're either with us, or you're against us" purists in today's amoral GOP.
*  It took 35 years for a republican to come to this conclusion? Any Economics 101 student would know this.
*   Stop going to war and maybe you don't need more taxes. That is our biggest expense and make those corporation pay their share. Many pay ZERO.
...................................................................................................................................................................
U.S. tax cuts don't pay for themselves -Republican-appointed official says
By David Lawder, August 25, 2015

The new Republican-appointed director of the Congressional Budget Office delivered some bad news on Tuesday to the party's "Reaganomics" devotees: Tax cuts don't pay for themselves through turbocharged economic growth.

Keith Hall, who served as an economic adviser to former President George W. Bush, made the pronouncement at his first news conference after the CBO reduced its 2015 budget deficit forecast by $60 billion.

"No, the evidence is that tax cuts do not pay for themselves," Hall said in response to a reporter's question. "And our models that we're doing, our macroeconomic effects, show that."

His comment is at odds with lingering economic theory from the 1980s that some Republicans still hold dear: Stronger economic growth generated by tax cuts would boost revenues so much that there is less need to find offsetting savings.

Even though major tax cuts in the early 1980s and early 2000s ended up boosting deficits while also propping up short-term growth, many Republicans cite the growth argument as a major motivation to cut tax rates as part of a tax reform effort.

In a move partly aimed at making the numbers work better, Republicans who control both the House and the Senate appointed Hall to run CBO. He replaced Democratic appointee Doug Elmendorf. Hall was given a mandate to incorporate macroeconomic effects more fully in the agency's cost estimates, a process known as "dynamic scoring."

Thus far, this has had some effect in reducing the estimated costs for some legislation, but the difference has been small.

Under the CBO's traditional "static" scoring method, a bill to extend a package of expired business tax breaks for two years would boost deficits by $97 billion over 10 years. Under dynamic scoring, the increase would be less at only $87 billion, but still a substantial cost to the Treasury.

Hall said the $87 billion figure is likely to be more accurate because it captures macroeconomic feedback, but he noted that this could make the estimate more uncertain because "there's a lot of unknowns there."

The new CBO director, who previously headed the Bureau of Labor Statistics and was the Commerce Department's chief economist, did issue a standard CBO warning that was sure to please Republican fiscal hawks: The ever-rising federal debt is on an unsustainable path.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Solar isn't just for the green crowd anymore. It’s for the green eyeshade crowd, too." Cost cutters are turning to solar energy, but I guess the Koch brothers don't care about cost cutting.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  The Koch scum are the very personification of evil.
*  California has shut down nuclear plants and it hasnt been the disaster they were predicting. I think a lot has to do with solar usage. If we keep it up in California there wont be a need for nuclear.
*  Political points aside. I really think that solar is the way to go. I bet anyone in here would love not to have to pay an electric bill each month. Why can't America be the one to lead in solar equipment production? Could you imagine what our country would be like if we derived most of our energy needs from sunlight?
*  How sad we spent 15 years of non-stop construction from 93 to 08 with no solar requirements. We lost these 15 years where we could have added solar panels to all the new buildings, parking lots, universities, the list goes on and on. Construction is nothing now compared to then, so the little we are doing is minimal when we add a solar panel to a Wal-Mart....big deal....
*  Remember Americans, the Koc(k) brothers want to buy the next election like this was some kind of a banana republic, also they want zero regulation and let the corporations walk all over us!
*   Germany get half of their power from solar and with less sunlight than we have!  I do t get why Conservatives oppose this...because Obama is for it?? Really???  Are some of you guys really that enamored with the blind sheep mentality??  Less dependency on foreign oil is a win win, so what's the hold up?? Are you waiting for a republican president to make you feel good about this issue?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Obama hits Koch Brothers for opposing solar power
By Gregory Korte, August 25, 2015

President Obama made a political and an economic case for solar energy Monday, telling an industry summit in Las Vegas that the explosive growth in solar power "has some big fossil fuel interests pretty nervous."

"Now, it's one thing if you're consistent in being free market. It's another thing when you're free market until it's solar that's working and people want to buy and suddenly you're not for it any more," he said.

"When you start seeing massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards, or to prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding, that's a problem," Obama said, singling out industrialists Charles and David Koch for the first time in a climate speech.

"That's not the American way. That's not progress. That's not innovation. That's rent seeking. That's standing in the way of progress," Obama said.

Koch-backed groups have fought clean energy mandates in several states, comparing the policies to the health insurance mandates under Obamacare. "Koch Industries supports all forms of energy, but we believe they need to stand on their own merits," said Philip Ellender, Koch Industries' president of public affairs, in response to Obama's speech. "We will continue to call them what they are – corporate welfare."

Obama acknowledged that there are legitimate issues to be worked out — like who pays for power transmission when solar generation is largely decentralized. But Obama said opponents are stifling customer choice. And he noted that some Tea Party leaders were supporting pro-solar policies.

Obama's speech to about 1,000 people at the National Clean Energy Summit 8.0 was the first leg of a climate tour that will culminate in a three-day Alaska trip next week. The president has made climate change the signature issue of his second-term agenda, and is highlighting the flooding, storms, drought, wildfires, polar ice melting and other effects of increasing global temperatures.

But in Las Vegas Monday, he struck an optimistic tone, echoing his campaign slogan of "Yes, we can."

Obama said the growth in solar — which is 20 times bigger than it was in 2008, is "like evolving from the telegraph to the smartphone in less than a decade."

"I'm here to give you hope, but not complacency," he said.

Companies like Wal-Mart and Google were turning to solar and renewable energy "not because they're tree-huggers," he said, but because they're cost cutters."

Turning another phrase, he said, "Solar isn't just for the green crowd anymore. It’s for the green eyeshade crowd, too."
...................................................................................................................................................................

"The Republicans complain about Obama not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb ... yet one of their own -- George W. Bush -- had a big hand in aggravating these problems in the first place." REMEMBER THAT!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  So everything Bush did was perfect and somehow magically it all turned sour when our nation elected Obama?
*  That'll be the day when the republicans will take responsibilty for anything. .
*  ... Cheney cherry picked the intel, misled Congress and you want to blame the Iraq war on Dems? Priceless.
*  Really don't you think that blaming Bush is getting old.  Is this all you got???
    *  You think cleaning up BUSH'S mess can be done overnight? PBO is doing a great job considering what he inherited. Short memory huh?
*  Republicans have a very short memory span. They also disregard facts as garbage unless it befits them. They deserve Trump. A man with no plan or very ridulous plans with no specifics just a lot of hot air and self appraisal which is common among Republicans also.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Republicans Who Blame Obama Over Iran Should Recall Bush's Role
By Ivan Eland, August 23, 2015

Rather than a contest between two or three viable candidates, U.S. presidential elections have historically been a referendum on the administration holding power. With at least some awareness of this fact, Republican candidates are busy criticizing President Barack Obama's foreign policy and desperately trying to link Hillary Clinton, his former Secretary of State and still the most likely Democratic nominee, to it (for example, beating the inconsequential Benghazi incident to death). Obama can be faulted for many bad policies domestically -- for example, increased government intrusion into the health care market, a massive pork barrel "stimulus" program, and socialization of some of the big American car companies--and an unneeded war to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi that has brought chaos and terrorism to that country and destabilized surrounding nations. However, Obama cannot be blamed for the rise of Iran in the Persian Gulf region and the heretofore acceleration of its nuclear weapons program.

The fifth anniversary of Obama declaring that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq had ended should make us rewind even farther back to George W. Bush's invasion of that country, which aggravated both of these major problems with Iran. Before this invasion, Lt. Gen. William Odom (Ret.), the general that was Ronald Reagan's blunt-talking chief of the National Security Agency, was one of the few military men to oppose what turned out to be a predictable disaster. Although many military men are well versed military operations and tactics, fewer do strategy well -- the late Odom was one of them. Even in the hysteria after 9/11 that led to the invasion of Iraq, Odom courageously objected to that invasion for the same reason that he had opposed the Vietnam War: such a war would help the main American adversary. In the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union, and in the Persian Gulf, it was Iran. Odom's reluctance to fight these questionable conflicts shows that all wars are not patriotic or even smart. Odom couldn't have been more prescient about either conflict.

And although the number of public voices objecting to Bush's military adventure were few, many experts in the region certainly raised their eyebrows about Bush's plan to democratize Iraq using military power and then use the example to create a domino effect in the Middle East. Iraq was probably one of the least likely candidates for democracy in the Middle East because of its historically ruthless political culture and because, as prior and subsequent events had demonstrated, it is an artificial country with severe ethno-sectarian cleavages. Even when the president's own intelligence community blew another one of Bush's justifications for the alleged preventive military action by concluding that even if Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons -- no one believed he had nuclear weapons, the only true weapon of mass destruction -- he was not likely to use them unless backed into a corner (read: by a U.S. invasion). The last rationale for the war was that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden and the other perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks in al Qaeda, which was preposterous dissembling. And so Bush foolishly marched to war.

A war conducted for no good reason, and with little thought to the predictable and adverse unintended strategic consequences, fulfilled Odom's prediction of a resurgent, yet uneasy, Iran. In the Persian Gulf, overthrowing Saddam in Iraq removed the major counterbalance to the much larger and more populous Iran. Also, Bush's lack of respect for non-nuclear Iraq made Iran accelerate its nuclear program to keep the same thing from happening to it. Obama, with a nuclear agreement containing a good inspection regime for enforcement has now put that nuclear program in the deep freeze for at least 10 to 15 years. Even though Congress' rejection of the agreement likely would make Iran race toward getting a bomb as the international sanctions regime fell apart, Israel and Iran's Sunni Arab enemies, supporting such a rejection, apparently aren't worried as much about an Iranian nuclear weapon as they are Iran's rise as a powerful regional adversary. A nixing of the agreement might result in the United States eventually bombing Iran, which would weaken their main regional adversary.

The Republicans complain about Obama not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, nor enough to blunt Iran's increasing regional influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, yet one of their own -- George W. Bush -- had a big hand in aggravating these problems in the first place. On the campaign trail, Republican candidate Jeb Bush recently became red-faced and flummoxed when a college student reminded him that ISIS originated as a derivative from opposition to his brother's invasion of Iraq. Yet another unintended consequence of that same fiasco, however, is the rise of Iran and the acceleration of its nuclear program, which the Democrats should mention to the Republicans. But Hillary Clinton may not be the best candidate to do so, because while she was in the Senate, she gleefully supported Bush's idiotic war of aggression.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... it means they aren't obsessing about marriage -- only eight weeks since the U.S. Supreme Court decided the constitutional question in favor of equality."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS: 
*  Here's something that I really have noticed about Pat Robertson (and many of the republican presidential candidates) They are using the logic fallacy of Proctor Hoc...as in this:  A: The stock market got beat up yesterday while,  B: Abortions are legal in the US (despite unconstitutional laws to limit) which leads to,  C: Ergo Abortions caused the stock market to lose about 580 points yesterday.  Though...I could have replaced B with President Obama, and the same result would have happened.
    *  ... the sturm und drang of the homophobes has gone quiet. It must have sunk in that with nobody supporting them except themselves, that beating on the Bible wasn't doing anything except making them look stupid.  It may have also occurred to them that pushing the issue--which had narrowed itself down to a handful of verses from the Bible---the way they were doing just might end up in a successful campaign to repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The First Amendment prohibits basing public policy on religious doctrine.
   *  your use of the logical fallacy is correct. but it's Propter hoc, not Proctor. The full latin phrase is "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" After that, therefore because of that.  I hear the same s//t from people saying school shootings is the result of taking god out of school
*  Why does anyone listen to Pat Robertson? He certainly has dementia with his comments on anything.
*  These false prophets are now funny to the Heavens . The Angels are not pisse-d off at them anymore, they are rolling over laughing at these guys . Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen and Mike Huckabee. There is no longer anger in the Heavens only laughter
*   I kept track of his prophecies over the years,(my mom was caught up with him), and none of them ever came true. He is a false prophet and teacher. He is a false teacher and prophet!  None of his prophesies never came true and by biblical standards, he's a false prophet and a con artist.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Why Pat Robertson's Market Bluster Matters
By Jonathan Bernstein, August 25, 2015

It was easy to mock Pat Robertson's assertion that abortion was to blame for Monday's stock market dive (via Political Wire). But what he didn't say signaled something serious and important.

If Robertson and other Christian conservatives are obsessing about abortion and Planned Parenthood as the most urgent abomination perpetrated by the U.S., it means they aren't obsessing about marriage -- only eight weeks since the U.S. Supreme Court decided the constitutional question in favor of equality.

Of course, many people still oppose same-sex marriage, and I wouldn’t make too much of just this one example -- except that it fits in with a more widespread collapse of the active opposition to marriage equality. 

True, most Republican presidential candidates express their opposition to it when asked, and we’ve seen a handful of clerks try to hold out.

But no one is threatening to shut down the government over it. No one is pushing to impeach any of the justices who voted for it, and few in Congress are talking about a constitutional amendment to overturn what the court said.

The issue isn't featured prominently on the Republican candidates’ websites, either. Mike Huckabee mentions it after abortion, although only abortion gets the boldfaced treatment. The story is similar for Rick Santorum. If same-sex marriage is somewhere on Ben Carson’s site, I couldn’t find it. And the candidates who are less focused on placating religious conservatives have backed off even more. 

In other words, what we're seeing is less "massive resistance" and more find-a-way-not-to-offend-anyone-on-either-side, just-forget-about-the-whole-thing type of nonresistance. As expected, this fight is over. 
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Trump’s net favorability with U.S. Hispanics is -51 percent. That’s not just bad, but incredibly bad." What would you expect after Trump's negative comments?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Nothing quite says the "Party of Hate" as well as TRUMP and his cult of nonthinkers.
    *  Wait, I thought Trump said "the Hispanics love me". Nobody could be further out of touch with reality than this egotistical buffoon and the complete GOP. I distinctly remember after their last election loss saying they needed to gain Hispanic AND female voters. So far, they're doing a bang up job as usual!
*  ...  At the end of the day, blood is thicker than water. Expecting the American born children of these migrants to grant power to Trump so that he can toss out their relatives isn't gonna happen.
*  I understand the "deport 'em all" viewpoint, but I much prefer the pathway to citizenship approach. It's a lot cheaper. Making Mexico pay for a wall is not a valid proposed policy - it's a joke. Besides, a wall doesn't go with our existing furniture. (Statue of Liberty)
*  Is it just me ??? Is there anyone else out there sees that Donald Trump should seek psychiatric therapy instead of the presidency of The United States of America. He shows signs that he is NOT stable.  Whenever I see Donald Trump now days in the news running for President of the USA, The person that comes to mind is Howard Hughes when his mental health began to collapse.  He is displaying signs of mental health issues.  What does that say about all of you that support and agree with him?  Look deep into your heart :)
*  It doesn't matter who the GOP nominates. Unless that candidate can figure out a way to win three of the following five states (NM CO OH VA FL) there is no electoral math that gets the GOP to the 270 electoral college vote threshold.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Big Surprise: Hispanic Voters Can’t Stand Donald Trump
By Rob Garver, August 25, 2015

Donald Trump’s claim that he would win the Hispanic vote in a presidential election has always seemed a bit absurd, given that he launched his campaign with an attack on Hispanic immigrants and hasn’t taken his foot off the gas since, with calls for a border wall, mass deportation and an end to the Constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship.

A new Gallup poll released Tuesday, though, shows just how far the real estate billionaire and current frontrunner for the Republican nomination really is from that particular goal. Among Hispanic voters, Trump’s favorability ratings are incredibly bad. This should surprise nobody, but the degree to which he has separated himself from the rest of the GOP pack in the race to completely alienate the fastest-growing segment of the American electorate is really pretty impressive.

Among the U.S.-resident Hispanic adults surveyed by Gallup, 79 percent said they know who Donald Trump is, and 65 percent held a negative view of him. Another way of putting that is that within the universe of Hispanics who know who Trump is, he has an 82 percent disapproval rating.


.
Gallup and other pollsters like to report on “net” favorability, which subtracts the percentage of people with an unfavorable view of a candidate from those with a favorable view to come up with an overall number. Trump’s net favorability with U.S. Hispanics is -51 percent. That’s not just bad, but incredibly bad. The next-worst contenders, former Texas governor Rick Perry and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, are both at -7.

Being seven times as unpopular with Hispanics as the next-worst contender in a Republican presidential primary might not be fatal, though it probably is. But it’s an absolute death sentence in a general election.

Far at the other end of the spectrum is the man Trump has spent much of the past few weeks abusing in speeches and social media posts, former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Bush enjoys a +11 net favorability with Hispanics, though he has sharply lower name recognition than Trump, a problem that applies to every candidate in the field.

Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they were familiar with Bush, 34 percent reported favorable feelings toward him, and 23 percent reported unfavorable feelings.

Among Republicans, wrote Gallup’s Lydia Saad, Trump’s low popularity among Hispanic voters “doesn't seem to be tarnishing the rest of the Republican field.”

However, she noted, recent comments by Bush defending his use of the term “anchor babies” to refer to children who receive birthright U.S. citizenship when born to undocumented parents occurred after the poll was completed.

“As of mid-August, Bush's image among Hispanics had improved as Trump's immigration positions dominated the news. With Hispanics constituting only a small fraction of the Republican Party, this has not boosted Bush's favorable rating -- which has been fairly flat all summer among the Republican base. But, unless his "anchor babies" comment derails him, Bush's recent jockeying with Trump could help warm Hispanic voters to him in the general election should he capture the nomination.”

On the Democratic side, when it comes to favorability ratings with Hispanic voters, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton is even further ahead of her competitors than Trump is behind his. Clinton enjoys a 40 percent net favorability rating with Hispanics. That’s eight times better than her closest rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is currently at +5. Clinton, of course, has far better name recognition than Sanders and the rest of the Democratic field.
...................................................................................................................................................................