THE DEBT CEILING.

The battle for raising the debt ceiling came into the open once again, when President Barack Obama came out swinging and saying that the barriers were now set between more taxes on the rich and affluent, who could financially afford to go a little bit farther to help settle the matter, on one side; and the cuts that would lead to lowering the quality and standards of some social and entitlement programs, on the other.

Those programs were being thwarted or were having drastic demands made on them by those in disagreement with the government's position of protecting them, rather than defending tax increase for the well to do.

Though, he did not mention any programs as such, his eye was on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits, whose combined cost would drag the financial woes of the United States farther down the nearly macabre slump the nation already found itself.

He stressed emphatically that, if the bills due to be paid were not met, due to the reluctance of the opposition, the resultant scenario would be catastrophic. The financial world would be rocked to its core to make a bad situation even worse than anyone would be able to anticipate.

The Republican Party's opposition has been on the side of taxes, with corporations getting tax breaks in a sluggish economy instead of tax hikes; and individuals whose comparable incomes exceeded that of the ordinary person by tens and thousands of dollars several times over, to refrain from paying more taxes.

They insisted that without their commitment and support of even dismal financial conditions, their way of prodding the slow economic recovery along with their capital investments was a great help. That was far better to get the country's present economic status standing on an even keel, otherwise a complete financial disaster could occur.

Unemployment would rise even more, and interest rates would soar to heights where nobody could borrow anymore. Banks and businesses would be hit badly; with stifled loans becoming rampant, and businesses could not get in place the developments and expansions they needed to grow.

Stagnation would set in, bringing in its train inflation and high cost of living. It would be difficult all around for everyone; and fiscal impediments could be experienced by all citizens across the board. That, in a nutshell, sounded very strident.

So, where would the U.S. Government go from here? The bi-lateral discussions, which were headed by Vice President Joe Biden have collapsed, or there was no indication of their revival; and the defense, which the business world was putting up, with respect to more taxes being imposed on them, would stiffen their resolve on the side of the opposition of raising the debt ceiling.

If that should happen, the chance to get the economy moving again would remain burdensome for any of the innumerable problems to be resolved. A major drawback of the economy would tend to exist; and it would even get stronger, if the impasse was allowed to continue over time.

However, it has to be borne in mind that there was a deadline to meet; and that the president was perfectly right of the consequences of default, which would cast a more sinister shadow and thereby have a tremendously bad effect on the nation's financial problems. The situation might even cause a global economic destruction of extreme proportions.

Therefore, would it not be a good idea for all factions to decide to come together; put their differences aside, and be able to reach a conclusion or a compromise of some sorts that would stop the "financial rampage" being forecast by almost every well known economists in the country, and also by President Obama?

As far as raising the debt ceiling was concerned, both sides have ample reasons to stand firm on their convictions; yet, should there not be a common ground to be found, for the sake and future of the nation? Even the world at large was waiting to see something good happening.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S PLAN.

The drawdown of troops in the Afghan theater by President Barack Obama seemed plausible to many military experts; and some were even saying that he went beyond the recommendations of General David Petraeus, who had monitored the war in Afghanistan in his capacity as head of the coalition forces there.

The troops withdrawal would allow 10,000 men and women in uniform to return home at the end of 2011; and then the rest of the surge in 2009, comprising of 30,000 troops, would follow suit by the Summer of 2014, to conclude the United States military involvement in Afghanistan.

Some Republican lawmakers were claiming that the plan was too expeditious, and it placed American forces engaged in that war at risk.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in the nomination hearing of Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that the proposed withdrawal was not an option presented to the president. He had gone beyond the options given him by his advisers on the ground and in the White House; he Lindsey had remarked at the hearings.

Lt. Gen John Allen who was to replace Gen Patraeus in Afghanistan answered in a statement that the president's plan was "more aggressive", than they had expected; thus repeating what many experts, including Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said at previous or other committee hearings.

Sen. Graham meant to hold President Obama's feet to the fire for making the plan to be too drastic and extremely conclusive, and that would give the Taliban insurgents an idea that the American forces would leave in a short span of time. That would bolster their recruiting efforts.

However, many people thought that it was a bold step to bring the troops home; and that the decision was made in the best interest of the troops themselves. They have done their part in curbing the aggression of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists. They have also trained the Afghanistan security forces to a point, where they could take over, in terms of fighting off the aggressors.

Hostilities have minimized, and some factions of the Taliban were even getting into some kind of a cooperative mood, and signaling for peace with the Afghan government.

Besides, U.S. military forces could not remain in Afghanistan indefinitely; and that the Obama administration has made sure that more training and equipment would be supplied, when that was required. There would be some units left behind for the purpose of farther training, and as support troops or back up for the Afghan security forces, whenever that became necessary.

Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, has said that his forces were ready, able and willing to defend and protect his country's borders to ensure its sovereignty and independence. He has emphasized that statement on numerous occasions.

In the light of yesterday's brazen terrorists attack on Kabul's Intercontinental Hotel, there was the certainty, however slight, that the Afghans could hold their own in emergencies such as that one.

The Afghan Special Police Forces led the fight against the insurgents; proving that the ANSF (the national forces) were or would be ready in time to take up the responsibility of holding off the Taliban insurgency and making that part of the world safe, if not safer.

U.S. troops could then come home to their families and friends without any query. That idea should not be far fetched, as it has been etched in the minds of many Americans, who were waiting for husbands, wives, sons and daughters to return home from the war.

Welcome home, men and women in uniform.

THE I.C.C. AND GADHAFI.

The International Criminal Court has issued warrants for the arrest of Moammar Gadhafi and two of his closest allies; Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, his son and Abdullah al-Sanussi, his brother-in-law.

"The warrants are "for crimes against humanity," including murder and persecution, "allegedly committed across Libya" from February 15 through "at least" February 28, "through the state apparatus and security forces," the court said in a news release." (CNN Report).

The decision seems to be a noble one; however, the court's jurisdiction does not extend to Libya, because that country is not one of the signatories of the Rome Statute; the International legal instrument that gives the ICC its powers.

That being the case, it will be more than impossible for the warrants to be executed, to put these three men on trial and to bring them to justice.

There are also ramblings of Gadhafi himself engaging in private, but serious talks of finding an escape route, and therefore a way out of his problems; and that he is seeking a safe haven somewhere outside Libya.

The African Union is playing a vital role in getting a kind of political asylum for him. Yet, the question arises as to what country is ready to accept him, even if it (country) is outside the ICC's powers? There seems to be none presently.

He has become a "pariah", and no one will receive him, even if the discussion of finding him somewhere to go to succeeds.

Wherever he goes now, and whatever he does, will get him into a more entangled situation; and so, it will be better off for him to remain in the rebellion against him, until whether the opposition reaches his compound and arrests him, or he decides to give himself up to the authorities, which may be the rebels themselves, or NATO or the United Nations officials on the ground.

At least, that is how some leaders of the Transitional National Council of Libya wants it to happen. The idea is to have his (Gadhafi's) own countrymen directly dealing with him, instead of leaving him in the hands of the ICC.

As Gadhafi's crimes against humanity have been established, will he be declared competent to stand trial? He is quite an eccentric, and he does not even know whether he is a dictator or not. In fact, he does not accept the notion of being one. "My people love me,"; he continues to say in the midst of a war against his regime.

So, how does the ICC intends to put a person in that state of mind on trial?

Also, in addition to crimes against humanity, does he know that he has caused the world to be a more dangerous place in recent months than ever before; and how does he respond to that?

He might be incapable to think that is part of the overall charge; but is it? He really is confused; and if so, how does he handle himself against the onslaught of the law?

There must be defense lawyers there at his behest; yet, some answers must come from Gadhafi himself.

The question still boils down to, "how do you put a crazy person on trial in a court of law?"; even if the ICC can lay its hands on him.

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO.

Politicians have always given the impression that their decisions were not influenced by special interest groups; however, what was witnessed last Friday in Albany, would make it crystal clear that such an assumption was false.

They have strenuously denied it on every occasion; saying it would be breaking the trust of voters. Yet, there was a quid-pro-quo scenario involved in the signing the New York State Senate's "Marriage equality bill" into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. (And was there a special interest influence at large?)

The extraordinary speed and readiness, with which the governor signed the bill into law boggled the mind; though, it was not at all surprising to many people. He could hardly wait to pen his signature on the bill to officially make it legal; and only a few would say that he felt the slightest tinge of reluctance to do just that.

The ink on the paper the law was written on was so fresh, one has to be extremely careful to put one's signature on it, in order not to cause the ink to run awry, and the wording to become blotchy and messy by anything, be it the hand, the cuff or the sleeve of the shirt.

That could occur in the form of an accident; but there was no way for that to happen with this particular law. "Careful, governor, careful,"; one might have said.

The executive secretary was even standing by with a blotting pad, but he or she was not able to use it, due to the rush by the governor to get the signature ceremony over and done with.

His office has been feverishly, but steadily, moving all the stumbling blocks out of the way to "get the job done,"; to please a whole lot of people, in groups or as individuals, so as to help them realize their dream.

He was not prepared to take any chance of missing the opportunity to prove his point that he had worked without any hesitation to get the bill to go through its final stages; and then, BINGO!; there it was, just to be signed.

Based on the promise he had made those vested interest groups and individuals in his political campaign to become governor of New York State, he has accomplished a great, personal achievement; and he was proud of it.

Why? Because he would not have become Gov. Andrew Cuomo without their vote. It was a promise kept by a politician, and it came true; a very rare occurrence, nonetheless.

The question then should be asked; was that rallying special interest groups and rubbing shoulders with them or what? And also, were those groups and individuals happy? You bet your buttocks, they were.

There was no evidence of any political malfeasance, or even the suspicion of it being reported, with respect to the bill becoming law in New York State; of course. However, the fact remained that special interest influence was at play. It could inevitably make or change decisions; and its presence was felt unabashedly. It went to prove that, it (special interest influence) surely existed in American politics, probably, on all levels.

In other words, the original decision to make the law to become enacted, was not the governor's; however, special interest influence must have, one way or another, pushed the legislative process in the direction it wanted the bill to go, from start to finish, to cause the law to come about.

Could that be true or false? You be the judge.

P.S. Get something over and done with. Also get something over with. Meaning: "to do something difficult or unpleasant as soon as you can so that you do not have to worry about it any more.". (The Free Dictionary, by Farlex).

A SETBACK FOR LIBYA.

The U.S. House of Representatives has given a blow to the efforts of kindly nations, whose aim has been to protect innocent people, comprising of women, children and the old, and to avert a complete massacre in Libya.

The House voted overwhelmingly to limit the U.S.'s part, which formed the backbone of an overall plan to remove Gen. Moammar Gaddafi from power; that other members of NATO would help the rebels to defend the areas they have been able to retain, recaptured and freshly captured from the aggressor Libyan security forces, and that the U.S. would supply the needed logistical support to supplement those operations.

President Barack Obama has made it clear from the very onset that U.S. ground forces would not be deployed in the conflict; and therefore, there would be no need to comply with the War Powers Resolution that demanded Congress to expect a president to request permission to initiate a war.

NATO, the Arab League and other nations had concluded before hand that the situation in Libya would require prompt action on their part to restrain the Libyan forces from slaughtering hundreds, if not thousands, of people to keep the Gaddafi government from falling.

He Gaddafi himself has sworn that he would show no mercy to anyone who would oppose his regime; and that he had a reservoir of armory to deter any uprising.

Therefore, the U.S. and its allies went to Libya on humanitarian grounds to stop Gaddafi from keeping his promise to obliterate the opposition in that country.

The vote in the House of Representative to forestall the Obama administration's actions in the Libyan war therefore flies in the face of common sense, because the U.S. has not unilaterally declared war on Libya to warrant the administration to report to Congress within 90 days, as the War Powers Resolution demands.

The Republican majority in the House has undertaken to embarrass the Obama government by saying "NO, NO, NO" to almost everything it does, except for the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner, (R-Ohio), to play a round of golf with the president.

They know why the U.S. government is involved in the Libyan crisis; and that is to assist in a rebellion that will get rid of a tyrant who is using brutal force to stay in power. Besides, the rebels are fighting for their freedom, and because of that, they are going to need every ounce of help to continue.

America has always been on the side of any people trying to free themselves from tyranny; therefore the U.S. government's presence in Libya is not for war per se; but to galvanize momentum for the rebels to defeat Gaddafi.

However, the vote in the House yesterday, as the case may be, is not a setback for the Obama government, but one that is designed to embolden Gaddafi. That will surely be a setback for the Libyan freedom fighters.

MARRIAGE: AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT.

The name "Marriage Equality Bill" does not qualify for what is being discussed by New York State Senators to make "same sex marriage" permissible on the New York State Senate legal books as "law".

There is no question of inequality here, because nobody is stopping any other person or persons from doing what they want to do with their own lives. The law already treats all people as equals, as there must not be any type discrimination among citizens; not on the basis of race, gender, creed or sexual orientation.

It is only conventional that men will want to be members of their own clubs, just as women will choose to do the same; but that does not indicate any kind of separatism between the sexes. Such institutions give them the freedom to do the things they want, and be able to express their identity as belonging to one sexual group or another. These groups, clubs or associations rather encourage people to come together to resolve all kinds of problems. That is a great idea; and that is it.

Their members want to be exceptional, as nature intends them to be, only as people leading ordinary lives. They are also very much aware, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."; (The Declaration of Independence).

To many of them, there is no room, rhyme or reason for any type of drastic social transformation of marriage as they have come to know it. It must be a relationship between one man and one woman.

What makes the issue of "same sex marriage" controversial is that, there is already an equilibrium between people of different sexual orientations; however, some others will go to any extent to "upset the apple cart" and pulverize what is reserved as cultural and traditional entity or embodiment, with respect to procreation and its accompanying responsibility of raising families to populate communities, which in turn form societies.

There is only one institution that fits into that mold, and it is Marriage. It is set aside for one purpose and one purpose only; and to alter it or change its meaning to represent what it is not meant to be associated with will be objectionable, if not completely unacceptable.

In other words, marriage is not meant to be compromised, or to be connected with lifestyles that are not productive, when it comes to the emotional tendency, of not just having an intercourse, per se; but of having children, and knowing how they must be brought up by the parents responsible for bringing them into the world.

Primarily, there is an inherent natural concern of all primates, particularly, to socially congregate into groups or families and raise their offspring. It is also a common practice among a great number of animal species of all sorts. Nevertheless, they do not marry.

For humans, however, marriage is the foundation of all societies, and it must be protected and defended without reservation. There is no way anybody must be allowed to debase its basic, instinctive and natural endowment, now or ever, to have the sensibility to procreate to produce families. It is the "kernel" or the "nucleus" of communities; and it is the only one institution that has all the qualifications to fit into its very own specific category, in terms building societies. There is none other; period.

To many people it will be abominable, if what has been held as special or even "sacred" by generations upon generations, and by every culture under the sun as being unique, is made to become something of a gamble; and to be used as a political pawn or football, to permit politicians to make a mockery of it. It will be unforgivable of anyone to let that happen.

The controversy can be viewed from other perspectives; that those who, somehow, happen to be born out of wedlock, are interested to have marriage debunked; or people who will never have the opportunity or the chance or the experience of getting married will be glad to see it become defunct.

Or that they want it to be just as fashionable and ceremonial as wanting to have sex with a member of the opposite gender after a blind date. You will do so on a whim, or for kicks; then you will forget about it in a few days time; and conferring upon yourself an "I came; I saw; I conquered," type of self gratifying assertion.

So, people who have a grudge against marriage will do anything to destroy it. They will do so out of spite or jealousy, especially when they know that there is nobody to stop them from achieving their nefarious objective; and that is, to ruin marriage.

Besides, there is a whole lot of frustration out there, and especially among young people, about individual sexuality; and the question pops up, whether it is "normal" or "abnormal" to be this or the other type. The answer differs from one person to another, and that has made the discussion of that subject very frustrating. Many of them are confused.

As a result, they are taking that frustration out on traditional marriage, because they cannot find anything else to dump it on. They are asking the question, "why is the general public not willing to accept their lesbian or homosexual lifestyles?"

Happenstance confirms that the answer is always stirring them in the face; that they are being accepted as fellow human beings, but they cannot compel others to approve those lifestyles. They desire to have the approval of their peers, and it will not be there, because they (peers) have a different mind set, which opposes any other lifestyle, besides the one requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Will that be discrimination? Not many people think so.

Under the present circumstances, therefore, must society be forced to submit to the capricious intentions or impulsive wiles of friends and relatives, who are struggling with sexual identity problems? The answer will be a resounding "NO!". It will be a very good idea to indicate to them that what they are doing is to muck up an establishment as distinctive as marriage.

It (marriage) is designed to be honored and celebrated; as some partners get into it to last them a whole lifetime. They see it as one of their "unalienable rights" to have happy lives together, and to be a pair of role models for their children and families to emulate.

Lawmakers everywhere must realize that they are declaring traditional marriage null and void. Why? Because they are replacing it with another kind of relationship that will leave a majority of their constituents out in the cold, so to speak. Will that be fair on their part? We leave them to honestly answer that question.

Again, come to think of it in a very serious fashion, there is no case of inequality or discrimination involved in what lawmakers are deliberating on, with respect to marriage; except that some people want a "double dip" of the law; and then some. That will really be inequality or discrimination coming from them.

AFGHANISTAN: TROOPS DRAWDOWN.

President Barack Obama last night announced the withdrawal of 10,000 troops of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2011; and that must be good news to many American families, whose members have been fighting the Taliban Islamic insurgency since 2001, after the terrorist attacks on The World Trade Center in New York City and The Pentagon in Washington D.C.

It (Afghanistan) has been a safe haven for terrorist; and particularly for the erstwhile Osama bin Laden, who has used it as a base to plot the WTC/Pentagon attacks; and so, there was ample reason for America to put a check on the activities of the Taliban, which has allowed such a situation to have developed.

The U.S. had somewhat partnered with the insurrection against the Soviet invasion in December of 1979; but when the Taliban took over Afghanistan, it brought in its own archaic laws, as well as making it a training ground for radical Islamists groups, such as Al-qaeda

Hence, the U.S. became fully involved in that Central Asian country that has seen more wars and tribal conflicts than any other in that region, dating back from the times of Alexander the Great to the present. However, its involvement, to be precise, has stemmed from the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. mainland.

The announcement must have come at an opportune time, because the surge that took place in 2009 has been successful in reducing hostilities to permit such an action; and also 300,000 Afghan security forces continued to be trained under U.S. forces, to defend and protect their country under President Hamid Karzai, whose government was said to be froth with a culture of corruption.

With even a central government in place, Afghanistan has been unstable, due to tribal loyalties and allegiances; and those influences would continue to fan the political flames in that country.

In other words, true political power was kept in the hands or under the control of those tribal warlords and chieftains; and so, conditions, which made the country to remain volatile still existed.

They have made Afghans ungovernable, even by an elected government of which Hamid Kazai happened to be its president. The situation there remained tenuous, if not precarious, to say the least. Therefore, the U.S. must not completely lose its grip on that country by maximum troops withdrawal or drawdown.

As Afghanistan has been such a bastard case in the past, the U.S. could not afford to be complacent in monitoring the affairs that would ensue in the aftermath of removing a large number of troops, whose main objective was to protect its (U.S.'s) national interest in that part of the world.

Afghanistan could not stand on its own; and with nuclear armed Pakistan and India to boot, the region could be considered as one liable to be a "clear and present danger" to U.S. National Security for quite sometime.

President Obama's announcement has been met with mixed feelings; with some saying that it was too early for such a move on the part of the U.S. They thought he was taking his eyes off the ball, so to speak. Others have welcomed it with glee and open arms, for their fathers and mothers, and other relatives were returning home after long absences.

Well done, U.S. Military Forces; and welcome home.

THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS.

Mayors! Mayors! Mayors! Don't you appreciate what the men and women in uniform are doing for you, in particular, and the country in general?

They are fighting to defend and protect those of us who live in towns, cities and hamlets that you are mayors over; otherwise, your communities, your neighbors, your business people, your laborers; plus your economic upkeep and lifestyles that you enjoy day in and day out, will all be in danger.

There are terrorists and other angry persons or groups, who are waiting to destroy the American way of life. They find the freedom that makes the nation unique repugnant; and they will go to any extent to remove the characteristics of such freedom from the traditions that the people continue to enjoy.

The culture of scientific liberty present in a society that has put, not one man, but a number of men on the moon makes them feel powerless and inadequate. The light bulb, the computer, the Internet; such technological achievements and innovations are envied throughout the world.

While you and your populations, large and small, are enjoying life as much as you like, they are out there and away from their families, doing all they can for the safety and common good of the country. The National Security of the whole of the United States is their responsibility.

Because of their efforts to bring peace to those of us at home, who were thinking about material things, like boats and cars, diamond engagement rings and priests to officiate at our weddings, they would be considering how they would survive on a day to day basis, to live and fight another day in strange environments, solely to protect their countrymen.

The men and women forming the military forces, and being the first line of the nation's defense have become targets of choice for most politicians; and so you Mayors did not have any difficulty in picking on the wars that they were, and are still fighting in, and made their mission part of your agenda. They and their circumstance of pushing and holding America's enemies back, have become easy prey for many of you Mayors.

Some of you could not find a way to bad-mouth them, and so, you became really negative, and decided to turn the subject around, and to go on a rampage, by referring to the casualties that they have suffered, and criticising how they were handled or treated by the "Authorities", of which you were part; with the numerous problems they faced, when they returned home. You were expressing sympathy for them, and they themselves would appreciate it very much.

However, somehow, you could not hide behind that delusive facade of showing sympathy. It was one that was not real, because people saw through you and discovered how ungrateful you felt inside of yourselves, to see all the money being spent by the government, which went into their maintenance and other military budgets, instead of it being redirected into Mayoral coffers.

"Let's talk about that to attract more social interest; the newspapers will have a field day"; you might have said in private, before you moved to pass an already thought out resolution to impress upon people that the United States Conference of Mayors was up to something good for their cities and towns; and for the nation as a whole.

Yet, the most important part of that equation was its human interest, which put the men and women in uniform in a category to be considered as being special; and that they have to be sufficiently cared for wherever they might be, due to their work. That quality of human interest and kindness was left out; and so you Mayors completely missed the chance to thank them earnestly.

The praises you later showered on them were just formalities; to make people feel that you were abreast with the times; you were very much aware of what was going on in the world, and that you grasped or understood the arduous tasks the militia men and women were performing for their country.

You had that idea at the back of your minds; nevertheless, your main objective was to be critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and so, you approached the situation at hand from a different angle, by beginning to swing the sympathy that people felt for them on to yourselves.

"mayors pushed ahead, saying there are economic problems in the United States with a more pressing priority than the massive spending on the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq,". (The English grammar not mine).

Whom were you kidding; and how deceitful could you be, after ratcheting up, in your speeches, all kinds of reasons and excuses against the spending on what the military did, which deserved more credence from you instead?

Their efforts and sacrifices became secondary and placed one step behind your very own problems; particularly, those spending cuts that you were facing in your respective cities and townships.
Then, almost at the same time, you went back and forth, trying to drum up support for them.
You were, in practice, putting two opposing factors on the same platter, so to speak?

The main action on your agenda was, "Calling on Congress to redirect military spending to domestic priorities,"; as well as the several "Whereas" clauses, each of which came with its own specific demand, made the whole meeting of the Mayors more deceptive, if not defective, since the focus was on you, rather than on anyone else. The attributes displayed in many of your statements were sham; and so they made the skin crawl.

Mayors must talk about what was happening in their own cities and hometowns that should be put right, such as making transportation easy to navigate and more affordable; more doctors and hospital personnel, who were available to take good care of their citizens, and to make sure that crowded ERs were not an everyday occurrence in local and main hospitals; clean water entering homes; getting the youth to be more productive by providing training programs and facilities that would create opportunities for them, and to help them in their education; as well as environmental conditions being suitable for healthy living in all communities for all and sundry.

All that were practically missing in the Mayors' endeavors; and so, they inadvertently ended their resolution with a plea to the U.S. Government, by saying,

" Be it further resolved, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the president and the U.S. Congress to end these wars as soon as strategically possible and to bring these war dollars home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and state governments, and develop a new economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy.".

It seemed they did not know what they were actually referring to; except that they were just repeating what has been on the forefront of information in the country; and as far as media news dissemination was concerned, their pronouncements were "old news".

In fact, from start to the conclusion, the Resolution was common knowledge. The general public knew what the Mayors would do and say. They would critique and blame their budget issues on the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, why should it be so? Have they not got something better to do with their time? Many people would ask those questions.

At this point, one is forced to give advise to the Mayors; thus, "Get to do something new and realistic for your taxpayers, Mayors. The soldiers fighting those two wars need your full and wholehearted support. They are the ones making it possible for you to function. Remember New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001?". That will be a wake up call for them.

LIBYAN PERMISSION?

The Libyan war is said to be weird; however, instead of it remaining in that state, it is becoming weirder and weirder still, with the U. S. House of Representatives literally ramming the War Powers Resolution down the throat of the Obama administration.

The Resolution demands the president to consult with Congress before an act of war can be declared against any nation, enemy or entity attacking the country.

"The heart of the challenge to the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution rests on differing interpretations by the two branches of the respective war powers of the President and Congress. These differing interpretations, especially the assertions of Presidential authority to send forces into hostile situations without a declaration of war or other authorization by Congress, were the reason for the enactment of the Resolution."; CRS Report for Congress.

There happens to be clear cut conditions that constitute an act of war in the Resolution; however, the present involvement of the Obama government in the Libyan revolution is not one of those. Therefore, Congress must relent its pressure to defund America's effort in that conflict, if the president does not comply with the Resolution, per se.

It is a fact that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi will use brutal force against any opposition to his tribal regime, and many people will die, if nothing is done to forestall a complete massacre in the recent uprising the Libyan government is dealing with.

The U.S. has joined forces with its European allies to handle the situation on humanitarian grounds; to protect ordinary and innocent civilians from being slaughtered, in the face of a monstrous dictator resisting a common, grassroots, political upheaval to remain in power.

The role of American special forces there is limited to giving logistical support to NATO, which is not fighting on the side of the rebels, but to ensure that the Libyan security forces engaged in the act of war to quell the rebellion must not turn their arms on those who cannot defend themselves; and they include women and children, who may be caught in crossfire situations, for example.

If America disengages its part in Libya, the alliance with the European countries participating in the hostilities to avert a much serious consequence will fall apart. The idea to remove Gaddafi from power will fail. That chance will be lost, and the rest of the world will be the final loser. His actions have been treacherous from time immemorial; and his presence is not conducive to peace and public good.

In short, the Libyan crisis is not a war as described or identified in the War Powers Resolution, and therefore, Congress must refrain from forcing an issue, which will actually avail to nothing, between itself and the White House.

Getting permission or not by the government will not change anything. It will rather embolden the aggressor, as the U.S. government and Congress take time to deliberate on the matter.

Besides, Republican Conservatives warn the House Representatives not to pull the rug from under the Obama administration in connection with the Libyan mission.

DAVID TYREE OF THE N.F.L. 2.

Any attack on David Tyree of the NFL for expressing his views on "same sex marriage" will be considered inappropriate and uncalled for. He is a consummate football player, and nobody can ever take that away from him. Also, this is America, and everybody has the right to express his or her opinion on any subject, no matter what it is.

His argument surrounds the word "marriage", and his defense is that, if its meaning changes, then anything else can also change for society in future. He is not holding other people back from doing what they want to do with their lives. He is rather asking people to imagine how the world will be like, if a nuance in life, such as marriage being between one man and one woman, is allowed to lose its basic and real meaning.

The world will become morally blind to all sorts of things, and people will take advantage of the circumstance and destroy longstanding ideals, or what has been held as sacred by other generations and cultures for many years, because they disagree with them. He is advocating that people can do whatever they see fit to live happily in society; but desecrating marriage must not be tolerated.

In many people's view, a free for all environment will develop; and murderers, adulterers, pedophiles and all those who possess fiendish and demonic ideas will find ways and means to have their perverse and immoral conduct assimilated and to become acceptable in society. Such elements will have a field day, in plying their corrupt and depraved behaviors on society. In a nutshell, any type of deviant lifestyle will surface as being "normal"; and who can say that it is not?

Decent laws will lose their real meanings, because society has allowed them to be infiltrated by the use of escape clauses that will cause them to be ineffective. They will be diluted to fit the standards their advocates will envisage them to be, no matter how low and unethical those standards are.

Again, in short, there will be a breakdown in social norms; and complete chaos leading to nothing less than anarchy will exist. People will find it difficult to tell the difference between what is right or wrong. Mr. Tyree's only request is for people to take note of such scenario happening, if they are not careful.

Lawmakers, for example, must take heed not to be overzealous in dealing with something as important as marriage, and damaging it without serious thought. Man-made rules and regulations that govern upright societies will become meaningless or extinct; thus, the laws that set humans aside and far from animals will be unrecognizable. The original and basic animal instincts will return instead; and those traditions that make us to behave as humans will become hogwash.

The world will be full of "anything goes" societies; empty and void of good morals of any kind. Is that what people want? If so, then that is what they are going to get.

It must be recognized that marriage is a special institution all by itself; and it has to remain in that state. Therefore, if it is allowed to change in any way, shape or form, nobody will be able to tell whom his or her biological father or mother actually is anymore.

Civil Union and domestic partnership modes of legislature must be included the rules and regulations upon which strong and viable societies are based to accommodate other lifestyles; to enable people of different sexual orientations to remain as they wish. That will enable them to stay legally together; so as to do away with all the confusion that is being imposed on other people, who want to lead their lives in peace.

What society must realize is that, the whole issue of marriage is one which only level headed people must be left to decide. There will then be a common ground or a compromise or an agreement to be put in place for all citizens alike to observe, and for them to live along side each other in harmony.

Otherwise, there will always be conflict. For there are those who will oppose the title of "marriage" being conferred on any other sexual arrangement. These people strictly maintain that it must be reserved only for a relationship between one man and one woman.

For the most part, such opposition will come from many people on religious grounds; because that is what they believe; and who can blame them for being stubborn or even stoic with respect to the problem. A dismal situation will then be created; of course.

On the one hand, there are many reasons to adhere to David Tyree's plea of everyone leaving the meaning of marriage alone; yet, on the other hand, others will totally disagree with him. However, his ideology of leaving marriage intact, or as we know it, is the right approach to a very delicate matter.

It will stop the kind of warfare going on in present day society, to alter or not to alter the meaning of marriage.

DAVID TYREE OF THE N.F.L.

Not many people actually know David Tyree of the NFL in person, unless they happen to be football enthusiasts, or his own family members or his personal friends.

Yet, from a moral standpoint, he has made more admirers of ordinary folks, who saw an interview that took place on CNN News yesterday morning, when he came out swinging against "same sex marriage", the controversial social issue, which would make it possible for homosexuals to marry each other; man to man, and woman to woman.

The interview has spilled into the news this morning; although, it is a rehash of his previous conversation with another news outlet on the subject, and it deserves comment.

His argument makes so much sense in the light of a legislative bill that has passed the NY State Assembly, permitting same sex marriage and awaits approval in the Senate of that State.

The bill basically implies special interests wanting to change life as we know it. If that is allowed, there will be much confusion for everyone in the future. He ascertains to the fact that society must remain the same, with clear cut laws, to make it cohesive.

"this will be the beginning of our country's sliding towards, you know, it's a strong word, but 'anarchy.'..."; he says about the "new and unpopular law", among other things.

In other words, he maintains that marriage must be between one man and one woman; period.

The interviewer wants to know why he is using the word "anarchy"; and is that proper? To a whole lot of people; yes, it is.

The word anarchy means "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority". (Merriam Webster Dictionary).

However, the idea can also apply to unconventional families; where there is a lack of natural authority by parents of the same sex attempting to raise children in their homes.

There will be anarchy due to the fact that, for example, if a child is supposed to bring his father or mother to school, and he or she will ask the question, "which one?"; for he or she has two fathers or two mothers; and if the incident occurs in front of his or her mates, the whole class breaks into a laugh.

Such confusion exists, and it is bound to create situations that conform to anarchy. The children will grow up, missing a whole lot of common ideals, such as marriage is, and will be between one man and one woman, for the sake of raising a wholesome family, with normal life styles.

Otherwise, people will be living in an anarchical society, as well as in confused family settings and not knowing any better, such as the difference between right and wrong.

Again, many people think that David is right on that score.

WEINERGATE 4.

Nothing more could be said about Rep. Anthony Weiner than to say that a whole lot of people were very happy to see him go. His resignation yesterday had come almost too late, with respect to infuriating the leadership of the Democratic Party in particular and other such important entities as a whole. He was really tugging the party with him through the mud; so to speak.

When it was reported that he has finally decided to resign, there were smiles on people's faces, and only a few had any good thing to say about the whole episode. Generally speaking, the outcome had a festive kind of air surrounding it.

Public feelings were not mixed at all, as a great majority breathed a sigh of relief, when he, at long last, appeared at a news conference to make the announcement that he was resigning from Congress.

For days on end, he has dominated the news media with his sordid story of exchanging lewd pictures and messages on Internet social networks; and because of his high profile status as a U.S. Congressman, the situation became unsavory and got out of hand.

At first, he categorically denied that he was the person in those pictures, and that an Internet hacker was responsible for posting them at his (Weiner's) Facebook site. However, that was a crime, and he should have reported it instantly to the police. Why did he not do so?

Then a few days later, he changed his story and admitted that those images were his; and that he had continuously had intimate relationships with "Six females over a period of two years," on Facebook and Twitter. Such reprehensible conduct was unbecoming of his stature as a gentleman and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He basically knew for a fact that his behavior was not going be tolerated.

The airwaves medium could not restrain itself from going back and forth with the slightest piece of information about him; and so did the print and television versions of the media.

He was interviewed on almost every news channel, not once or twice, but as many times, as the case might be, as three or more times in just one week. The exposure of him was overwhelming; and it had other important matters, such as the economy and unemployment figures being completely overshadowed or ignored.

It (situation) had gotten out of control, when he refused to give up his seat in Congress. Yet, the pressure kept piling up on him to do so; and finally he gave in to it.

Now, whether he did it for laughs or not should not be in question; for he was, and still is, a wise and extremely witty person, and so, he would have plenty of time to reflect on his folly, as well as his unnecessary and unprofitable actions that led to his fate to resign as a New York Congressman.

The question is, can the general public, which has been seemingly victimized by the Anthony Weiner scandal for almost over one month through the media, relax from it all; and can the media themselves follow suit?

CONGRESS AND LIBYA.

The Libyan case is quite weird, for the distinct fact that Muammar Gaddafi will massacre the people in that country for any uprising that threatens his regime. Yet, instead of lawmakers putting their time to good use, they intend to sue the Obama administration on the U.S. military mission in Libya.

Though, they know that America's vital interest in that part of the world will be at stake, if Gaddafi is allowed to put down any type of rebellion by using force. The opposition will retaliate, and war will break out, and that will inevitably contribute to the disturbances that are already taking place in the Middle East; namely in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia, where they (disturbances) have started.

Like any activity of disturbance anywhere, the economies of many countries are also affected; and that is more so now in the U.S., as crude oil price keeps going up and resulting in the cost of living also mounting higher and higher.

"the accusation by some members of Congress that Obama has violated the War Powers Resolution by intervening militarily for more than 60 days without seeking approval from Congress."(CNN-NEWS).

However, in actuality, there is no aggression on the part of America against the people of Libya, or else, the mission there can be described as declaring war without the consent of Congress, and that will definitely be unconstitutional, with respect to the government's part in the Libyan war. The aim of the mission is to remove a dictator from power and to save lives; and that must be looked on as being the right thing to do.

It was as clear as the sound of the Liberty Bell, when President Barack Obama announced that the situation there required the world's attention on humanitarian grounds; to protect innocent civilians, including women and children, from being slaughtered unnecessarily. People would suffer needlessly, while everything remained normal on this side of the Atlantic.

The Dow Jones Average fell so drastically yesterday, due to the uneasiness in Greece; and the market has become so unpredictable that any little thing could cause Wall Street to take cover. When that should happen, all hell would break lose, causing more problems for the average person and his or her family. Showing that a bad situation in one nation now affected all other nations.

That scenario easily fed into the high unemployment level of 9.1% of Americans being out work; an element which needed to be fixed without delay; and therefore doing anything else would be contrary to people's expectation of things turning around for the better. Proactive steps must be taken to revive the present state of affairs, than for some members of Congress to do irrelevant things to encourage the now slow U.S. economy for it to get even worse.

In other words, they were resorting to negative actions, which would halt the slight progress the government has made so far in recent months on the economic front; thus helping to put the country back on the verge of an economic depression, after September 11th, 2001 attacks and two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, to boot.

Americas woes have become numerous, and it would be a better idea if members of Congress tackled them seriously, rather than spending their time filing for law suits against the Obama government.

Again, they were, in a sense, exacerbating the already insurmountable situations the nation faced, by dealing with trivial matters, like a law suit, which they knew would legally go
nowhere, but would finally put the U.S. Constitution on the side of the president, for doing his duty to protect American interests at home and abroad.

P.S. This blog is no defender of any person, persons and/or institutions.

"NEVER THE TWAIN SHALL MEET."

Two people that are being spoken about or are in the news lately are 1. Anthony Weiner and 2. Gov. Chris Christie; although, not at the same time or as belonging to the same subject of discussion. They are connected to two different issues; one good, one bad.

Weiner has become the "sheep" that went to the slaughter by himself, and he would forever regret it. He would blame himself for being so naive, if not stupid, to have started strange relationships with women on social Internet networks. His actions have been so weird and childish, in such a way that only a few people would elect to defend him. For he was quite young and had the privilege of being a Congressman,

As such, he must model himself to fit into a mode of behavior befitting his position. A position which placed him far above normal mischievousness of an average person. He failed to measure up to the high standards that were required of him; and wittingly believing that he could get away with anything and everything, because of his societal elevated status.

He also had a beautiful wife with a child on the way; and she, on her own merits, having a lofty career as an executive aide in the U.S. State Department. Therefore, for the husband to fall in a perversion of the kind he found himself should be considered as extremely unusual.

Besides, he was liked by his colleagues, who had hopes of a bright future for him. He was smart and ebullient; and they knew him to be a person who would do anything to safeguard his fabulous lifestyle that could only come from being a member of high society. Nevertheless, he was concealing something inappropriate; another lifestyle, which was rather ominous. He knew that his wife would be affected by it, when it became public.

Now, the scandalous nature of his situation has compelled the Democratic leadership to ask him to resign from Congress. They include President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives and others. Even John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, and a Republican, has told Weiner "to get out!".

His refusal to resign has infuriated many of his constituents, some of whom thought he was making another grave mistake. He has become a distraction for his Party and to the nation, they said.

Hardly could he himself imagine that the American elitism for being a Congressman was about to leave him; but his wife, somehow out of pity, was urging him to stay on. What was he thinking?


Gov. Chris Christie, on the other hand, has had it so good to be governor of the Garden State only a short while ago (Jan. 19th, 2010), and now he was being invited almost everywhere; but particularly, to Iowa, a stronghold of the Republican Party, whose combined caucuses played a very important role in the choice of the party's presidential candidates.

"For decades, the state has served as the official kickoff for the campaign, providing the first real test for candidates hoping to win their way to the White House." (The Causes, The Politics and Government Blog of The Times).

He would travel there "to participate in an education summit,"; however, in reality, and notwithstanding the New Hampshire Presidential debate, where Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann and Pawlenty were participating for the nomination of the GOP, Christie was being declared a worthy opponent against Obama, more than they, by some Republican Party leaders behind the scenes; although, he was not there with the other seven contenders. Awkward in a way, wasn't it?

Presently, he also was being serenaded by the media, and pushing him to "clinch the accolade", so to speak.

He would meet with top Republican campaign contributors who would desperately want him to run for president in 2012; "over a dinner of chicken, rib-eye and sweet corn,", which naturally raised the "speculation about his grander ambitions." and his taste buds as well; yet, so far, he has refused the offer. What is he thinking?

Those two stories showed how life's opportunities and mishaps would always ran parallel to each other. "Never the twain shall meet."

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

Here we go again! For so long as the Republican Party's deliberations to find a nominee for the next presidential election continue, there will be plenty to talk about; and more so, about those who have already announced their bid for the presidency; and of course, as well as those who will jump into the nomination process, sooner or later.

The field of potential candidates continues to expand as the days go by. Putting it another way, it is still expanding, day in and day out, and nobody knows when and where that expansion will peter out.

However, let us refrain from discouraging anyone who thinks he or she is qualified to run for the presidency of the United States, for each to do his or her utmost best to present himself or herself as being worthy of the confidence all Americans, by their votes, will place in him or her. The whole group of competitors have been given the opportunity to examine each other's ability, to enable them to find the one person who can really lead the country to economic success and political stability.

They have the chance to convince voters that the Constitution of the United States is more precious than any one party's ideals, and to protect it without any reservation. That National security and the protection of the country's borders are priorities that must never be overlooked; and providing safer environment for all citizens to live in peace is essential.

Those are the fundamental criteria of a great nation; and that he or she will be worthy of their upkeep and sacred trust. The democratic system of government demands that any processing for leadership must entail those qualities.

Voters must be offered many options, as far as candidates go, so that they can make well informed decisions to exercise their inalienable rights to select the right person, from any side of the aisle, a Republican or a Democrat, to govern the country; and to make it more productive and prosperous.

Therefore, the more the merrier; and so, all the news about each person will be more than welcome by voters. In other words, they are to "let it all out", to allow the media and other research entities to do their work; and no secrecy about any one must be permitted.

Newt Gingrich has had his top campaign officials deserting him, but he still maintains that his run is not in any serious trouble; Mitt Romney has refused to take part in the Iowa straw poll, and he is not in a position to defend his Massachusetts Health Plan; Ron Paul is on New Hampshire's WMUR program "Conversation with the Candidate", saying, "We shouldn't be frightened about freedom, it works."

He is also in New York for a fundraiser or two; Herman Cain is telling the whole world that he can create jobs quicker than Obama, and saying among other things, "With all due respect, he has no idea of how to create jobs,". Also, Cain has had GOP's Chris Barron supporting him, although, he (Cain) does not subscribe to his (Barron's) cause of same sex marriage.

Rick Santorum is hitting hard on Planned Parenthood Federation of America, (which I agree with), in a hot, sizzling interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"; and Tim Pawlenty, is fumbling repeatedly with answers put to him on Fox News Sunday. As governor, he has accepted part of the Obama administration stimulus package, which he is so critical of, to help some programs in Minnesota.
If that is not hypocrisy, what is?; people have been asking.

In New Hampshire, the debate was sterile, and so there was no "odd man" out. It was so civil, as no candidate would actually attack the other's point of view. They would not challenge each other's convictions; and so it became more sanctimonious than a true tit for tat battle. The audience was not expecting blood to be spilled in the forum, but it deserved more action words than it got. Only at one point Pawlenty attempted to engage Romney, but he refused to pick up the gauntlet. Bachmann was very strong in the debate. Otherwise, anything vitriolic was vented on Obama by the group.

However, on, and on the stories must go, from one candidate to another; as the political paradigm shift of the Republican Party plays out.

Also, Sarah Palin is perhaps still on the road touring states on the East coast, but she seems to have been written off as presidential material; yet, the Gallop poll shows support "for Palin, and her grouping rises whilst Romney declines".

There is the suggestion that Palin/Huckabee ticket is in the works. That can be a possibility. Remember, she has not even announced if she intends to participate in the running for president or not, while Huckabee has baled out of the running itself; but they can come together to form a viable team.

Looking at the rest of the field, Gov. Rick Perry, Rudy Giuliani, and Michele Bachmann, whom many people like to vote for, because she is smart, nifty, beautiful and ladylike; are all waiting in the wings. They and others, whose names are not so familiar, such as Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie, ...are marking time.

With so much trepidation on the part of the public that the present number of candidates is enough, there will be more behind them, to make their plea to be nominated on the Republican Party side. At the same time, it (public) is "not holding its breath on it".

Nevertheless, the democratic process tends to be an "open house" for any number of people to get involved for a fair and more accurate election to take place; and therefore so it must be, for the sake of the nation's peace of mind. After all as they say, "variety is the spice of life".

By the way, if Obama can get the economy going in the right direction again, he will be hard to beat. Many people can visualize him being capable of pulling the U.S. from the brink of an economic disaster. They think he is ready to make that happen, and as the general election approaches, he will be able to achieve that goal. He is getting ready; he is getting prepared.

"Yes, we can", Mr. President.

PRINCE PHILIP, THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH

Writing about Britain's Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, will not be necessary if it is not for the fact that he is celebrating his 90th birthday this month (born June 10, 1921).

He has been the consort of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain for many years. In fact, the longest one in British history; and he should be congratulated for his loyalty to her personally and to the British people in general.

He also happens to be a great Naval Officer and a statesman.

However, many people will remember him for his off-the-cuff remarks, some of which can only be looked on as being very sassy sometimes, jovial or bordering on the ridiculous at other times; but also some are pure "gems" of embarrassment, as far as the British monarchy is concerned.

The following are a few good examples or his royal but risque remarks or outbursts,

"On a visit to China in 1986, he warned a group of British students: "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed." And he told a British student who had trekked in Papua New Guinea in 1998: "You managed not to get eaten, then?". (Yahoo News).

Yet, he has played his role as the Queen's husband and companion so well, he is very much appreciated for being so successful at that special and royal preoccupation by all and sundry around the world.

When a BBC interviewer asked him about it recently, his answer was so characteristic of him, it got radio listeners and television viewers hilariously laughing.

"I couldn't care less. Who cares what I think about it? I mean it's ridiculous," he said, adding that he had figured out how to perform his role by "trial and error". (Yahoo News).

He could not be more right, for on their honeymoon, or thereabouts, there was an occasion, when he and the then Princess Elizabeth were to board a ship; and it happened that the ship's ladder started to move away from the dock, and yet the Prince was urging his new bride to get on board anyway.

Many remember even now, that the Princess (Elizabeth) had to call his (Prince Philip's) attention to the moving ship's ladder. For just about a minute or so, there was a slight panic by onlookers, but he came to himself in the nick of time and corrected the situation; and they were able to avoid a mishap. It was one of those tense moments, which some might describe as "a very close call".

Nevertheless, that incident has been many years past; and Prince Philip has been fabulous in doing his duty to protect Queen Elizabeth II always. He has received a new royal title as a gift from her on his 90th birthday. It (title) is The High Lord Admiral.

Congratulations; and again, many happy returns on your birthday, Prince Philip.

GADDAFI THE SLAUGHTERER.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has been "ruling" Libya for 42 years; yet, it has not occurred to him that he is a dictator, and he still wants to remain in power for as long as he can.

There has not been a political party or anything resembling one in his country in all those years; except that he has surrounded himself with members of his family and a few quislings and armed thugs, who formed what is known as "the security forces". No real army or political party, as the words imply, exists in Libya.

He wants to be president for life; just as many African leaders always try to do. Like a natural disease, the strain of "dictatorship" happens to be embedded in their psychological makeup; it is in their blood, due to tribal and social prejudices of all kinds prevalent among the groups forming their societies.

In days gone by, tribal wars are fought to create larger groups. That is, pitting one group or section against another to determine each other's supremacy, and the dominant tribe forces the other into subservience or enslavement. Added to that is also the colonialist mentality or influence, which still remains very strong, with the thinking that there must always be a "master of the house".

This has been the basis of many governments on the continent, where actual political parties are not allowed to be formed, and only tribal loyalty permits one person to govern or "rule", while others must always be subjugated to his "beck and call", and even be treated as slaves. Thus today's Libya for a fact.

For all Gaddafi cares, what he does with Libya is his own business; and no amount of convincing can tell him to behave otherwise. He will kill, maim and destroy, besides holding innocent people as political prisoners and treating them as criminals, without any compassion whatsoever.

If it was not for NATO, which the U.S. was a part, he would have committed genocide a long time ago, without the slightest thought; and he would be doing so right before the eyes of the world, whether watching or not.

The Libyan people have decided that he is no more needed as their leader since February 15th, 2011; and they have engaged themselves in a rigid rebellion to overthrow him. However, he is using every means to resist and to stay in power; including rape, as a tool to punish women unnecessarily; and also the use of outright murder to quell the rebellion, with his known opponents vanishing in the middle of the night.

For humanitarian reasons, Italy has pledged around $600 Million to the Libyan rebels, and other nations were doing their best to help them, by contributing food, medicine as well as medical personnel, and weaponry.

The U.S. involvement was appreciated all around the world; and that if it was not for the swift intervention of the Obama administration, with the establishment of a "No fly zone" imposed on Libya, and the much needed NATO air-strikes to slow down the Libyan government forces, the slaughter of several thousands of people, including women and children, would have taken place without any doubt at all, as said before. Therefore, Americans are extremely supportive of U.S. activities in the Libyan crisis.

"Nearly six in 10 Americans support U.S. military involvement in NATO efforts against the Libyan government – but few of them want to see it increase from its current level."; according to polls taken by ABC News, among others.

The sound of "Ghaddafi must go" has been heard around the globe; and it must not be just a slogan, but rather a determination culminating into a vibrant effort by all nations concerned, to get rid of a dictator, who has no respect for civil and/or human rights; and who thought he was invincible.

The Libyan people would then be free from a tyrant, who would show no mercy to anyone, because that person has opposed him in any way, shape or form. The rebels have no choice, but to oust Gaddafi from power, for in the end, he would have been the "slaughterer" of North Africa; a malignant occurrence which should never happen.

By every estimation, his actions indicated that he would want to be known as the leader of all the Arab war lords. The world should not permit him to be that at all costs, if possible.

WEINERGATE 3.

Rep. Anthony Weiner's case is getting worse and worse, because of an x-rated video of him now circulating on the Internet. Somehow, the news media has not physically picked up on it as yet, to show the gruesome images in the video; but it will not be too long before they (media) do just the same. What is holding them back is, perhaps, for their own good judgement and/or editorial sanity.

So, when is Rep. Weiner going to call it a day and give in to the enormous pressure that, in view of the adverse nature of his situation, he must resign forthwith?

Democratic leaders have come out in support of his ouster for the sake of the party. His own colleagues in Congress are calling for his resignation; and all kinds of polls are reflecting a majority opinion that he must step down to make things easy on himself, for his family and for all concerned citizens. Any other way to resolve the issue, apart from resigning, will not work to his benefit or to the benefit of anybody that is connected to him.

His wife, Huma Abedin, is reported to be pregnant, and he has every sensible reason to be considerate of her condition, as any slight emotional stress, mishap or setback will be far more disastrous to her. He must think of the consequences of such thing happening, in regard to her pregnancy; and also of the well being of her unborn baby.

He has lied consistently about his Facebook and Twitter contacts; and that alone is distasteful and he must be judged by those lies. In other words, he has literally led the public "by the nose" for several days, without good reason, and to top that attitude up with arrogance on his part will surely be unforgiven.

The title "Huge ego" appeared on a television program yesterday. Was that a coincidence? Many people would not doubt that it was.

Weiner has a huge ego, which he has no intention to let go. Yet, at the present moment, circumstances forbid him to hold on to it.

The more the debate continues, the more he will lose face with all peace loving people, including his Queens constituents; and with all New Yorkers per se.

Therefore, to save him from farther embarrassment, it will be proper for him to concede to the overwhelming pressure that is coming his way from all sources, public and private, to resign.

America is waiting, Mr. Anthony Weiner.

WEINERGATE 2.

Dem. Rep. Anthony Weiner's refusal to resign flies in the face of pomposity, in that he knows perfectly well that he has become an "excess baggage", with respect to his Party, the Democratic Party, and whatever he does from now on will not count propitiously to himself, his family, and more so, his party.

Lewd pictures passed to strange women are nothing to sneeze at, especially when the person connected to such lewdness is a U.S. Congressman. It indicates erroneous judgment, and the disgrace that comes along with it affects everyone, if nothing is done about an issue of its kind.

He (Weiner) has the nerve to insist that he has broken no laws; yet, he must be aware that the nature of the atmosphere in Washington D.C. at the moment, as far as his situation goes, is not conducive to the public good.

It is also not just an awkward phase in the life of the present congressional session, for it has become a major distraction from the mechanism or machinery of Congress itself, in such a way that lawmakers are forced to deal with the scandal's fallout more than anything else. In other words, members can hardly spend their much precious time on more important matters, because of it.

His conduct has left much to be desired; and as far as his case was concerned, it matched any other scandal that has caused many people to give up their congressional seats.

Congressman Vito Fossella of Staten Island, N.Y., lost his seat on a drunk driving charge, among other infidelity foibles.

If the Facebook/Twitter debacle, which was equally serious, would have happened to any other Congressman, Rep. Weiner would undoubtedly have been the first person to call for that other person's resignation; and for him to resist the consensus of public opinion was beyond belief.

It was extremely disrespectful, on his part, to say that he was not going to resign, to his colleagues in Congress, to his constituents and to New York City; considering how spurious or deceitful he has been to them.

His demeanor on national television showed emphatically that he was morally guilty of what he had done; and because of that, he has lost confidence in almost all his countrymen, particularly, in so many young men and women, who would want to enter public service in the future.

To them, he was a very bad example of an upright person; and so, if he had any moral fiber left in him, he should consider resigning now, than to drag his party into the campaign of the 2012 general election.

In fact, his resignation would be in the best interest of all good and well behaved people in the country.

WEINERGATE.

Dem. Rep. Anthony Weiner has made his point in the several hours he took to tell his story of his stupid, confounding and unnecessary relationships online.

He has said repeatedly that the pictures, as well as the rumors buzzing all over the country, were not his. Yet, only yesterday, he came out with the truth, and made an ass of himself in the process.

He must admit to himself that he has disgraced, not only himself and his family, but also his party, the Democratic Party, the City of New York, his constituents; the people who had voted for him to give him the chance and the honor to represent them in Congress. (Voters sometimes have no choice).

He has failed them miserably, and so, they deserve, not just an apology; but, for Pete's sake, an immediate resignation from his post, as a delegate from Queens in the U.S. House of Representatives.

For days on end, he denied the stories that were coming out from the news media; and particularly, from the Internet, and specifically from Facebook and Twitter, the social networks, where he had made a fool of himself, by cavorting with young females of all kinds.

"Six of them, over a period of three years", he shamelessly confessed.

Now, such behavior could not be regarded as a past time hobby or a passing fancy. It was a trait in his psyche that he had known to be there throughout his life; and he should have received professional treatment for it a long time ago. He was thinking that he could conceal it from everybody else, but he failed to realize that he could not hide it from himself forever; and lo and behold, it has brought him to a point, where his nauseating acts and misdeeds have become more plain than he ever thought possible.

All the filth on Facebook and Twitter has been spilled for public review, and he has no one to blame, but himself.

Moreover, he has abused the trust that thousands of people have placed in him, as being a family man, a respectable individual and a role model for their families, especially, for the young men and women that have had dreams of following in his footsteps.

In fact, he has let everybody down, physically and emotionally; and it could be said that many have lost faith in those who represented the American public in Congress; the decency and strong beliefs in exceptional idealism and excellence of character that the members in The U.S. Congress should demonstrate as public figures; and of whose actions and mannerisms Americans aspire to be proud.

All that grandiose expectation was suddenly at stake in what could only be described as "Weinergate".

This was not a question of human nature making a mistake or two. That did not apply here; but rather a unique flaw found in people who were mentally unstable, and would do anything to feed the insecurity they found in themselves.

One could only feel sorry for his family; its members have been totally disgraced alongside the Congressman, and the best thing they could do for him would be to advise him to seek help, to have medical consultation forthwith.

The scandalous nature of his attitude was beyond reproach. The sending of explicit photos to women online was most unbecoming. There was no denying that he would be facing a Congressional Ethics Inquiry, for using congressional resources to send those improper and indecent photos.

CHARLATANISM OR SINCERITY.

Nothing frustrates a person more than, when someone says that he is going to "cut" an item, by reducing its cost, from the U.S. National Budget, because it causes government spending to skyrocket. Saying it another way, it (item) makes the national deficit to remain very high or continues to climb.

Then the next day or so, the same person turns around and says that he intends to save the same item that he is "cutting" from the same U.S. National Budget, in order to save it from going bankrupt. What kind of impact does that have on your nerves? Anger? Frustration?

When that happens, you are forced to think that there is a lot of charlatanism going on in Washington D.C. For at one point, Medicare must be "cut" to help reduce government spending; and at another point, the Medicare plan, which is being proposed by U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan, will turn around and save the Medicare program.

As any lay person will surmise, you cut a man's heart out; and he is dead. So, how can you turn around and say that your "intent" is to save his life?

That was what the changes that the House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan had in mind on Medicare seemed like, or sounded like, when he came out to speak to reporters, after the Republican Party members of the House of Representatives met President Barack Obama in the White House the other day. He has been adamant about those changes for Medicare at the meeting; he told reporters; and he did not want the president to "misrepresent" his (Ryan's) views on the issue in any future discussions.

He still is very passionate about those changes, undoubtedly; but is he sincere?

On the one hand, he is telling the country that government spending must be "cut" or slashed through the Medicare program; and that he can use his new Medicare proposal to do just that. While on the other hand, he is saying that Medicare will be saved from coming to an end, by using the same proposal to "prop it up" or to pull it out of insolvency. What does that exactly mean?

Those are two conflicting positions, and they add much confusion to the whole situation. If that is not frustrating, then what is?

Besides, many people think that there is no way that his proposal will help senior citizens, who are supposed to benefit from Medicare without any hindrance. It will put their well being back in the hands of the same Health Insurance Companies, whose officials have always used all kinds of shenanigans and reasons to syphon off profits from Medicare. Seniors will pay more out of pocket for their healthcare, since the voucher system will not guarantee full coverage or payment.

In all his interviews last week on national TV, Mr. Ryan never mentioned the word "cut"; not even once; yet, it was lurking somewhere in his thinking. Indeed, that was what portrayed him as the man pushing an elderly lady off a cliff in a television commercial recently.

Another word he failed to mention was "Taxes", and that too was lurking somewhere in his thoughts. He knew that those two words were anathematic; one to most rich people, and the other to poor people; and so he ignored them both.

However, lurking in the minds of viewers were those same words; because they agreed that, if the National Debt, which constituted all of America's fiscal problems, could ever be properly dealt with, government spending must be held back. That was where the "cut" or "cuts" came into use.

They also knew that cutting alone would not do the desired work to reduce the deficit; and therefore, the other "tool" or "weapon" that would have the most effect on the nation's financial crisis must be brought in as well; and that would be "TAXES".

Nevertheless, in Congressman Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, taxes were left out, almost completely, if not deliberately, leaving only the "cut" from Medicare; and of course, Medicaid and Social Security were not far behind in his mind, to be slashed.

Meaning, if the old, the poor and the needy required any type of healthcare insurance, they must be able to endure any cut that would ensure its solvency; although, he knew perfectly well that a "cut" in any dreadful measure would maximize the hardships they faced almost daily.

Also, those of us, who in most cases were in the present workforce, and would be approaching the age of 65 in ten years from now, must be compelled, willy-nilly, to pay high Medicare taxes, which normally came out of our hard earned incomes, until the time when we were ready to get into the Medicare program. We would then be suddenly hit with additional or extra Medicare costs, due to normal increase cost of living over the years, in our old age.

In other words, a national crisis, such as the one the nation was grappling with, could only be solved on the backs of working people and the poor, while tax subsidies were extended to the rich, the affluent and the powerful in society. To him (Ryan), the rich must have tax reductions at the drop of a hat, for them to create needed jobs to bring down the high unemployment numbers facing the country at the present moment.

Remember, he was one of the lawmakers, who wanted to make the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" permanent, which had the Reagan "trickle down" economic philosophy in its background; where the rich became more opulent, while the unfortunate ate grass.

According to reliable sources, many Republican Conservatives thought that Corporate tax in America was the highest in the world; and therefore the rich and the well to do must be left alone, as far as taxes and government regulations were concerned, to produce more opportunities for Americans through capital investments, to help the distressed economy the country was presently going through.

Their vision of less government control and fewer taxes was insatiable. With oil wells plentiful off the American coasts and in national parks, to make America energy independent.

Thus, having eye sore, oil-drill platforms along American shores should not be in question; or pollution destroying the fishing industry and its subsidiaries should not matter very much, so long as people were having something to do, to get the economy moving to make the nation financially strong and prosperous. Environmentalists could go to hell.

To others, America wanted to be energy independent; but not at any cost. It should also be innovative and looked at other energy sources, such as solar, wind and other renewable ones; to be competitive, and to move the nation forward to meet new challenges in the 21st Century. America has always been number one in science and technological inventions; and it should remain so for a long time to come (Obama doctrine). Two contrasting views of America; take your pick.

Wow! So, just wait and see, when Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Karger, Johnson, Martin, Miller, Wuensche, Brown; (with Giuliani, Graham, Huntsman, Scarborough, West and Ryan himself waiting in the wings) get to the White House. There will be a whole lot of free-to-play games there; and "drill baby drill" will be the foremost one.

Yet, are they going to be there come November 2012? Many Americans doubt it.

P.S. Free-to-play - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Free-to-play (F2P) refers to any game that has an option of allowing its players to play without paying. (TAXES). Parentheses are mine.

JOHN EDWARDS.

A member of my family dies, and someone sends me a check to defray the cost of the funeral expenses; but somehow, I use part of the money to do my food shopping; am I doing something wrong?

That will be how some people will look at the case of John Edwards. who has been charged with conspiracy and for breaking political contribution laws.

This seems to be a high profile case, and the consensus is likely to be that Edwards is a public figure and therefore he has to be held accountable for his "misdeeds"; and factually for misusing public funds, which political contributions tend to be.

His defence, so far, is that he has never anticipated in breaking the law, when part of his political war chest happens to be used for personal purposes; intrinsically, as far as this matter is concerned, to spend on a woman he is courting. Therefore, in his view, the intent of misuse cannot be proved.

Mr. Edwards is a very handsome man, and almost every lady in the world will be very happy to have him in her boudoir; and so, as a man, he cannot be blamed for exercising his natural, God given, personal right; to go after the opposite sex, whenever he has the chance.

He is a strong political figure, at least, in regard to the time frame of the case, and his attraction to women has to be enormously great, due to the mere fact that, he is about to become the Vice-President of the United States. Certainly, that alone will make him more attractive to anyone and everyone. He also has a large number of political organizers and aides, and he has to be pleasant to all those people around him.

In one aspect, he needs to be friendly with each one of them; yet, in another aspect, he has to give in at a certain point to the emotional attraction to himself, particularly, if it is coming from a female type working in adjacent proximity.

In an atmosphere such as that, there must surely be some kind of bonding between himself and, especially, his female colleagues, as any real man can tell. Imagine you being in that same situation; how will you handle it; or how will you be able to handle yourself? It is hard to say; isn't it? Controlling your emotions is one thing; but overcoming temptation is another.

To put it another way, as a man, he cannot refuse a good offer, especially when the emotional tendencies of a female has to be so close to him, during a political campaign; he will have the inclination to respond positively; of course. To many, he cannot resist the feelings of that female much longer; but that can result in infidelity, because he is a married man.

Yet, it all boils down to the fact that, part of the money that he is being accused of to have used illegally, is his, if not all of it; and therefore, to many people, it is not for the use of the money that the prosecution is going after him. It is for the dishonesty that he tends to cloak himself in, pretending to the public that he is a person without any similarity of social blemish or character flaw.

In a sense, he has deceived society.

Well, if that is the real reason, then other people will be forced to ask the question; is that really a crime? You be the judge.

However, a great number of people will surmise that, if the case continues and he is convicted, it will be a slap on the face of human nature; yet, if he is allowed to go freely, it will raise some eyebrows, for ethical reasons. Why? It is obvious that he has mistreated another female very badly, namely his real wife, and that will be considered a punishable act indeed; and for that he must be eternally ashamed of himself. A punishment that will be placed on himself by himself, and not by any judiciary court of law.

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS 2.

America has more millionaires than any country in the world, although, other countries are catching up. However, when it comes to lawmakers in Washington D.C., close to half of all the members of Congress are millionaires.

They call the Senate the "millionaire's club."; and there are 100 of them right there; but let us be realistic and say that just half of them fit the category.

"RICHTER: The median U.S. family has a net worth of about $120,000. For the average member of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's $666,000. So that goes to show that in terms of the representativeness of the U.S. Congress, there's a lot of rich people there and very few average folks.". (Stephan Richter of The Globalist).

Like "the oligarchs and plutocrats" in Wall Street and elsewhere, their (Congressmen and women) lifestyles are totally different from what a large percentage of Americans can ever visualize under any circumstance. For starters, they dress well and feed well; they and their families too.

To them, money is no object, when they come out of their individual homes each morning to face life. They can afford anything that tickles their fancy, from dining on fresh water salmon with caviar sauce and baked potatoes to broiled sirloin and steamed brown rice, after a hefty breakfast of poached eggs and French toast; and chasing it with California red wine.

They belong to the best health clubs; and so they exercise frequently in surroundings that are opulent and clean, with marble spas and modern gym equipment. Their health benefits are assured, because of the top class health insurance plans they possess. They can see any medical specialist they prefer, for any reason, and on short notice.

Their families, and particularly their wives, shop "by appointment only"; meaning that everything they see around them could be theirs, and all they have to do is to ask, and it will be added to their open ended account; from dresses to shoes, suits and silk ties, cars and jewelry, including diamonds; of course, among others.

One has often heard the saying, "the rich gets richer; and the poor gets poorer". That is not just a saying, but a matter of fact; and there are statistics to prove that point, showing the imbalance in society in economic terms.

From their vantage point, to consider being poor never crosses their mind; and to think of ordinary persons, and the need for them to live or die becomes secondary. They have nothing to worry about, but only to make laws that will affect other peoples' lives.

That is the contrast between those of us who are struggling to survive on public programs, like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; and it (contrast) is derived from trickle down economics; where the top citizens always deserve the best, in cash and goods; and the poor, the sick and the needy can go to hell.

President Reagan, a Democrat turned a Republican, happened to be the stalwart proponent of it. Therefore, his fellow Republicans continue to advance that ideology, even as we speak (or type).
However, must that be tolerated? That is the question ordinary folks must concern themselves with, when they enter the polling booth on any election day. The answer must lie in voting for those who will cater to the needs of others.

Some think America is broke; but with some of the best brains in the world in Congress, every problem can be dealt with, if members will set politics aside and do what is required to get the enormous deficit down to help the nation's economy to grow rapidly once more.

That is the other snapshot of what is coming out of Washington D.C. Put it in your pipe and smoke it, Representative Paul Ryan.

TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS.

Many lawmakers, mainly on the Republican side of the aisle, tend to support trickle down economics; yet they fail to realize that the people at the base of that structure are the poor.

In that system, the top class citizens in society are always flourishing, while the middle class "bite off more than it can chew", with the payment of things as mortgages, high cost insurance plans, college tuition for their children that can number from one to three or more.

In some cases, there are toddlers in the family to take care of; as well as other necessities to squeeze into a very tight budget; yet, the parents have to force themselves to accept all the difficult problems that continue to come their way, including emergencies of all kinds, and they still manage to carry on with their lives.

In other words, they try to sustain on "shoe string" budgetary plans; also known as "catch if you can"; otherwise they will have to remain in constant debt to unscrupulous money lenders and shady banks; or declare bankruptcy. When that happens, the families are divided or they scatter.

There are also families that are in single parenthood situations, man or woman, to deal with the heavy burden of being able to provide for their members, as well as for themselves; and almost usually, they have to juggle, and even toggle, between work and home to make ends meet.

The very poor come at the bottom; and they are those who are scrapping the economic barrel at its very end to survive. They struggle from day to day, and are forced to deal with the impossible, when it comes to paying, for example, the rent, buying food, let alone of getting any of life's essentials, such as clothing for themselves and having money for transportation to go out and look for work.

Other such people are the old and the sick, if not the indigent; and they struggle with social battles endlessly; and life itself tends to be a complete hell for them. Some may get on government programs, while others are so helpless to think for, and even of, themselves as human beings

Eventually, they are hushed into institutions, such as shelters, infirmaries and hospitals; and then they die. (Good riddance for dying off; who cares?).

These are the people the Democrats are concerned about; and in many instances, they try their best to save them from literally falling over or off the economic cliff, so to speak; with the knowledge that they are the responsibility of society.

That is one snapshot of what is presently coming out of Washington D.C., in regard to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Those programs versus trickle down economics and their effects. Wait for the second snapshot, soon.

HILTON OR KELLY?

It is still too early to say that the Republican Party's list of candidates will not include Paris Hilton and Commander Mark Kelly, who has just returned safely from his trip to outer space. The question will only be whether they are Republicans or not; and the answer will be, "nobody knows". However, the speculation is as feasible as catching the Subway to go to work in New York City. It happens everyday, come rain or shine; and therefore it will not be a surprise at all, on one hand.

On the other hand, some Iowans have even trekked to New Jersey to convince its (Jersey's) first term governor, Gov. Chris Christie, to join in the sweepstakes that the process has turned out to be; with characters of all shades and form, either by personally getting into the "fracas", or being considered by voters far out in other States to participate. The whole thing is becoming so interesting, it is definitely making politics a part of TV entertainment.

In fact, the atmosphere surrounding the party's exercise to choose a candidate to upset Obama in the fall of next year's presidential election is almost like a program preparing for the primetime Emmy Awards in 2012; and whether it is aiming at winning the Governors Award or Bob Hope Humanitarian Award, no one can tell as yet. Very entertaining, isn't it?

Gov. Chris Christie has turned down the offer once again to run against President Barack Obama; and that gesture coming from "the citadel of American politics" as Iowa is, and turning it down is quite incredible in everybody's estimation. The reason being that no candidate has ever managed to reject an offer of that kind before; for no one can win the White House, now or in the future, without winning Iowa State. It is like biting the finger that feeds you.

Therefore, doing well in Iowa's precinct caucuses is a must for every politician running to become the President of the United States; and for Iowa Republican Party officials to pull out stakes and go to another State to canvass for someone to run for the presidency is extremely unusual. Potential candidates always go to them and not the other way around. So, Gov. Christie is quite a lucky man indeed.

While that is happening, another inspiring aspect of the Republican Party's campaign for an enviable prospect to run for the party is taking shape in Times Square, with a big headline in the media, saying, "Sarah Palin, Donald Trump Meet In New York City Tuesday Night, Eat Pizza,".

They have decided to dine over pizza at the Famous Famiglia Pizzeria; and with them have been Palin's parents and her daughter; and Trump and his wife Melania. They have attracted a great number of onlookers; and with a whole host of bodyguards around them in an area cordoned off with yellow tape, they inevitably enjoyed their meal.

Palin has yet to announce her intentions to run or not to run; but she is on a multi-stop bus tour of the East Coast for now; and that has, by all intents and purposes, become a media event in itself; prompting many people to ask, "Is she counting her chickens before they're hatched or what?".

Well, with Gingrich, Romney, Pawlenty, Paul, Cain, Bachmann and others on board and streaming; what are you waiting for, Hilton or Kelly? It can be your turn; who knows?

We all live to see it.