When the Supreme Court decided the corporations are people then people became non-people. America was supposed to be a democracy created to serve real people and no other reason. We were trying not be a kingdom where we were ruled by a king. Nor were we trying to be a feudalistic society where the peasant class (99%) was forever enslaved through bondage (debt) to the “Lord of the Manor” (1%). We are a country where all men (people) were created equal.

This week J. P. Morgan had 2 billion in trading losses. Chief Executive (Lord of the Manor) Jamie Dimon has been lobbying for less government regulation of Wall Street so that they can make more money through higher risk investments. However in 2008 when everything collapsed the banks came begging to the government for a bailout of trillions of dollars that we The People are supposed to be responsible for. They aren’t taking the risk – the risk is transferred to us. That isn’t fair. Why should We the People just hand the Lord of the Manor trillions of dollars that we have to pay back to them? I don’t think so. Why should we deregulate them and have The People pick up their losses?

The top 1% are sucking the life out of America. That’s why we need to tax the rich to get our money back that they stole from us in 2008. These investors are not “job creators” they are turning into slave owners and our debt becomes the mechanism for instituting slavery. If the phrase “We the People” means anything to Americans then we need to rise up against our oppressors and tell them – we are the people – corporations are not people – and we are going to take America back from the rich and make them pay off the national debt that they created and tried to put on us.

In general the idea that all people should be treated equal is a sound starting point for a discussion about same sex marriage. Everyone should be treated equally. But there is no such thing as marriage and what the states pass off as marriage isn’t marriage at all. It’s just a really bad property contract between two people and the government.

We are arguing about the definition of marriage as to sexual orientation, but we forget that marriage was also supposed to be about a lifelong commitment. But with no-fault divorce that went away and was replaced with a lifelong contract with the government over your income and property. In California for example, if you are married longer that 10 years and one person makes more than the other then the person who makes more has to pay spousal support to the other for the rest of their lives. Divorce courts punish good behavior and reward bad behavior. “Till death do us part” means absolutely nothing to the courts. If your spouse is in jail, you’re going to have to pay him/her alimony.

Marriage is also a bad one size fits all contract that was designed for heterosexual virgin teenagers starting life together and applies those rules to all groups. So if grandma dies and grandpa marries a 20 year old then she, as wife, is first in line to make medical and financial decisions over his adult children. That’s just plain wrong. Marriage at 70 is not the same as marriage at 18 and should not be treated as such.

In the case same sex partners, men and women are different. Two men marrying is not the same as two women marrying or a woman and man marrying who can have children as opposed to man and woman marrying who can’t. Relationships with children, including same sex adoptions, are different than those without. Yep all we have is a one size fits all option.

Half of all marriages end in divorce. The other half end in death. The entire system is broken and needs to be replaced. If the state is going to treat marriage as a temporary property contract then it should be set up that way from the beginning. Or alternatively we should just phase out marriage altogether in favor of customizable civil unions where the terms of the agreement are spelled out in advance so that the two people joining can create the kind of union that applies to them. What we have now is broken and neither straight or gays would want it if they knew what they were getting into.

Romney now claims that he deserves “a lot of the credit” for the comeback of the American auto industry in spite of the fact that he opposed the government rescue of GM and Chrysler. What an amazing claim! That would be like Hitler taking the credit for the creation of Israel by saying. “It wouldn’t be here if not for me!”

On this first anniversary of the execution of Osama bin Laden we hear the Republicans crying foul because of the Democrats dirty politics. The Democrats have the audacity to run on their accomplishments, Republicans complain. “How dare they! How dare they!”

The reason accomplishments are unfair to Republicans is that they now against accomplishment. They want to distinguish themselves from the “reality based world” and to accomplish something is a sign of weakness. It implies that a reality based world exists and that one should put out and effort to make things better. That is now blasphemy. Instead it’s all about what you believe. And if enough people believe something then it becomes true. The world, for example, used to be flat until enough people believed it was round. The liberals with their science brainwashed us into believing the world is round and so now it is.

But because Obama has chosen a reality based world view he went out and got Osama bin Laden. Bush, less than 2 years after 911 said, “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”

Romney said, “I think, I wouldn’t want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden. He’s one of many, many people who are involved in this global Jihadist effort. He’s by no means the only leader. It’s a very diverse group – Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and of course different names throughout the world.

It’s not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person. It is worth fashioning and executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.”

But Obama excommunicated Osama from reality, so he’s not here anymore. And the universe is better off without him. So I’m giving Obama a high five on this one. Obama put the “Accomplished” back in “Mission Accomplished”.

Newt Gingrich declared before the NRA that “he will submit a treaty to the United Nations that would make the right to bear arms a universal human right.” However – it’s what Newt didn’t say that makes me wonder if he’s serious about gun rights. Newt didn’t say that when the Moon is the 51st state and he’s governor of the Moon – after serving 2 term as President of the United States – if he would extend gun rights to the moon. Makes you wonder if he’s going to cave in just because liberal scientists think that it would be dangerous to discharge a gun inside of a pressurized living enclosure. Or is he going to make you put on a spacesuit and take it outside?

President Obama has been touting the “Buffet Rule” – that billionaires like Warren Buffet shouldn’t pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. I think they should call it the “Romney Rule” instead. As we come up on April 15th to pay our taxes we are reminded that presidential candidate Mitt Romney only pays a 15% tax rate while a middle class person like myself pays 30%. I don’t see why I should pay twice the tax rate Mitt Romney does. We need to pass the “Romney Rule” so that millionaires like Romney have the same opportunity to contribute to America that I do.

The whole pink slime controversy is an example of how poor journalism is in this country. If it’s pink and it’s slimy it must be bad. Actually what they call “pink smile” is a lower fat meat than the meat they are adding it to, which is after all the rotting carcass of a dead cow. Technically we’re all made out of pink slime. If journalists had any white smile between their ears they would understand that.

We all know that Obamacare is essentially the same thing as Romneycare. The only difference between them is whether the state or the federal government makes you buy health care insurance. Now Obama (finally) is embracing Obamacare as an accomplishment taking credit for getting it passed. Romney could be doing the same thing. He could be trying to make the point that this is his idea and Obama just copied it. But instead Romney is running against Romney. He’s running on the platform that his only major accomplishment was the wrong thing to do. I don’t see any way Romney is going to win this debate. Maybe that’s why he’s having a such hard time winning the Republican nomination.

I see the Republican party salivating over the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Obama’s health care reform law. Republicans seem to see this as some sort of huge victory but I think this could backfire. If the Republicans win it means that people and treatments that are now covered will no longer be covered. Voters are not going to be happy with Republicans taking things away from them when they vote this year. The result might ultimately be a public insurance option or a single payer system that Republicans will hate even more.