Mitt Rauner(oops, Bruce), trying to talk to real people(yep, another version of deer in headlights)

As many of you may have figured out, I am a union activist, otherwise known as a union thug...or whatever the media likes to call me and, because of that I also have "union thug" friends, even some "union bosses" friends. One of those union boss friends that I'd like to introduce is my President, Larry Brown.

Larry worked at the max prison in the southern part of the state to earn his retirement benefits and he takes his benefits seriously. He also takes seriously how Mr. Rauner has been demeaning us in the press and receiving little to no push back. Don't worry, Larry can push back. Hard. With those silly little things called facts.

So...Mitt, er, Bruce Rauner decided to go to southwestern Illinois to speak to state employees and retirees about how he wants to "help" them. Larry was present at the meeting.

Mr. Rauner came out with a prepared statement, he was trying to garner some grassroots troops. The question and answer session lasted about 90 minutes and to his credit, did try to answer questions from the audience. He did say that he thought that SB 1(the pension theft bill) was "unconstitutional"; that doesn't mean he wouldn't support cutting our benefits, he actually thought it didn't go far enough, considering some of his comments in the media and his calls to Republican leaders in the General Assembly to vote against the bill, partially because he wants larger cuts and partially just as a black eye to the Dems.
Larry asked about SB1313, which AFSCME is also litigating and was signed into law in 2012. For those of you who don't know or remember, this is the bill that attacked retirees' health care. Now, I don't expect everyone to know this, but...if you're running for governor....Mr. Rauner had that deer in headlights look and told Larry(after Larry explained the law to him), "You gotta be kidding me, I'll have to check it out." Maybe we all need to start carrying fact sheets with us, eh? Help out Mr. Rauner's knowledge base?
So, more about pensions. Mr. Rauner stated he wanted a "Two-Tier" pension...Larry, again, informed him that Illinois has a two tier pension, since January of 2011. Mr. Rauner, "We do?" Yes, we do. So, we now know that what Mitt's talking about is a Three tier system; his idea is that those that are retired, their defined benefit pensions aren't changed. If you're still working, the defined benefit stops the day he takes office--for all, whether you are coordinated with Social Security or not. And from that day forward? Employees will be expected to figure out the stock market and use a (private) financial planner to get a 401K. You know the type, the hedge fund managers charge their fees and make $$$$ while the small investor watches his/her ability to retire get smaller and smaller because of "market forces". The other part of this silly idea that Mr. Rauner didn't address is if we have no funding from our working brothers and sisters(State and University employees pay up to 14% of their salary into the pension fund), if they are now playing on the market, how do you keep the pension fund solvent for the older retirees?
Mr. Rauner also wanted to assure the retirees and employees he was speaking to that he didn't have any problem with them, it was those corrupt "union bosses". So, Larry asks him, "Why are you mad at me?" Mr. Rauner stated he wasn't, he was against the bosses. They make the decision to fund corrupt politicians with your union dues. Larry informed him that he was a union boss, he was democratically elected and represents over 27,000 retirees in the state of Illinois and that the dues, by law, cannot be used as political contributions. Larry went on to tell Mr. Rauner that AFSCME does have a voluntary deduction for our Political Action Committee, called PEOPLE, but we also vote democratically, both the active and retired employees, on who we will or will not support. Larry asked Mr. Rauner if his company gave political contributions. Mr. Rauner answered yes. Larry asked him if those contributions were voted on by all of the workers in a democratic fashion. We all know the answer to that question, don't we?
So, it seems that Mr. Rauner has very little knowledge of what is law, what is being litigated in the state of Illinois, and very little knowledge on how unions function. And he's being touted as the front runner? He can't even figure out his own taxes(he took 3 property tax exemptions instead of just one), doesn't know that "union bosses" are democratically elected, doesn't know about litigation that will affect his governance, if elected, doesn't know that there are laws that make it illegal for his idea of "union bosses" handing money to politicians.
Can we really want someone who is so stupid about how the government is run...to run our government?????
I do understand, Quinn ain't the public's savior, but he's not trying to sell off Illinois. No one spends as much money as Mr. Rauner has on his campaign and expects nothing from it.

Lindsey Graham, our very own Queen of Hearts, screams "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!", AKA: "IMPEACH! IMPEACH!"

So, to continue with this hysteria about President Obama and the Taliban loving Bergdahl, as the basthit crazy bigots on the right like to scream, ranting frantically until they finally fall in a heap, grabbing their pearls, on the fainting couch(Yep, I'm talking to you, Lindsey!), now starts the "IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!" wave of all good cooked up conspiracies that the right love to lie about.
We have the ex-congressman Allen West who demands, yes DEMANDS! that President Obama be impeached for prisoner exchange! He did it all wrong, didn't ask permission from congress...cuz he's supposed to cuz congress said so. We have John McCain saying that these prisoners were the worst of the worst! He'd never agree to this! Except that he had before he hadn't. That Obama was, again, shown weak in negotiating and knowing about terrorism! Oh, and let's not forget the real batshit rightwing crazies, aka, the "religious right". There's Bryan Fischer, of the Focus(as in target?) on the Family getting all apoplectic about the Taliban prisoners, Bergdahl and impeachment. OH! And let's not forget that "great patriot"(she says with an eye roll), Oliver North, who said that President Obama is financing the terrorists(he means the Taliban)! Yes, the Oliver North who was convicted of the Iran Contra Affair--you know actually financing terrorists! Yes, I know the conviction was overturned, but not because he wasn't guilty, but because of a technicality.

So, all this hand wringing, pearl clutching and fainting, there must be some truth in it, right? Ahh, not really.
Let's take all of these lies separately.
1. The Taliban are terrorists!
The Taliban have never been added to the list of Terrorists by Homeland Security. Although I would agree the Taliban are one of the worst groups to rule a country, they have never attacked America, that was Al Queda and those men were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq. Am I the only one who paid attention to geography in school? And on to the next silly hysterics:
2. These five were the worst of the WORST!!
Do we have to have all of the hyperbole? Really? Of the five that were released, only one could be actually considered a strategist who could be used within a terrorist organization. Three were involved in the Afghan government, including one that was in the police department. Check the link above for evul librul fact thingies.
3. It's against the law cuz Obama didn't report to the congress 30 days in advance.
Yes, there is a law, its tied to the funding of the military, that says that Obama must notify the congress. This "law" came into fruition right around the time that Obama became president...hmmm.....and every time it comes through, President Obama issues a statement saying that he will not abide by this law since he feels its unconstitutional and every time Congress attached this to a Defense funding bill, he'd attached the signing statement. Oh, and since Congress did not take it to court when he issued the signing statement, they, in effect, said he was correct and they agreed with him. This means that not only did he not break the law, Congress agreed that they, also thought it was beyond their reach and they knew it.
On the other hand, during this administration, Republicons has leaked more information to the press just to stop the President from getting something accomplished, so why would he trust them with a matter like this? In fact, Senator Saxby Chambliss has already said that if he had known about the exchange before it happened he would have told the press, even knowing that would jeopardize an American soldier(why should he care about soldiers?). In fact when there was a meeting on the trade, the majority of congress members didn't attend! So how upset or worried about this are they? Me thinks dost thou protest too much.
4. He negotiated with terrorists and we never do that!
Umm, check #1, Taliban are not on the terrorist watch list, have never been considered a terrorist organization. On the other hand, we've never done it is an outright lie. Ain't that right Ollie?
5. They will come back and attack us!
Under George Bush, Bush let go 500 Guantanamo bay prisoners, with a 30% recidivism rate. President Obama has released 80(yep, these 5 weren't the first, you must have been sleeping on a park bench for the other 75) with a recidivism rate of only 5%. So who is it that doesn't understand how people attack us and why? The same president who allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. The White guy.
5. The Right object to this based on principle, not on Obama Derangement Syndrome.
I cannot believe you can tell that lie with a straight face. Or maybe you've said it so much you now believe that it has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but anyone who looks at the facts knows you are lying. We, in all of our history, have never left a soldier behind, no matter the reason for his capture, otherwise, we'd have left John McCain to rot in a Vietnamese forest. We'd have left Jessica Lynch behind since, obviously her convoy did not follow orders.
And, we, as a country, and as many if not all countries, have always released prisoners of war when a war in ending. It's just the right thing to do.

The Right Wing is cheering a POW's return? NOPE, The black guy did it.

I'm sure anyone reading this has heard about the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl that was engineered by President Obama and the cheers from the Right Wing...until they got the marching orders of "SSSSHHHH, the black guy did it, bad, bad, bad!"
I know, I know, I'm playing the race card, it has absolutely nothing to do with the black guy, it has to do with we've never done this before, trading prisoners or something for some silly soldier...except we have. Right John McCain? Well, that was different. OK, how about St. Ronnie? Trading 1500 missiles for 3 hostages and hosting the terrorists? To Iran? Which, the hostage takers then turned around and grabbed 2 or 3 more Americans to see what they were worth.
Oh! It's because he was a deserter! He walked away! He's not worth it!
OK, he may have walked away, may have left his post, but we don't know why. And, I, for one, have to question the sanity of any person who would walk away from the subjective safety of a military base into war torn Afghanistan...on his own...without any weapons or vehicle, supplies. So there's that. But, again, so we leave him with the Taliban? We don't bring him home? We don't care what actually happened? Even though we have worried, since his capture 2009, about what may happen to him?
BUT, due to the information leaked by Chelsea Manning, the New York Times was able to trace through the daily log of Afghanistan activities/chronology to find out that Sgt. Bergdahl had walked off the base on different occasions, always to return(reasons being to watch a sunset/sunrise, pretty non-terrorist stuff). Also blown out of the water with these logs was the story that 8 soldiers died looking for Bergdahl. Only 2 died during the active search and they died in another province, not looking for Sgt. Bergdahl.
But to watch the trashing of Sgt. Bergdahl and his family from the right is so heinous. Of course, the right says that "we" think of him as a hero. Only people I've heard throwing the "hero" label around have been the right. No, again we, on the left and most in the center, act as adults. Bring the young man home, sort out the details/facts and then figure out what should be done, but at best its all very muddied territory.
So why have they decided he's a traitor(besides the fact that Obama got him released without blowing anyone up)? Well, because the Taliban said so. They said he was helping them, because he was in 4 videos produced by them and he hadn't got his throat slit by them, so that means the Taliban is telling the truth. Of course the Taliban would have NO reason to lie to us, right? Why is he a "deserter" because the honest, truth loving Taliban said he walked away from his post/went out drinking/maybe he left to use the latrine/or it was because he decided to go AWOL for a few days in the posh hotels in that area...because the Taliban would not lie to us, right? Since we have shown them nothing but respect and honesty in all these years, right? The reports that have been released(thank you Chelsea Manning) are, at best ambiguous about why he walked off his post.
So, did he do something wrong? If he did, doesn't 5 years in Taliban custody warrant punishment? Or have we, as a country, gone off the deep end and enjoy to see torture of our own soldiers? Its time for him to come home, and, as adults, we can sort this out in our courts, our country. It's time for the right wing/republicans/teabaggers to grow the fuck up and act like adults, instead of petulant childish bullies just obstructing and gossiping their merry way to far right PACs instead of thinking about the young man that has been held prisoner and, like we have done in every other war, we didn't stop until we brought him home.

 I say, Welcome home Sgt. Bergdahl, may peace be with you.