Michigan Ballot Proposals and how I intend to vote...

So, I finally did some digging and asked opinions on each of the six ballot proposals being placed on Michigan's ballot next Tuesday.  There are so many ads on these proposals, my head was ready to spin, but I think I'm ready to declare where I stand:

Proposal 1:  this proposal would allow the current financial manager law to continue.  This means that communities in the state that have financial difficulties balancing their budgets would have an emergency financial manager come in, with complete control, and take over the city, attempting to get its fiscal house back in order.  It also gives that person complete control over all things related to the city, including the ability to dissolve the city, or the government officials within.  It could annul any contracts entered into by the city.  I never liked the law as passed in 2010, and do not support it now.  I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 1 - it's bad for the state of Michigan, and it's bad for democracy.

Proposal 2:  this proposal would write into the constitution, the RIGHT to collective bargain of public employees.  Currently federal law does allow them to do so, however, under the Emergency Financial Manager law, if it is passed, the EFM could come in and take away the contracts entered into.  This ensures that employees have rights under the constitution of Michigan.  Though there is much hoopla about writing such measures into our constitution, I do believe that this measure in fact is worthy of being written into it.  Public teachers, firefighters, and police officers should have a right to bargain for their wages, their benefits, and the resources they get to use while on the job.  Their pay should stay up with the pay of the private sector, and if we take away their right to bargain for it, we are silencing the very people who keep us safe, and who educate our children.  I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 2 - it's good for the state of Michigan, and for democracy.

Proposal 3:  this proposal would require that 25% of Michigan's energy come from renewable sources by 2025.  According to a friend who works for DTE, they are on track to be at 15% by 2015.  This is a very good track, but I also feel that if we don't make it a priority, then if the winds of change come roaring, it could be something put on the back-burner.  Green energy is what will keep us moving tomorrow, and will eventually save us money, save the environment, and is a good investment in national security too.  My thought process is, if not now, when?  Oil and natural gas will not last forever, and if we have a chance to be one of the first in the nation to set such a high standard, let's do it.  This bill will create incentives to employee Michigan workers and equipment, limits the energy increases by 1% per year, and will reduce our state's dependence on foreign oil.  So with that said, I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 3 - I feel this will be a good step in the right direction for the state of Michigan.  Not to mention that the majority of those opposing this bill are the ones in the energy sector (DTE Energy, Sheldon Addleson (bankroller of Mitt Romney), Michigan Oil and Gas, and the American Petroleum Institute), because they probably have something to lose on it.

Proposal 4:  this proposal would allow for a more cost-effective system for seniors to find care, as opposed to expensive nursing homes.  It's opposed by many large corporations, and supported by many who favor worker's rights, like the UAW, and the Michigan Education Association.  I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 4.

Proposal 5:  this proposal would make it a requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in the Michigan legislature for any tax rate increases, or would require it to go to a statewide election in November for tax rate increases.  Look, if we think stale-mates are bad now, just wait until we require 2/3 vote on stuff.  That's a super majority - and it's hard enough to get stuff done with a simple majority.  So because of that I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 5.

Proposal 6:  this proposal would require there to be a statewide vote on any further transportation projects such as bridges and tunnels.  Look, Mr. Maroon, the man who owns the Ambassador Bridge is simply sour - he doesn't want a second bridge in Detroit because he profits majorly from the bridge he owns.  He's been trying to shut down this projects for years.  This bridge would bring jobs to metro Detroit, bring major commerce to metro Detroit, and is fully funded by the Windsor and Canadian government.  I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 6 because it's time to build this bridge for Michigan.

Okay, that's where I stand.  Thanks to everybody who helped me formulate my opinions on the matter.  I did some research.  The League of Woman Voters helped a bit, along with this website:  http://www.leagueofresponsiblevoters.org/

Anyway, happy election time!  It's almost here!

Acceptance Should Be Inevitable

Published in the Eastern Echo, Thursday, October 18, 2012.

Acceptance Should be Inevitable

by Casey Wooley

Staff Columnist

So here we sit, a few weeks before the election that has bewildered us for the last two years. A few weeks before the choice before us becomes real. And what do we know?

We know that Mitt Romney is a Big-Bird hating, Olympic-horse owning, 47%-contempt driven fundraiser, who lives high on the hog.. And we know that President Obama is secretly not an American, practices in the Muslim faith, wants to turn America into a socialist nation, and is pushing to take away people's gun rights.

I'm glad we have that out of the way. Now, let's shift back to reality.

Whatever your political persuasion, the reality of life is that in just a few weeks, one of these two men is going to be elected President. And whoever this person is will have to somehow figure out a way to govern us in a very politically-charged, partisan government. So sticking to one's ideologies once this election is over will prove to be detrimental to American interests.

Now look, I am a full-on Barack Obama supporter. But, it's also no secret to those who know me that I am the last person to condemn any person in my life for being a Romney supporter. My secret to why is simple. In the long run, either man is capable of running this country. Yes, I said it.

Moreover, for either man to succeed in running this country, they will have to cast away their partisan interests and work to govern from the middle for us to rebound in the way we all want. And for the country to succeed, whatever party is in Congress is going to have give up their personal agendas in order for this to work.

Neither side can be radicalized if we are to move forward. Personally, I'd love to see President Obama win a second term and raise taxes to put more government programs to work for us. Just as many of my Mitt Romney supporting friends would love to see him outlaw Roe vs. Wade and form a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman. But none of those policies are what this country as a whole needs right now.

So when the dust settles on November 7, and we have a clear winner, he must be willing to engage the other side and work together. It's how we have gotten through many historical gridlocks in the past.

Just look to the framing of our constitution for the very first example. The Senate and House of Representatives were two of this country's greatest compromises. Smaller states wanted equal representation with larger states. And larger states wanted representation based upon population. And so the two chambers of Congress were formed.

There's also precedent in modern history too. Bill Clinton, after a tumultuous two years attempting to push too many left-wing ideas, lost control of the Congress. And had he not shifted gears moving into the 1996 election to become more moderate, he would have lost. But, after his reelection, he stayed moderate, working with the republican Congress, and it was the first time in modern American history that we not only balanced the budget, but kept a surplus.

We as citizens all have a responsibility to accept that our politicians need to compromise in order to get work done. And moving into 2013, if we don't live to that responsibility, America will head down a dangerous road it hasn't traveled before – where political ideologies keep Washington in total gridlock, and the American people left thinking “what went wrong?”

Another Suicide in Gay Community

This article was published in the Eastern Echo on October 11, 2012.  It hasn't made it to the online edition as of the publishing of this blog, however it was in the print edition on Eastern Michigan University's campus, along with various outlets in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Another Suicide in Gay Community

by Casey Wooley

Guest Writer

As I woke up October 4^th to start my daily adventures, I turned on my iPhone and scanned through my news-feed on Facebook. The usual posts were there - “Romney this,” and “Obama that,” and of course the subtle flow of continuous Internet memes filled my mind with delight.

But unfortunately, my daily ritual was quickly cut short, as an eerie number of posts centered on the same horrible theme – suicide. As it turns out, the gay community lost another teenager to suicide the night before, and many of the friends on my feed were expressing sadness, guilt, regret, and every other conventional feeling one can think of in moments such as these.

I personally didn't know this individual. And as it turned out, many expressing such feelings through Facebook didn't necessarily know him either. But, as ripples travel through water, so did news of this horrible tragedy spread through the gay community at such rapid speed, that by the end of the day, many had heard and expressed their condolences to his family and friends.

Hearing such sad news brings back memories of Rutger's University freshman Tyler Clementi. A few years ago he was videotaped by his roommate having his first intimate relationship with another man. That video tape found itself online, and unfortunately he felt it was just too much to bear and he killed himself because of the shame he experienced.. His suicide was the start of the very popular “it gets better” campaign. And while the suicide a few days ago did not have anything to do with bullying, it certainly sparked those conversations once more.

Ironically, the Twitter-verse also lit up on October 2^nd with a completely different scenario, but also centered around the same concept of bullying somebody because of their differences. As it turns out, WKBT-TV reporter Jennifer Livingston out of La Crosse, Wisconsin had received some very hateful emails about her weight. In those emails, the writer indicated that he is surprised that her “physical condition hasn't improved for many years,” and that she is not a “suitable example for this community's young people.”

But Ms. Livingston did something that many are afraid to do. She stood up for herself. She stood up to the bully attempting to make her differences more important than they really are.

And she did it in a very public way – as an editorial at her local station where she reports. She called out the writer of the email and called him for what he was – a bully. And she demanded that he stop his hateful rhetoric.

In the wake of this horrible tragedy of a young person taking his own life, it's important for all of us in the community of human beings to recognize that bullying has to stop. While this most recent suicide may not have been the result of bullying directly, bullying in the gay community is a huge issue. It represents a larger problem across many divides – that those who do not understand the differences we all have, seek to use those differences as hateful, stereotypical attacks.

This is unacceptable. And we all collectively have a responsibility to recognize when such prejudicial attacks exist and to stop them immediately. Stand up for somebody when somebody else seeks to tear them down. Make your voice heard that such language and actions are unacceptable. And affirm to those who are being bullied that they are loved and respected because they too are human beings, just like everybody else.

Romney alienates voters with radicalized stances

The following article was published in the Eastern Echo - an independent newspaper of Eastern Michigan University on October 4, 2012..  The link to the publication is below, followed by the original text of the submitted article:

http://www.easternecho.com/article/2012/10/radical-social-stances-hinder-romney-campaign

Romney Alienates Voters with Radicalized Stances

by Casey Wooley

Guest Writer

Though much of the chatter around political circles is centered on the economy and President Obama's performance with it, the Romney campaign has struggled to stay on message to hammer home the President's performance in his first term. Many political pundits agree, that one of the main reasons that Governor Romney has not been able to keep the economy message going, is because of his far-right conservative stances on social issues that are affecting many voters.

Governor Romney has dramatically harmed his campaign with the general electorate by his continued radicalized stance on three high-priority social issues of our time: woman's rights, marriage equality, and immigration.

Because Romney has been running for office for six years, he has had the unfortunate predicament of having to run two primary campaigns against challengers who are more to the right than he is. And because he's had to fend off these challengers and win the votes of the Tea Party to secure the nomination, he now finds himself in a more radicalized conservative spot than he probably would prefer.

A quick glimpse at his website shouts “smaller, smarter, simpler government,” with regards to government regulation. What it doesn't cover is his stance on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Indeed, Romney supports a federal constitutional amendment that would define person-hood as starting at conception, according to an interview he gave with Evangelist Mike Huckabee of Fox News.

The constitutional amendment, coincidentally, would also ban the most popular form of birth-control (hormonal birth control, or “the pill”) – one that many Eastern Michigan University women may use.

Moreover, despite his response on 60 Minutes last month when he indicated that he was in favor of abortion exceptions being made in cases of protecting the mother's health, his staff issued a revised statement to NPR, that in fact Mitt Romney does not support this exception. And Paul Ryan, his running mate, makes no room in his stance on abortion, for any exception of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. Simply put, the Romney-Ryan ticket supports no instances when abortion should be legal.

Romney is just as radical on issues of marriage equality. He supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and believes that the current Defense of Marriage Act should be enforced. While this particular stance may not make him radical, he also stated this year that “I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” according to a May 9 article by Luke Johnson of The Huffington Post. Governor Romney does not believe that LGBT Americans are entitled to equal rights under the law as all other Americans.

Lastly, Romney's stance on immigration reform is almost laughable. Mr. Romney in fact supports a concept called “self-deportation.” This is a premise that undocumented immigrants who are here illegally should choose to go back to their home countries if we make it harder for them to find work in America. Self-deportation actually has its roots from two Mexican-American satirists who coined the phrase in 1994 attacking a then-Californian ballot initiative to prohibit illegal immigrants from using state-run hospitals. Despite the phrase being used for comedy-purposes, Romney actually offers it as a real immigration idea.

While the economy may be an important issue, these social issues have helped to shape the state of the current race and will continue to have an effect on voters' choices as early voting begins and we move into the last leg of the campaign season.

Apologizing for America should not be seen as a weakness

The following article was published in the Eastern Echo - an independent newspaper of Eastern Michigan University of which I am currently a guest writer.  The link to the actual publication is below, followed by the initial article I wrote.

http://www.easternecho.com/article/2012/09/is-it-really-all-that-wrong-for-the-usa-to-apologize

Apologizing for America should not be seen as a weakness

by Casey Wooley

Guest Writer

It seems that Mitt Romney cannot get his act together. Prior to Romney's latest blunder, where he cried out that he isn't going to focus on the 47% of Americans who will probably not choose to vote for him, he levied a decent charge at the President during the crisis happening in Libya and in Egypt last week.

He continued the line of attack, coming from conservatives, that President Obama should not apologize for “American values.” Beyond the fact that this accusation happened as the crisis was ongoing, and typical opposition etiquette during such a situation is to be solemn and place politics aside, Governor Romney's line of attack was simply incorrect.

Indeed, Karl Rove's original 2009 accusation was that the President had been going on a “worldwide apology tour.” He cited four instances where the President had somehow weakened our stance in the world by apologizing for the values we live. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post did an amazing job in February of 2011, fact-checking each of these instances and he concluded that “in none of these cases does Obama use a word at all similar to 'apologize.'”

One would think that after the fact-checkers had verified that Mr. Obama had never apologized, this case would be closed. But in a country where many on the far right are still challenging the legitimacy of the President's birthplace, nothing in politics ever goes away.

Mr. Romney used the opportunity of an American Ambassador's death to politically bomb the President for something that was not said. The “apology” that Governor Romney speaks of never came from Obama. In fact, it was a press release issued by the embassy as the attacks were occurring, which expressed disdain for the anti-Muslim video that originally sparked the riots in Libya and Egypt to begin with. This is no apology.

But what if it was? Why is there a negative stigma attached to apologizing for something that we, as a country, do wrong? Why does the right think that saying “I'm sorry” when America makes a mistake, see this as a weakness?

We teach our children to apologize to others if they make a mistake. When celebrities say something offensive, we demand an apology. Even when politicians, including the President, politically push too far, or get caught in a lie, apologies are asked for. And when other countries do something to offend the United States, we expect an apology.

There is precedent for American Presidents apologizing to the world when a mistake has been made as well. Indeed, during the 1950's after an African diplomat had been refused service because of the color of his skin at a restaurant in Delaware, then President Eisenhower apologized for his treatment. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush issued several apologies during their terms in office. And even President Ronald Reagan, the great conservative who can do no wrong on the right, apologized in 1988 for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

I assert that whomever is in the Oval Office, should view apologizing for an American mistake as not showing weakness, but showing tact. I assert that apologizing for a misstep shows leadership, and respect for those we have offended. And I assert that offering a good ole fashion “mea culpa” when we just plain screw up, helps to improve our standing in the international community, not diminish it.

My Response to Tony's Remarks on Mitt Romney and President Obama

The response below was written to my friend Tony who posted a bunch of information and opinions on his thoughts of President Obama.  Of course, I had to respond:

Tony, I am thoroughly impressed with the amount of time you took to respond to my comment. I laughed at first because I'm usually used to these things dying off after a while and nobody committing to providing a decent response to questions posed. But I definitely think you did a good job at explaining your line of thought. I also want to take a second to apologize for the perceived pot-shot of saying you don't “critically think.” That obviously isn't the case – your response proves it. I think what I was trying to say at that moment was more, “don't listen to the Romney spin,” because that's what I felt you were doing on the “anybody but Obama” line of rationale. Right now, the conservative right, including Romney's campaign, are using this thought process by saying “look at Obama's record,” but never offering anything of substance on why, as a candidate, people should vote for him. Pundits on both side of the aisle are criticizing Mr. Romney for not providing enough detail of his own campaign. The “vote for me because I'm not him” attack is slowly proving to be ineffective. And it all boils down to one thought – who is worse – the devil you know or the devil you don't know. And many conservative and some independent voters are starting to ask, “well at least with the President, we know what he wants to do.”

So, onto your points. I want to respond to each, for the simple fact that you did a good job providing your point of view, but I also want to try to elaborate more on what I was attempting to make with each of them. Sometimes I feel like I am limited in what I say because I respond via my phone, and trying to type responses such as these without the ease of a keyboard is difficult. So, onto my responses:

In regards to President Obama's 2008 election campaign centered around “change,” you argue that he ran on the concept of blind change. This is simply not the case. His argument in the 2008 campaign very simply had to do with the idea of having 8 full years of republican policies and rule crippled our economy and our country. His campaign was far from “blind change.” He spelled out very nice and neat what he wanted to do. He was committed to changing Washington, bringing a spirit of bipartisanship back to Washington. He wanted to be able to reach across the aisle and make things happen. He truly did have big changes and plans on making Washington a more cohesive place. Unfortunately, the bitter loss of the republicans in 2008, along with the election of a select few tea party extremists in 2010, made it nearly impossible for the President to do much of anything. Even Mitch McConnel indicated that his main political priority was to make sure President Obama was going to be only a 1 term President.

Beyond that, the changes that Mr. Obama wanted to accomplish – I would argue that many of them were successful. His biggest change to the system is the way Americans will be using health care in this country. The largest effect will take place in 2014 – when Americans will start to feel its effects. It is no secret that the democratic party has been attempting to reform health care since the early 1970's. This president campaigned on it, and it happened. He used what little time he had for a majority in the senate and in the house, and was able to pass it. He promised that and it happened. He promised that he would end the war in Iraq, and he did. He promised he would put a renewed focus on the war in Afghanistan and go after Al Queda, and he did. And he also killed the leader who killed 3000 Americans, Osama Bin Laden. The change that President Obama ran on wasn't blind change, but was in fact, a true change to the way America had been running for not only 8 years, but in some cases the last 40. And he made a lot of it happen, but much of it didn't because of republican opposition, especially in the last 2 years, in the House and in the Senate.

Contrast that with Mr. Romney's policies – both vague and general. He is on record of dodging questions from reporters (the most recent I can recall is David Gregory on Meet the Press), when asked about specifics. For example, he continues to cite that he'll close tax loopholes to raise more revenue, but when pushed on just one loophole he would close, he just keeps saying “I have policies that will address this.” Mr. Romney's tax plan sounds great in theory. He wants to cut the general income tax rates which would lower the amount of revenue flowing into the government, but then make it “revenue-neutral,” by eliminating many of the tax deductions middle-class Americans enjoy. Independent economists indicate that the potential for keeping this revenue-neutral is a tough sell, but even more so, taking the income rate down by 20%, as he wants to do, benefits the wealthiest of Americans. But eliminating tax-deductions hurts middle Americans. For example, he wants to eliminate the mortgage tax deduction that so many Americans use to save a little bit of money. And by keeping the budget revenue-neutral as he puts it, he still doesn't address the underlying question of how he's planning on lowering the budget in the long-haul, which he is completely critical of the President on. His idea for lowering the deficit has him touching no defense spending, but instead raising defense spending. Economists just don't see his math adding up.

The point here is this – voting for Mitt Romney should not be seen as an evil thing. But when he is critical of the President for doing something or not doing something, the first thing I would expect, and many voters would expect, is a competing idea or philosophy on how he would go about doing it. And the biggest criticism that Mitt Romney is receiving is that he doesn't have those details. Or those details have changed depending on what part of the country he is talking to.

Now let's talk about the gay marriage thing, because I'm still having a hard time understanding your view on it. From what I can see, it sounds to me like you don't support it, which saddens me. It sounds like you'll support whatever law is currently on the books. I respect that – as you have no choice really. I too support whatever laws limit me or provide me specific freedoms, I also have no choice. But that doesn't mean that those of us who are oppressed shouldn't have the ability to fight for what's right here. Ultimately you chose not to get “religious or anti-religious,” which I'm glad you did. Given that our country was NOT founded on christian-principles, but instead on the idea of keeping religion at bay, using religion to support a bigoted view of America is absurd. The fact of the matter is, gay marriage and rights for the LGBT family is the civil rights issue of the 21^st century. Science is proving that sexual orientation is in fact something that people are born with, or learn at a very early age. It's not a switch that can be turned on and off. And while not a protected class in the 1964 civil rights act, because at the time to be gay was still seen a a psychiatric disorder, many states are recognizing that the LGBT community deserves the same rights as everybody else.

The problem here is this – I could care less if I get married in a church. I don't plan to step on any religious institution's “morals” on whether to marry Nate and I. But what I do expect is that my federal and state governments give me the same rules and policies, allow me to take the same deductions, provide me the same benefits, and ensure any benefits I get from my employer are not discriminated against either. I expect to be able to visit Nate in the hospital when he's sick, and I expect him to be able to do the same – with all spousal rights. I expect to be able to adopt my children with my husband and both of us have equal rights to them. Currently in Michigan, I can adopt or Nate can adopt, but we both, unless married, cannot claim rights to the child – one or the other.

The fact of the matter is we are dealing with a “rights” issue. And rights issues were specifically dealt with by the framers of the constitution in the “bill of rights,” because they understood that the fate of the minority could not and should not be left to the whims of the majority. In cases when the majority has been asked to vote on majority rights, they almost always choose to deny those rights to the minority. Could you imagine if the nation had taken a nationwide vote in the 1960's on whether to grant full rights to African Americans? Or during the Reconstruction period? African American rights would still be denied if that was the case. This is why the supreme court has such power – to ensure that all men and women, regardless of any difference, have the ability to have the full rights and freedoms as everybody else.

Your deflection of President Clinton endorsing President Obama is a simple one to answer. It's just that – a deflection. His support of President Obama is not a slap in the face to anybody supporting marriage equality, as you put it. In fact, his wife, Hillary, is a staunch supporter of same-sex marriage. She even mentioned it in a speech to the United Nations last year as the 21^st century's civil rights issue. And President Clinton's support of President Obama has nothing to do with President Obama's stance on same-sex marriage.

Here is some fact: President Obama did not support marriage in the 2008 election for same-sex couples. He supported civil-unions, ensuring that they enjoyed the same rights. To me, that was enough. Again, like I said, I could care less if a church recognizes my union. However, when President Obama's views evolved over the last four years and he stated in that interview in June that he firmly believed that same-sex couples should have the same marriage rights as everybody else. I was proud. This was the first President of the United States to offer such an opinion. It was a proud moment in the gay community. Whether President Clinton supports it or not is irrelevant. But since you brought it up – President Clinton changed his opinion on same-sex marriage in 2009 and made it public. He supports same sex-marriage. And his signing of a 20-year old law in a different time and a different place in our history has no significant meaning to the fight of the here and now. DOMA is pretty much a dead law now anyway – President Obama's administration isn't enforcing its rules, and change is coming anyway. The Supreme Court will most likely take up the appeal from Proposition 8 in California, and in the next two years, we should see a federal ruling on whether states can deny rights to same-sex couples.

Let's move on to abortion. I'm going to make this one pretty concise. I, like you, do not support abortion. I think that many times it is used as an easy birth-control method when somebody has an “oops” moment. And I find that deplorable. However – I do not support making illegal a woman's right to choose to have that abortion. The Supreme Court, in Roe vs. Wade, has already declared that a woman has a fundamental right to her body, which includes the ability to terminate a pregnancy if she so desires. I do not believe that the government should be in the business of taking away a person's rights. Attempting to overturn Roe vs. Wade would do just that. Most of the chatter about a woman's right to choose seems to happening by a lot of men. And to be honest, it shouldn't be up to us. This is a woman's health issue and therefore the women in the crowd should have the loudest voice to it. And if you listen across any political divide, a lot of women agree that even if they don't personally support abortion, choosing to ban it is also extreme.

Mitt Romney seems to have a disdain for anything woman's rights related. He told Mike Huckabee in an interview last winter that he would support a constitutional amendment defining personhood beginning at conception. This would not only ban all abortions, but this would also ban the most popular form of birth control – hormonal birth control. The problem in the republican line of thought here is that it is not fully thought out. Simply put – people are going to have sex. If you ban ways to prevent them from getting pregnant (birth control), pregnancies are going to rise. And if unwanted pregnancies arise, then more people are going to want to have abortions. And if you make abortion illegal, this doesn't mean people are going to suddenly want that child any more. No, instead, they'll find illegal ways to have that abortion (circa 1950 all over again). It's already happening in some of the southern states where laws on abortion are much more strict. Many women are driving to Mexico to get an illegal abortion, and because they are not regulated in Mexico, they are putting their life on the line. The same line of arguments used for less gun control can be used here. Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean that people are going to want to stop doing it.

So my problem with Mitt Romney isn't that he wants to overturn Roe Vs. Wade. No, my problem is that he, or the republicans who are unhappy with the status quo, are not providing a valid replacement option. The status quo is the way it is because it helps address important public health concerns of women. But as I've already addressed, if you eliminate birth control and abortions, you leave women no other choice but to seek illegal ways to terminate a pregnancy, and suddenly coat hangers become very popular again.

I don't know what point you were addressing on the “civil rights” part of your discussion. Despite the one quote you offer from President Obama's book, I see no evidence from this President that he is anti-white or anti-christian in any way. He's offered no evidence that I'm aware of that he holds these views. The quote you offer regarding whites, while compelling in the least, is also a reality. You cannot live in this society and say that on some level, you don't judge people based upon how they look. Plain and simple – it's a reality. It's how you deal with those judgments and whether you give creditability to them and act upon them that determines the kind of man or woman you are. I would argue that Mr. Obama has done much to solidify solidarity in this country based upon differences. I would argue that Mr. Obama has done much to solidify our place in the international community, garnering much more respect among our allies cross the globe than the previous administration ever had. Mr. Obama truly seeks to unite us, and has since he was running for the Senate. And while some may argue that he seeks to divide us by social class, I would argue that he isn't as much dividing us by social class, but looking to put us back into balance from the policies of the previous republican administrations.

And as a side note, as I said already, this country is not a “christian-nation,” as you put it. We have no recognized religion. We were not founded on Christian principles. While we do have allusions to God in some of our institutions (like “In God We Trust,”) these allusions are generalized and would seek to include almost 99% of all people in this country towards a deity of some kind – not necessarily the Christian God.

And lastly, the 47% comment. While I agree that there was some twisting of context here, I wold argue it is not as severe as you say it is. Listened to in full context, you can see that Mr. Romney was speaking to a group of donors that are more like him. Let's put it this way – Romney has been characterized as not understanding the plight of the everyday American. And you can't argue the fact that he hasn't had the same experiences that the rest of us have had. He didn't grow up in middle America. He's always been wealthy. He didn't have to take out student loans. He is an upper-class American. And while this by far doesn't disqualify him from the presidency. It means he has to work harder to understand the issues that we, as middle-America, face. I have no doubt in my mind that Romney truly doesn't buy into the conservative ideas that he seems to put forth. I think he fought so hard in the primary election, to go so far right, to win whatever votes he could, that he's having a hard time turning himself around to become a bit more moderate and reach where our country truly is on the ideological spectrum.

Joe Scarbourough of “Morning Joe,” made an excellent point. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were ideological conservatives who truly believed that trickle-down economics benefited everybody. They would go into working-poor neighborhoods and see the issues facing people and truly believe that their policies wold help these people. They truly believed that “a rising tide lifts all boats.” I don't think, and neither do many conservative pundits, that Romney believes this line of thought. Many conservative pundits think that Romney is an empty-shell of a conservative saying whatever he can on the campaign trail to appeal to whatever audience he is talking to at that time. This video where he is being as candid as he can, truly provides a glimpse into what Romney truly believes about this country. While we could construe that he is saying 47% of the electorate isn't going to vote for him and make it about electoral votes, I don't think that is the meaning behind the video. I truly think that Romney has a disdain for those in this country who somehow need government to get an upper-hand. I truly believe that Romney doesn't understand them. I think he's written them off as victims and therefore, because of his business background as a transactional leader, he sees that they cannot offer him anything, and therefore he doesn't bother to concern himself with them.

I mean basically, this is anybody's guess. Anybody can offer feedback on Mr. Romney and what he is thinking. He has so much out there about his views on EVERYTHING that anybody can form any opinion about him and it could be wrong. The best we can do is look at his actions today as we move closer to this election and attempt to figure out what makes him tick. As for me, Mitt Romney has provided no substantial solutions on how he plans to fix the things that matter to me – whether the economy, health care, student loans, gay marriage, civil rights, or whatever else. His vision for the future of this country is not clear, and in fact, leads back to the policies that got us into the mess we're in.

Contrasted with Mr. Obama, I truly believe he has proven to be a successful first time president. Thoug we have not gotten everything we had hoped for, I believe we owe it to him one more term to see what more he can accomplish. Like Bill Clinton said at the DNC in August, no President, not even President Clinton, could have completely gotten us out of the financial hole we were in when President Obama took office. I'm excited to see what else Obama has in store for us for another four years.

Chick-Fil-A and the Marriage Equality Fight

As both a gay man and a born again Christian, I have to say that I am indeed troubled by what to think or what to say regarding this crazy Chick-Fil-A fiasco.  A few days back I posted a story in regards to whether the idea of boycotting Chick-Fil-A truly was an effective tool against the organization, because boycotts in general typically don't work.  Even one of the largest protests of our generation (Occupy Wall Street) has lost steam, and very little is getting done in regards to what we, the 99%, want to see done.  But I digress on that point.

I am in the here and now on this issue.  In our society, people of differing views are always going to exist.  Those people of differing views are always going to speak out against something that we are for.  Those people of differing views may even contribute their money to groups that agree with where they stand, which happens to be the very thing that we are against.  This guy Dan Cathy, the owner and operator of a privately-funded fast food chain, does not believe in marriage equality.  This is his right.  He has the right to say this.  Just as we have the right to disagree with him.  He also has the right to fund whatever organizations he sees fit.  And though we, as homosexuals, may disagree with each of these organization's agenda, there is no provision in our constitution that says that simply because a majority of people may disagree with somebody on their stance or how they spend their money, that somehow they have to stop doing so.  This is why the Westboro Baptist Church, in all of their hatred and speech, is able to keep operating the way they do.

In the same vein, we as the LGBT community and our allies can choose not to eat at Chick-Fil-A because of the owner's beliefs.  Or, as LGBT members and allies, we can choose to eat their because we also realize that there are a number of families and people supported by the work they do at that organization.  In either case, this is our choice.  And to ridicule somebody either way for making that choice I think is unfair and unjustified.  I personally am thankful that there are no Chick-Fil-A's in the Michigan area, because I really don't know if I'd choose to eat there or not.  But again, I digress.

And in that same vein, Christians, as a show of support have the absolute right to eat at their restaurant of choice, whether to prove some social point or not.  Look, it's no secret that the Bible says what it says.  Whether it's there because some King generations ago wanted to add something to it or not, or whether it is truly divinely inspired will be up for debate forever.  Christians, whether born again, or just those who go to Church because it "makes them a better person" have their religious canon and can make a choice on how and why to interpret it the way they want to.  I have a real problem with anybody who comes along (and I'm speaking to many of my LGBT brothers and sisters) and mocks Christians for their faith and classifies them all in the same category as some religious fanatics out to take away the LGBT's rights.  When you do that, you are no better than some religious zealots who do the same to us.  They classify us, as the LGBT community, as some perverted group of people who are sexually loose with our decisions, sleeping around, dangerously, with everybody we come in contact with.  They stereotype us, just as many in the LGBT community stereotype Christians.  In both cases, it is unfair and unproductive, and frankly every time I hear it, I am more and more disappointed with the person who does so, on either side, and I lose a tremendous amount of respect for that person.

I think what I'm trying to say here is - STOP.  Stop to both sides.  If homosexuality is a sin in a Christian's eyes, then so be it.  I'm not going to change their mind.  They have the absolute right to believe that, criticize people for living that life if they so desire.  But, where their right stops is when their belief begins to infringe upon my rights as a citizen of this country.  In the same vein Christians who do such things, your condemnations of your perceived view of people in the LGBT community are not going to have an effect on who we are.  We believe that to be gay is not a sin.  And, in our country, we have the right to believe that very thing.  And you condemnation isn't going to change that.  It isn't going to make us wake up one morning and suddenly change our orientation.  Contrary to belief, and science backs us on this one - to be gay is not a choice - you are born with a sexual orientation, or in some studies, orientation is quickly developed within the first few months of development (long before anybody can make a conscious choice).

I think it's important to point out that history is on the side of the LGBT community here.  I firmly believe that before the end of this decade that a decision will be reached by the United States Supreme Court on Marriage Equality.  In fact, I believe that decision is going to be made within the next 2 to 3 years, with California's Proposition 8 finding its way to the Supreme Court.  Just as the Civil Rights Act in the 1960's was a landmark decision for the African American Community, I believe the Court, conservative or not, cannot look at the facts of discrimination and rule against the LGBT community to have the same federal and state rights afforded to it under our constitution - whether or not Christians agree with it.  If we look at history, it was the Christians who believed that it was their right to own slaves in the south.  If we look at history, it was Christians in the south who wanted to deny blacks the right to be integrated into our schools and truly have the same rights as whites.  If we look at our history, it was Christians who didn't believe that whites and blacks should be allowed to marry - as some abomination against God.  But in all cases, it has made our society better.  It has made us stronger because we have protected the rights of minorities in this country.

And let me be clear - not every Christian believed the things above.  Not every Christian believed that blacks were inferior to whites.  Not every Christian believed in slavery, or was against interracial marriage.  In those fights, along with the fights for Marriage Equality for the LGBT community, we have Christians partners looking to make it better for everyone despite what their religious canon says.  The fact of that matter is, this whole Chick-Fil-A fight has allowed the extremes of both groups to overshadow what the rest of us, in the middle, who are much more moderate and open to working together, truly believe.  The extremes on the Christian side - the religious zealots - are getting more worked up believing they are helping to keep some sacred cause from being taken down by those "queers."  While the extremes on the LGBT community look to all Christians and mock them, calling them hypocrites, and hate-mongers, and less-educated.  Well in both cases my friend, I know both Christians who love me for me and accept me for me and who are wonderful people, and I know people in the LGBT community, like myself, who are also Christians, and believe the tenants of Christ.  It's time for those of us in the middle, those of us who are moderate and can see that working together is the only solution, to rise up and carry the narrative from here on out.  Let us drown out the extremes  on both sides - because on both sides, their voices are carried with hate and intolerance for one another.

There is a reason that the rights of minorities in this country are not given to the majority to decide.  If we would have had some national vote on the rights of African Americans in the 1950's, that vote would have denied them the same rights protected with the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling.  When the rights of the minority or left to the whims of the majority of opinion, those rights are never fully realized.  Our founding fathers knew this.  In their wisdom, they ensured that the rights of the common person were protected.  They ensured that the rights of all people were protected under the constitution.  And though there were flaws in our fathers, especially in the area of slavery, they knew enough in advance that the idea of slavery was going to come to a head, and provided a way out - a way for us to modify our tenants as a nation through amendments to our constitution.  I firmly believe that a vote in the favor of the LGBT community is coming soon, and I firmly believe that our rights will be fully realized despite the extreme voices of the religious community.

So, to bring this to a close - let me say this.  I'm tired of the extreme voices on either side taking the narrative and running with it, with the audacity of speaking for all in their community.  For those friends of mine on the LGBT side who feel the need to mock Christians and their beliefs and to stereotype all Christians as less-educated, hate-mongers, let this be fair warning, I will not tolerate it.  I will choose to no longer associate myself with you.  Just because we are brothers and sisters in the LGBT fight for equality, I do not support your method for getting there.

And let this be fair warning to my Christian friends.  If you truly find hate in the fact that I am a member of the LGBT community, and you truly do not support my right to marry, I too will not tolerate that.  I will choose to no longer associate myself with you.  Just because we are brothers and sisters in Christ, does not mean that I will support your choice to deny me my federal and state rights under the constitution we all live.

To those of  you on both sides, both Christian and LGBT alike (and allies too), who want to work together to ensure all members of our country have the same rights and freedoms regardless of religious affiliation, race, color, national origin, sect, sexual orientation, sex (or sexual identity), socio-economic status, or any other difference, I want to be your friend.  I want you in my life because we can drown out the extreme voices and  make the narrative about being positive and changing things for the better.

As always, comments welcome.  However, heed my warnings - if your comments are filled with hate towards the other side, or somehow show me that you do not support my rights, I will not tolerate it.  Please remove me from your friend's list now - because if you don't support marriage equality, then you don't support who I am.  Thank you for reading.

"True" Freedom? It's a Myth

This particular post is going to be short and sweet, but after the conversation I had yesterday with a coworker, I felt it necessary to flesh out my ideas in writing.

So here's the setup:  yesterday a coworker and I were having a conversation regarding the Federal Reserve and how it is set up.  And we were talking about the former national banking systems we had in place, and how at one time we had a free market banking system (in the late 1800's).  Now, I'm not a good study on the federal reserve or the gold standard, or any banking system for that matter, but I read a little about it in order to have somewhat of an educated conversation.

To summarize the conversation, his point was that a free market system, or any system in any context that is "free" is better than any types of boundaries or rules imposed upon those in the system, because if there are boundaries, one is not truly free to make the best decisions that are best for him or her.  Definitely a valid argument.

I, of course, took the conversation from the free market banking system and applied it to a much broader context to try to make my point.  Is freedom truly something we all want?  I mean when you consider absolute freedom where there are no boundaries saying yes or no to the decisions we make - what do you have?  At first glance, this freedom sounds amazing, but the more you dig into it, the more you realize that the entire concept of a never-ending and purely boundary-less freedom is flawed.

And here is what spurred that thought.  My coworker made this statement:  "if we were in a true free market system, I would be able to make any and all decisions that were best for me."  That seemingly is an innocent statement, something that we may all want to enjoy - a freedom that doesn't have a third party (i.e. the government), imposing rules, regulations, or unnecessary burdens on us, right?

Well, then I asked him to consider whether that was a system that he truly wanted.  A system in place in our society that would allow for no regulation, no rules, no laws, whatsoever.  Within his own statement defending what he seemingly wanted was the flaw - if everybody made decisions based upon what was best for them, then who looks out for the other person?  Because a decision that is right for me, may very well not be right for you.

I mean in theory, if everybody looked out for themselves, societal chaos would ensue.  There has to be some merit, looking into the history of all of our societies, that no society, big or small, successfully was able to adapt to such a system where everybody took care of their own affairs, and there was no third party helping to ensure it was kept fair among all in society.  Why do you think that is?  Why do you think all great societies in history have had some type of governing structure - a third party if you will?  True freedom would not have such a structure - government would not exist.  And every individual would be "free" to exercise all choices over their own lives.

I think the problem here is that people get caught up in thinking that government in our society is this big evil entity that tells people what to do and it has no right to do so.  Yet, government is merely a way for us to keep a society from destroying its citizens.  If everybody took care of their own, and only worried about what was best for themselves - what do you think would happen?  Do you think that if everybody had the ability to do whatever they wanted, that would make us a more peaceful and prosperous society, simply because everybody got what they wanted?  Do you think if everybody had a chance to make choices that were best for "them," that society as a whole would benefit?

No, I don't believe so.

If I look out for my family, I want to be able to be as successful as I can set my mind to.  This means given the chance to take a little more when it is offered, even though it may rob from Paul over there, in theory I would do it.  Right?  I'm taking care of me - making the best decisions for me.  And Paul, in the same vein is going to be looking out for him - making the best decisions for him.  So, if I accumulate some wealth in property, for example, what's to stop Paul from taking some of my property to make him more successful?  In this true utopian environment that we have built up in our mind where somebody doesn't come along and tell me what I can and cannot do, there is nobody there to tell Paul he can't do that.

That's what government does - it is a third party entity that helps settle disputes when situations arise.  In this particular case, if Paul steals from me, I want my government to tell Paul, he can't do that.  If we were truly in a free society, there would be no government to tell Paul that.  Yes we'd be free, but there would be no rule.  There would be no law to govern the decisions everybody made.  And hence, societal chaos would ensue.  At first it may just be a person attempting to protect himself or herself, but soon, with no rule of law or rule of regulation, societal chaos would grow into all out distrust for one another, and the freedom we all want would come at the expense of bonding with other human beings.  That's why no society has been able to prosper without forming rules of some kind to help govern the way it lives.

I think people want "freedom" when they feel as though a law, or a regulation is somehow encroaching upon them and therefore making it inconvenient to live their lives the way they want to live them.  And sometimes people view this "encroachment" with blinders on - completely oblivious to the fact that there are millions of other people living in our country who have different motivations, different agendas, different ways of living their lives.  No one way is better than the next, though we like to think that the way we live our life is always the best way.  If there isn't some structure, some way to control all of those different agendas, different paths to live one life, then, as I stated above, societal chaos would ensue.  Our current government is the way that we as a society have determined to control that chaos.  And the great social contract by having this thing called government is that it should be fair, it should be impartial, and it should look out for the best interest of the majority of people.  The framers designed it in such a way that the majority should have power over the majority of the decisions in this country - only a select few are guaranteed (rights of individuals being one of them).

I really don't know if I have a concluding point to this particular blog other than to say that people don't necessarily know what it is they want when they talk about "getting government out of my personal business."  If government was completely removed from everybody's personal business, many of the things that we take for granted that government does to help us would also be eliminated.  If a form of government in some context was eliminated completely from our society - societal madness would swarm almost immediately.  Things that we want our government to do, such as enforcing laws against theft, murder, rape, arson, and kidnapping would disappear.  We couldn't drink the water from our tap because there would be no regulations to ensure it was safe to drink.  We couldn't eat meat or even vegetables from the local market, because there is no governmental force ensuring that they are safe to eat.  Hell, we may not even be able to breathe the air because corporations, acting in their own self interest (remember that's freedom after all), wouldn't have to worry about air quality because if they did so, it would negatively effect their bottom line.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is before you complain that we have "too much government" in our lives - really take a step back and look at the idea behind government.  Every regulation, every rule, was put their for some reason.  Somewhere, somebody had an agenda - in some cases for the will of the society, and sometimes to fulfill some personal goal or agenda of an individual, corporation or lobbying group.  But the law was put their nonetheless.  So perhaps it's not government in and of itself that is this big bad evil entity.  Criticize the various rules and regulations all you want, one by one, on the merit of whether they serve the greater good.  But to define government as this big bad evil entity that shouldn't exist is to tear down the very thing that keeps us safe, healthy, and protected from all the ills in the world.

I for one never want "true" freedom.  Because I feel that "true" freedom would not make us free at all.  "True" freedom would in fact make us prisoners to protecting everything we own and love in this world - many things that we take for granted now.

Thanks for reading, comments welcome.

A Detailed List of Why I Intend to Vote for President Obama for a Second Term

As promised, a very detailed list of the reasons I plan to vote for President Barack Obama for a second term of Presidency. Where necessary I have included sources to my information. So facts below are presented as just that facts, while others are opinon-based with sources to back them up. I hope anybody out there who may not know who they're voting for finds this list helpful:

Reason #1 – Pay Equity for Men and Women

1/29/2009 – President Obama signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that:

• requires employers to review their practices in regards to compensation for both men and women to ensure they are fair.
• Removes the statute of limitations for employers who recognize they are being paid unfairly to be able to file suit.
• Pay discrimination based upon gender, race, color, national origin, age, and disability is now prohibited.

Mitt Romney's take on the the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - “Mitt Romney supports pay equity and is not looking to change the current law.” However, Romney has not set whether or not he would have signed the law into effect in the first place.

Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/11/mitt_romney_and_lilly_ledbetter_equal_pay_act_we_ll_have_to_get_back_to_you_on_that_.html

Reason #2 – 4 More Million Children Insured Under SCHIP

2/4/2009 – President Obama signs the SCHIP Legislation that:

• Insures 4 more children with health insurance in addition to the 6 million already insured.
• Two attempts under the George W. Bush administration were made to expand the program, but were vetoed by President Bush.

Mitt Romney stated during 1 of George W. Bush's veto that he in fact would do the same thing – veto the legislation that would expand the program.

Source:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dnc-romney-an-schip-off-the-bush-republican-block-58465222.html

Reason #3 – The 2009 Stimulus Package

2/17/2009 – President Obama signs into Law the 2009 Stimulus package that does the following:

• GDP in 2010 raises by 3.8% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth)
• All workers receive a $400 tax credit in their paychecks ($800 per couple).
• $82.2 billion in aid for low income workers, unemployed, and retirees (including job training).
• $70 billion in tax relief for middle income workers by patching the alternative minimum tax for one year.
• $155 billion for health care assistance for the poor and unemployed primarily for Medicaid, health information technology, and insurance premium subsidies.
• $100 billion in education aid to prevent lay-offs, modernize schools, award Pell grants and help low income children & special education programs.
• $48.1 billion in investments for highway, bridge, high-speed rail & other transportation projects
• 1.45 million jobs were saved as a direct or indirect result of the 2009 $80 billion bailout to the automotive companies, GM and Chrysler according to the Center for Automotive Research. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/opinion/sunday/a-million-jobs.html)

It's hard to tell what Mitt Romney feels on the stimulus package. He has indicated two different things in two different versions of his book “No Apologies.” He has been on record for the stimulus, and he has been on record against the stimulus.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/2011/06/30/has-mitt-romney-flipflopped-on-obamas-stimulus/

We can look into Romney's past, however, and see that Mitt Romney was against the auto bailout that President Obama helped push through for General Motors and Chrysler. He penned an op/ed during the debate that we should “let Detroit go bankrupt,” but has as recently as May taken credit for the auto bailout.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2012/05/08/mitt-romney-takes-credit-for-the-auto-bailout-say-what/

Reason #4 – The Credit Card Act

5/22/2009 – President Obama signs into law the Credit Card Act which does the following:

• Credit cardholders protected against arbitrary interest rate increases, hidden and excessive fees, and due date gimmicks

Mitt Romney indicates that he would repeal the Credit Card Act if elected, and that it “produced federal restrictions on credit card companies that have already led to higher interest rates, higher annual fees, and lower credit limits, especially for middle class borrowers.” According to the source below, independent studies have shown the opposite.

Source: http://www.credit.com/blog/2012/02/the-2012-election-your-credit-cards/

Reason # 5 – LGBT Related Issues

Detouring from the time line, here is everything President Obama has done for the LGBT community:

• 6/22/2009 – ended discrimination and hosted the first ever reception at the White House honoring Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered, and Bisexual Pride Month which was hosted by the President and the First Lady.
• 10/28/2009 – federal hate crime law expanded to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and disability. People with HIV/Aids are no longer prevented from entering the United States.
• 1/1/2010 – Discrimination based upon gender identity is now banned in the Federal Work place.
• 6/2/2010 – Federal benefits extended to same sex partners of workers through memo of the Obama administration.
• 12/22/2010 – Gay and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in the military because the President signs into law the repeal of the decades only Don't Ask Don't Tell Clinton-era policy.
• 12/22/2010 – Obama Administration sponsors a measure to include “sexual orientation” in the definition of human rights adopted by the UN General Assembly.
• 2/23/2011 – The Defense of Marriage Act is is declared unconstitutional and no longer defended in court by the Obama Administration.
• 5/9/2012 – President Barack Obama becomes the first President in United States history to publicly support the legalization of Marriage Equality, specifically same-sex marriage.

Mitt Romney publicly opposes gay marriage. Mitt Romney supports a constitutional amendment defining gay marriage as one man and one woman. Mitt Romney believes that the Defense of Marriage Act should be enforced.

Source: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

Mitt Romney does not support same-sex civil unions.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/mitt-romney-gay-marriage-civil-unions-obama_n_1503597.html

Mitt Romney does not support non-discrimination for gays and lesbians on the federal level. He also opposes sexual orientation and transgender hate crime legislation. He vetoed a bill in 2003 as Governor that would fund hate crimes prevention.

Source: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/MittRomney.htm

Reason #6 – Tough on Foreign Policy

Again, straying from the time-line, President Obama has a tough record on foreign policy. He has accomplished the following:

• Since taking office, President Obama has overseen the killings of at least 34 Al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other middle-Eastern countries, either by drone, CIA operatives, or other means.
• 5/2/2011 – A directive issued by President Barack Obama orders a CIA task force to enter a Pakistani compound and kill the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks. Bin Laden evaded capture by the Bush administration for 7 years after the initial attack, and at one point, George W. Bush indicated he wasn't concerned with where Osama Bin Laden was (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PGmnz5Ow-o&feature=related)
• Immediately upon taking office, President Barack Obama prohibits the use of torture (water boarding) by the CIA and military to interrogate prisoners.
• President Barack Obama has successfully removed all American forces from Iraq, as promised. He has a plan to remove all forces out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014, with draw-down beginning in December of 2012.

In general, Mitt Romney didn't form an opinion publicly on getting into Iraq as Governor. He is on record in 2011, during the draw-down, as saying it would be looked back on as a mistake.

Source: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/

Reason #7 – The Health Care Reform Act of 2010

Instead of listing every benefit of the health care reform act, I'm going to just give the link of all the benefits the act will have once fully in effect:

• http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

Mitt Romney does not support the health care act and has vowed to repeal it on day one of his presidency. Though, when governor, he implemented what is referred to as the “godfather” of the Healthcare Reform Act in his state. And because of that act, a little over 98% of the state's residents now have health insurance.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/romneycare-facts-and-falsehoods/

Various other reasons why I support Barack Obama for a second term:

• President Obama believes in the Buffet Rule (the rule that a person's secretary shouldn't pay more in taxes than the head of a large company who makes their money through investments of stock). President Obama believes in keeping taxes low for the middle class. He believes those making more than $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes (in that he means go back to the Clinton-era tax rates). http://www.barackobama.com/record/taxes?source=primary-nav
• Governor Romney believes in the theory of trickle-down economics. He believes that we should cut taxes for all Americans, including those already paying lower tax rates because of tax loopholes on how they earn their money. http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
• President Obama is relying more on donations from small donors in the amounts of $200 or less. In fact, in 2011, his reelection campaign raised nearly half of their donations by people contributing $200 or less. In comparison, Mitt Romney in his 2011 fund raising, only raised 9% of his donations from contributions of $200 or less. Both of these figures say nothing for the super-PACS contributing to both campaigns. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.html
• Mitt Romney is being bank-rolled by conservative business men. $10 million has been raised by the Super-PAC “Restore our Future,” by one billionaire alone, casino titan Sheldon Adelson. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/mitt-romney-super-pac_n_1691051.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012
• Barack Obama is opposed to the Citizen's United Ruling that, among other things, gave corporations the same rights as individuals when it comes to free speech in elections, along with the ability to raise an unlimited amount of money for any one particular issue or support one particular agenda. Mitt Romney supports the Citizen's United Ruling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/obama-weekly-address-vide_n_434082.html

Okay that about covers it, or at least the major stuff. For a very detailed date by date time-line of events of the accomplishments of President Obama, you can check out: http://www.democratichub.com/obama-administration-accomplishments.aspx?o=ps&t=lc. I know it has taken me a long time to get this up, but I feel it's important to research exactly why you feel a particular way about a candidate and this exercise helped me even further than I thought. President Obama is the candidate for me. He may not be the candidate for you, but at least take some time to research Mitt Romney first before voting for him simply because he isn't President Obama. The biggest enemy our country will have this election, and any election, is the voters who vote simply because they weren't informed on a particular issue. People in today's world have a wealth of information at their fingertips. But with so much information, it is possible to get misinformation as well.