OPPOSITION TO AMERICAN JOBS ACT.

Many Republican Party leaders have said that, government did not create jobs, and that the private sector was more than 80% responsible for hiring workers to reduce unemployment.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that repeatedly, and so has Speaker John Boehner and others on the Republican side in the United States Congress. They have made those remarks in opposition to President Barack Obama's American Jobs Act.

While it is true that the private sector provides work for millions of people, there are other responsibilities that are assigned to the government. It must have some public positions filled, in terms of the environment and also for bureaucratic matters. These positions account for the bulk of civil and public workers, under normal circumstances, but they do to get the unemployed working, if there are some openings to fill.

In fact, they tend to help any type of crushing unemployment numbers, like those the country is experiencing now, to go down. The present national rate is at 9.1%; and for African Americans, for example, it is at 16% unemployed.

The kinds of work, such as renovating airports, Transportation system being modernized, and speed/fast trains carrying people back and forth across the country to energize trade and commerce, as well as new school buildings to replace old and dilapidated ones, are done by the Federal government; and then some.

All of these projects are contained in the Obama American Jobs Act proposal, and they will be implemented if the U.S. Congress passes a bill. That is the only way for them (projects) to come to life, just as the president is requesting members of Congress to undertake or to do.

They (projects) are part of the nation's infrastructure; of bridges and highways that need to be repaired, and in some cases replaced. A whole number of artisans will be required for such endeavors, and other peripheral personnel of trained and untrained workingmen and women will be hired to handle them; and that will cause several thousands, if not millions, of people to have jobs.

The U.S. economy is struggling feverishly, as the private sector is not hiring, and other industries are downsizing or even outsourcing their businesses to other cheap labor countries, instead of expanding and growing them here in America.

Money is hard to come by, and so, banks are refusing to lend for business improvement and development; and many financial sources are even dry. Just watch the stock market movements, and it does not take very long to see what is happening.

There are all kinds of problems that are dragging the economy back; the downgrading of America's credit rating being one of them; and so is the Arab spring, getting the price of crude oil to skyrocket.

Therefore, why the arrogant, uncompromising and incongruous trend of resistance by the Republicans to pass a bill for the items in the American Jobs Act to take effect. Those are obviously the projects that will provide millions of jobs to alleviate the chronic disease called "unemployment", which is so high in the country today.

Politico.com Opinion column has come out with a scathing article to address some poignant issues; and pinpointing the fact that the blame must be laid on the people's representatives in Washington D.C., and at the door of Congress. (No quotations here; please, go read it for yourself).

That is where the stranglehold on the economy is coming from; and if they will only let go, it (economy) will have a chance to revitalize.

The job of a constructive opposition to any government is to give aid to it, and not to impede its progress. Yet, that is what the practice seems to be on Capitol Hill; a culture of destructive tendencies, to be on the opposing side, and to revile all governmental policies, just to gain political points.

However, a stiff opposition is not an antidote to the nation's financial woes. That is coupled with an acute bureaucracy and red tape, existing for project approvals; as it will take years, instead of months or even days, for these projects to go through the processing phase, before they will see the light of day.

However, all that can be eliminated, if politicians will put the bickering, that has become so common and fashionable these days, aside and decide to do something practical for the people. They see their (people's) suffering, but the question is , do they (politicians) really care?

The candidates running for the presidency of the U.S., all profess to know how to create jobs. Will it not be advisable for them to encourage their colleagues in Congress to pass the needed bill to put people back to work and to regenerate the devastated economy; or will they want to wait to see the nation in fiscal tatters, before they take action, when they become the president?

Won't that be too late, as they are not sure whether they are going to win or not?

CAIN; A PROBLEM.

Conventional wisdom suggests that businessman Herman Cain is becoming problematic. He is up in the polls, and has gotten the Republican Party field of candidates all in a twist; and something must be done about that.

He has also confused those who matter most in the party, that he is not the material that is really appealing for any nomination; no, not for the Grand Old Party, except perhaps, for a pizza pie order counter.

He himself must admit that, with the cigarette puffing campaign advert by his campaign manager going viral, his chances have dwindled to about 10%, with respect to some of the Republican National Committee members, who happen to be giving him some consideration for the nomination.

Now, they were waiting to give him "a piece of their mind". The opportunity has not come as yet.

Though Cain has visited kingmaker Donald Trump in New York City, there has been no indication that "the Donald" has taken him seriously as a strong candidate, nationwide.

He did not even have a photo-op with Cain, given that he has had a spell in a Times Square restaurant with Sarah Palin, and the publicity was not a media event, it was neither short of being grandiose, when the former governor of Alaska was not even running in the race. Nothing of that sort has happened with Cain.

The smoking advert has become anathematic, and has incensed the sensibilities of many people who thought that Herman Cain's Christian background gave him a little bit of support by those who shared his faith, but now, that has also dissipated.

His lead in the polls was becoming a sham; and he could not carry it anywhere with him apart from the campaign trail.

"....Mr. Cain is not a “serious” candidate; the polls say that he’s leading the Republican field. Conflict! Particularly if Mr. Cain wins, Aaron Sorkin could make a good movie about it." and again, " Cain’s lack of traditional experience or credentials, would put his chances at more like 10 or 15 percent." (Ben Smith, Politico. 10/29/11).

Herman Cain is a grown man with conservative ideals; but for a stint or two in the civil rights era, nobody has heard of him, or doing anything for the African American (he prefers the word "black") community.

Employing a few of them in his pancake business does not make him a job creating giant as he is projecting himself to be. Managing a "raw" enterprise, such as his, is doing the same things everyday. It is too far from being the President of the United States.

In his environment, there was flour and tomatoes to think about, while on the other hand, a president read official reports from around the world each morning, besides dealing with an obnoxious U.S. Congress; as the one in existence today. The two positions were intellectually far apart.

Bringing his market kind of talking to the campaign, Cain has endeared himself to the common folk in his party, but not the intellectuals; as his style was something completely new to the membership as a whole. The straight talk was the basis of his appeal.

In other words, Herman Cain happened to be a curio; and that was his attraction and nothing else.

His party did not aspire for someone, who was too blunt in his messaging or communication, because that did not fit the mode of a president of a country; and for that matter, any country, let alone the United States of America.

The curiosity that people had of him, had catapulted him to where he found himself in the local and on or after-debate polls; but nationally, he was behind Mitt Romney, the person, who was speculatively hinted to win the Republican Party's nomination.

America needs a president; not a joker; or even a curio.

SEN. MARCO RUBIO'S SITUATION.

Senator Marco Rubio's anecdote about his background seems to be causing so much political hoopla in the campaign for next year's presidential election.

It is rather unfortunate that he has made some statements that do not align with his parents exile to the United States from Cuba. Dates of arrival by them have been mixed up, and so on, and so forth. Those remarks are obviously lacking credibility; hence, the hullabaloo.

However, whether the parents did so prior to Castro taking over their country or during the days of Batista, what difference would that make, if he himself has fought so hard to reach a high level in American politics.

Of course, his story happens to be important, as people will look at it to trace his ancestry, or as a gauge for their own personal ambitions, and they will say that, "If Marco Rubio can do it, so can I." He has managed to be a role model.

Aside from the origins of his parents, he has carved a name for himself, as one of the youngest Senators in history, and a very influential one at that too. His constituency is mainly Hispanic; but he has been able to command the respect of the Republican Party membership as a whole, for it to be considering him as its Vice-presidential candidate for 2012.

Yet, the question is, does he have the experience to fit into those shoes? Or, is it not that a person belongs to a particular ethnic group and therefore he or she can be relied on to maneuver to get its (group's) members to follow a certain political party?

If that is the case, then it can mean that the people that are being corralled as sheep into becoming members of a particular party, or who are being directed to vote one way or another, cannot think for themselves. They are a bunch of individual ingrates that are misunderstanding, and so misusing, the freedom that America offers through the ballot box or the VOTE.

The Second Amendment, which is part of the United States Bill Of Rights, or the Constitution, gives all persons the liberty to act of their own accord in making decisions that affect their lives. They must do so for themselves, and not to allow anyone to lead them by the nose.

To permit that liberty to be taken away will be showing how moronic and idiotic any person can be, for giving somebody else the power to control the innermost emotions that person has.

Many are forced to think that Marco Rubio is being used by others for political reasons, other than himself wanting to rise and be recognized in society; and again, the question of whether he is ready for the position of the nation's second highest office or not does not matter, refers to how nonchalant some people are, when it comes to the political state of affairs in the country.

"He will sway the Latino vote to the Republican side; so go get him," will be what those behind the idea of him ushering all Cuban exiles into voting for the party to which he belongs will say. "All we want is to get Obama out of the White House," they will add.

If politics is heading toward groups of people voting wholesale, just because someone is telling them what to do, then America is on a dangerous path to nowhere in the future.

The country will become more divisive than ever, when ethnic groups will vote on the dictates of group leaders, and not on their own beliefs or individual conscience.

Many are fearful that, if that happens, the Bill of rights that they cherish so much will be of no use.

A NEW DEADLOCK.

The country was once again witnessing a brand new deadlock in the negotiations by the "Super Committee" that was set up soon after the breakdown of the debt ceiling debates, to find ways and means to formulate a genuine deficit reduction.

The committee meeting behind closed doors, and its proceedings must be secret, to strike a deal to reduce the Federal Deficit by $1.3 trillion dollars, has sprung a leak, that the Democratic members have put a proposal on the table that would go beyond the envisaged amount, and to make it $3 trillion dollars instead.

However, it contained raising taxes as part of the deal, but the Republican members have got nothing to do with it. They have rejected the idea outright, which would mean that any type of an agreement would not be possible, due to ideological differences.

Medicare and Medicaid would be slashed effectively, leaving a balance of about $1.2 trillion dollars, which could come from tax revenues, but the Republicans would not have anything to do with such a proposal.

News reports were saying that was similar to what President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner of the United States Congress were discussing during the debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks, but there too, there was no "meeting of the minds".

Meanwhile, the notion that the committee would not be able to achieve its objective and to reach a compromise haunted the minds of citizens that the worse was yet to come, in that the committee's deadline of November 23rd to reach an agreement was fast approaching.

The result of that would be the across the board "trigger" cuts would go into effect, which were not good. The idea of automatically cutting the deficit would be totally negative.

It would not just be the social entitlement programs that would be hit hard, but also, as argued by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, it would cause much concern in regard to the defense budget. Most military experts agreed that must not be allowed to happen, as America's National security could be jeopardized in some way.

Yet, the committee, whose proceedings were being held in strict privacy, was looking like it would fail to corral support for an agreement; and that would be devastating for the whole country.

It would make much sense that, if entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were being considered for cuts, so should other avenues be exploited to make up for the difference. Raising taxes was one of such avenues that must be taken into consideration.

It is true that the country's economy is staggering on the edge of a double recession, and the unemployment level is too high, going into a presidential election. Therefore, something must be done to avoid a situation in which voters can only vote on just two issues, the economy and unemployment.

There are other issues, like education and the environment, border control and National security, etc. All must be taken into account.

So, to stop the rich and the affluent from paying their fair share in taxes must not be an option, but that is what the Republicans are insisting on; and that in a slow economy, taxes must be ruled out.

If they only would put partisan politics aside, the Super Committee will reach their goal, which will be a consensus that the whole nation will approve.

This blog backs nobody, party or ideology; and the only fact is that America must not be held in a political stranglehold, as the country is witnessing now.

What has become of Americans these days, that they cannot get an agreement on any kind of issue?

That must change, for if they are going to wait too long, the nation will become like Greece, with stone throwing and arson taking place, day in and day out. Phew, what a country?

OBAMA'S APPROVAL RATING.

When one looks at President Barack Obama's approval rating, it smacks of bias from the pollster organizations and media pundits. It stands at 43% (approve) to 51% (disapprove), and that tells one how the polls questionnaires are compiled.

They are compiled with answers in advance, which is a wrong way to start; because they can be loaded against the president, even before they (questionnaires) go out; and that is too bad.

Suffice it to say that the polls are conducted fairly, and that the questionnaires happen to be specific for a broad section of the people polled to understand and to shy away from political prejudice in answering them truthfully, the "approve" percentage will certainly be higher.

Questions like, "Did the Arab spring affect gas and oil prices, and if so, could the government do anything to stabilize them (prices)?" or "Was the slumped economy caused by government policies or by the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?" or "Could the high unemployment rate be averted, if the government had succumbed to pressure to reduce business regulations?" or "Could actions from Wall Street bring about unemployment; and if so, what could the government do to handle the situation?"; are answered correctly, they can sway public opinion to Obama's side, in that they are true.

However, questions like, "Has Obama's policies been responsible for the slow growth of the economy?" or "Would Obama's policies be good for business?" or "Is the business world happy with Obama's policies?". Such questions can be considered as biased, particularly, if they are directed to the people in the stock exchange markets, the rich and the affluent. They (questions) are tilted or slanted, to say the least, to give the president wrong marks.

Besides, nobody has had any of the pollsters approaching him or her with questions that the main stream media have not expressed their own opinion on. It is like asking somebody about whether next year's presidential election will be dominated by issues of job creation and unemployment.

Of course it will; as the answer will be quite obvious, because all the candidates allegedly are experts in creating jobs. They all have plans to get the U.S. economy back on track.

Yet, the truth is that politicians are known to make promises that they cannot keep, when they are voted into office; and the reason being that voters have been influenced by what the media outlets and polls have concocted for them. Putting it another way, voters have had "the press" dictating to them. They (voters) have been spoon fed by the media and its allies.

Obama has reined in several of the ardent enemies of the United States and has gotten rid of them; and he has fought in a war that has no casualties. as far as the nation's military personnel is concerned.

Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki; and the latest is one of the most notorious radicals the world has ever seen, Muammar Gadhafi, have all met their fate; but the question is, has any media or pollster organization so far come out with any statistics or figures to show that these aforementioned people are no more alive to disturb the peace for America, because of Obama's foreign policy?

Al Qaeda has been rendered ineffective, and that group is now without a strong leader. Its organizational abilities have dwindled and its power has become miniscule (minuscule) in the Arab world; yet, who gets any credit for all that? Nobody?

Where are those vociferous media pundits and news contributors? Cat cut their tongues? Don' they see what is going on?

Everybody thinks that is what they are supposed to comment on, for their daily bread. What ever happened to their educated opinions? Where are the smartypants commentators? Are they afraid to ask relevant questions, because the president's approval rating will change or even soar?

Imagine if all that have happened on any other president's watch; the adulation and praise that he or she would get.

Yet, nothing for Obama? Come on, pollsters and media pundits. Do your job the right way, please.

UNITED STATES & CHINA.

The media story that China is receiving foreign aid from United State seems more fascinating than true.

China, which is one of the biggest economies in the world, with a 9% yearly growth, has the audacity to take money from the U.S. as aid, although, it is lending trillions of dollars in return at the same time. Does not that boggle the mind?

"It also has loaned more than $1 trillion to the U.S. to fund its deficit-spending." the story goes on to say, and that is causing many eye brows to be raised in Washington D.C.

Members of the U.S. Congress are angry to the core, as to why that is happening; saying that it must stop forthwith; and two Senators have publicly voiced out their feelings on the issue.

"If they have enough of a surplus to loan us money, they have enough of a surplus to take care of their own needs." Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) says among other things; while Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) makes similar remarks by saying,

"Hey, in the crisis that we're in right now, should we really be continuing to send American taxpayer dollars over to China for these purposes?" (Fox News. 10/25/11).

Many others have been saying the idea was ludicrous, and that it was like "carrying coal to New Castle", as said about the coal industry in the U.K.; that there was more coal there than anywhere else, and so it was practically foolish to send more of it back to New Castle.

On the one hand, China is competing with the U.S. in every corner of the world, economically and politically as well. It is "the faster-growing, second-largest economy in the world." and it needs no help from anyone. It is greedy for oil, and lately for gold; and there is no way of that greed slowing down any day now.

While, on the other hand, the U.S. is showing so much niceties, such as sending high ranking government officials to visit that country, it (China) is not being anything else, but a shrewd lender, with the highest interest rates for loans going to other countries.

In February 2009 Secretary of State visits China, and praises their swift economic advancement; and in August of this year, Vice President Joe Biden travels there too; all in the name of good diplomatic relations and mutual understanding; but how about mutual benefits? No?

Moreover, China's ambition of world domination is slightly been overlooked or underestimated; for example, it is building two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, one of which has been launched in recent months, as an increase in naval power and capabilities in that part of the world, the Far East, which is strategically important to U.S. National security.

It is lending trillions of dollars to the U.S., and many are afraid that there must be a catch to it, as there is some sort of suspicion on the part of many lawmakers.

"The Senate recently passed a bill to punish Chinese currency manipulation, while the House is about to examine Chinese trade policy across the board." says the Fox News report.

If the U.S. is going to send money to China, done through "international institutions to which the U.S. contributes." it must reconsider, due to the fact that it (U.S.) is presently in financial woes and cannot afford to shell out money in the form of financial aid to an economic giant like China. It is "coal to New Castle" theory, and it must not be continued.

Although, the amounts may just be in millions of dollars, which may be loose change to China, compared to the "trillions" it is lending, the U.S. needs that money, under the circumstances; and therefore it must keep it, rather than sending it back to China.

More so, a way must be found to stop the hoarding of U.S. dollars by China. That practice is contributing to the economic downturn the country is now experiencing.

GADHAFI INVESTIGATION.

Muammar Gadhafi's death was violent in a chaotic situation, and normal justice could not be served in that kind of a warring atmosphere, with weapons, from knives to Uzi (oozie) guns being brandished all over the place.

He was a wanted man; a fugitive, who could get away from his captors, with the help of his supporters in the crowd. The confusion was one of distraction and concentration all happening at the same instance, with pro-Gadhafi forces wrestling with the rebel fighters to spirit the dictator away; and vice versa, (on the part of the revolutionary fighters, who were stopping them).

There was bound to be varying accounts of what actually took place, and it would take any investigative body several months, if not years, to determine how Gadhafi met his death.

Even now, the stories surrounding the circumstances of his capture and death were so confusing, and they would worsen as the days went by. The true shooter would even be identified, as a television footage showed a man on whom water was being poured to be "the one," (CNN).

Dr. Othman el-Zentani, who conducted the autopsy of Gadhafi was mum, and "would not disclose whether findings revealed if Gadhafi suffered the wound in crossfire or at close-range," said a CNN report (10/24/11).

However, what made it nauseating was the United Nations and other International civil rights groups demanding an investigation of how the whole thing happened. They had onlookers there on the ground in Libya. What were they doing away from the scene, if in fact they did not see or were not anywhere near Gadhafi, when he was being beaten by those around him? Have not those people made any reports as to what happened?

The NTC (National Transitional Council) might have had a representative or two or even more among the crowd seizing Gadhafi; and what would be their eyewitness summations of the goings on, while he was being pulled apart by his own men and the rebel fighters?

The reality of the happenstance on the spot, where Gadhafi was caught was one in which nobody could maintain any kind of sanity or even his or her own presence of mind. It was taking place in a war zone, with fighting still in progress; and whether he was shot at close range or in a crossfire situation could not be substantially verified.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was answering questions in interviews with the media said an investigation of Gadhafi's death was in order; and most probably President Barack Obama has felt the same.

Yet, the fact remained that the outcome of any such investigation would be sketchy, to say the least. There would be no conclusive evidence, to tie the knots and bolts of it, as that (investigation) or if there were many of them, would have different versions of their findings, and that could contribute more to the already confused state of affairs. There would be different reports with different endings galore.

Besides, what would be the outcome of any of those separate investigations, if there would be more than one. Would the NTC become the culprit of Gadhafi's death, if any human rights laws were broken in connection to that event?

Must there be a waste of time and money on a man, who was wanted by the ICC (International Criminal Court) for crimes against humanity? Should people go to prison, because a tyrant as Gadhafi was has been killed at gun point in a place, where hostilities were still happening?

Questions upon questions would require specific answers, but no definite proof would be found as to how Gadhafi died.

He might have inflicted the wound on himself, because he was armed; and who could refuse to accept that?

Libya must now be left to be preoccupied by how it could find a way to pay back for what the U.S. with its NATO allies have done for that country. It could do so by offering a good government over its people, and to bring peace to the world, as well as establishing friendship and harmony with all nations.

It must also have plenty of oil for its helpers, who freed its people from a ruthless dictator as Gadhafi was.

P.S. This may seem like an old report, but it is fairly new.

U.N. GADHAFI INVESTIGATION.

Muammar Gadhafi's death was by mob execution, as the deposed dictator had all types of enemies, and any way that he should go could be done by any of the fighters armed with guns, knives and other weapons, who could end his life on the spur of the moment.

The situation in which he was caught was one of warring and violence. All were mad as hell, including those who were protecting him, just as much as his captors. It was nothing short of pure bedlam; as the confusion among the people at that juncture was so overwhelming.

He could have been torn to pieces, but so much unscientific evidence, such as his facial features, could have been lost in the videos that were being taken. Also, the scene could undoubtedly be more gruesome, and more horrifying than what the videos were able to record.

It was, at the same time, a terrifying atmosphere, just as it was so surreal, to see the once strongman and dictator being mishandled to the point of being taken apart in little pieces. It was a mixture of surprise and anger by those guarding him, and wanted to free him and to let him go, on one hand; and by those who have sought him for many months, while he was in hiding, on the other hand. A whole lot of tug-of-war went on there.

Some wanted him alive to face the many crimes that he has been alleged to have committed, some against his political enemies, and some against his involvement in the Lockerbie bombing; the downing of Pan Am Flight 103, in 1988, in Southern Scotland.

The ICC (International Criminal Court) was looking to slap him with charges of crimes against humanity, while the fighters in the uprising against him, the NTC (National Transitional Council), which was in the process of forming a new Libya government wanted to put him on trial for crimes against Libya itself, and the Libyan people.

Gadhafi was a ruthless tyrant, who showed no mercy to anyone that crossed him; not even Libyan citizens that he professed to love and cherish.

What to do with this man was the question that none of the crowd surrounding him could have any answer for; whether to let him stay alive or to kill him instantly. Some were even seemed to be bathing in his blood, which could be a sign of love in Islamic culture, or to mark the fact that they participated in Gadhafi's capture and final demise.

Now, the U.N. calls for Gadhafi's death investigation seems to be a hyperbole, in the sense that, everyone near the scene will be a witness, and they will all have their own personal stories to tell; and their number can be as many as 50 or 60 men, particularly, and some women, one or two of them, to give individual accounts.

Something can, and will, come out of such an investigation; but how well will the questions be answered by these eyewitnesses, can be anybody's guess.

There were both Gadhafi supporters, as well as the rebel or revolutionary fighters that were struggling for his person; it was a "for" and "against" scenario, froth in excessive uproar and commotion overshadowing any presence of mind.

Under such circumstances, people had the inkling to listen to everything and everyone all at once; and that their reactions could not be coordinated. They were still in a war situation, and the commanders on the spot, on both sides, had differing ideas as to what to do exactly.

However, after gathering the information the U.N. was demanding, what would be the consequence? Where would the credibility of the participants come from? Would it come from Gadhafi's men or would it come from those who were trying to seize him for the NTC?

Besides compiling a documentary dossier for the investigation, would it be made public; and also, how would the individuals questioned be handled? Would they be charged with any offence they might have committed; and if so, how and why?

There would be no outpouring of sympathy for Gadhafi; no, not by his captors; but also plenty of empathy from his supporters, who were present at the scene, and who would be very few at any point during the investigation, because they would be outnumbered by the Libyan revolutionaries.

The questions surrounding Gadhafi's death would be too numerous; but only a small portion of it could be answered satisfactorily; and the final analysis would be that, was he shot with a gun, and if so, by whom?

If ten people stood up and said, "I did it.", just to get their names the history books, how could the investigators know who actually pulled the trigger or who was telling the truth; or could all of them be accepted as "the killer" of the dead despot?

The U.N. has been known to waste money and time on trivial things; however, this particular instance was not a small matter, as the death of a notorious tyrant; yet, what would it profit the U.N., with the result of such an investigation? Many people would like to know.

It would seem that Gadhafi was dead, and the only resultant admission would be that, he was killed by a crazy and angry mob, execution style; and it occurred in a war zone.

It would be wise to accept an NTC report, as there would surely be one; and so, let sleeping dogs lie.

FREEDOM FOR LIBYA.

It was President George W. Bush, who started the trend that dictators must go. It was not Reagan or even his father, G.W. Bush; although, he was the one who removed Noriega of Panama, unilaterally, from power.

W. Bush had it right, by going through the U.N. to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and thus making the Middle East a little bit safer, and also to redeem the rest of the world from the clutches of a deadly tyrant in Iraq, who made it his business to threaten world peace.

President Barack Obama has followed in his footsteps to extrapolate that part of the United States foreign policy, which wanted freedom for all mankind. He took action, as the hold that Muammar Gadhafi had on the people of Libya, had enslaved them to the detriment of human dignity.

Though, he and W. Bush were on the opposite sides of the political aisle; yet, they have achieved the same goal for humanity, that all men (and women), no matter where they lived, must be free.

If the U.S. would continue with this exceptional feature in its foreign policy, there would be no dictator left in the world, and any person, who aspired to impose fear on any people would think twice.

The example that these two world leaders have set, would deter anyone from becoming a dictator. Putting it another way, there would be no more dictatorships anywhere in the world.

Gadhafi was such a dictator, who was gradually dragging the world into some kind of a major world crisis, conflict or catastrophe, had he been left alone to his own devises. However, he was stopped in the nick of time by the military might and power of the U.S. and its allies in NATO.

Therefore, leaders in places like Syria and Iran must take heed, that they could be next in line to succumb to that power. It was not there for the sake of being there; it was a protective power for the defenseless and the weak.

It has been set up, as an insurance for peace and tranquility around the world, and its credit must go to those two politically incongruous men, W. Bush and Barack Obama. They have made their mark in the book of human history forever.

They have taken a stand on a noble cause for all mankind, that tyranny has no value, as it debased human life, and kept whole nations from achieving the best in life for their citizens; which meant that, if any people were deprived of their liberty, life would not be worth living for all who lived on the earth.

America was not made to police the world, as some people would say; but without its influence in global affairs, the world would be a bedlam. People would be in fear wherever they went.

It has become the hope for human existence; for men and women to enjoy the rights that nature itself has put in place, that even animals should move around, eat, drink and breathe freely, and so should all human beings. They should be in full control of their own destiny, under pluralistic acceptable laws.

Again, Gadhafi's departure, and how it happened, should therefore be a deterrent to future despots, as that military power and might would be unleashed on them, even if they tried to be unreasonable, as despots always were, in the suppression of their own people; and they (despots) would surely know that, freedom denied to some, was freedom denied to all.

Bravo, America.

CAIN & HIS PARTY.

Businessman Herman Cain has literally become a "hot potato" for the Republican Party hierarchy, and for his own good. There seemed to have been a great deal of confusion about whether he could really represent his party against an incumbent president, who was popular with young or younger people, in the main, because of his age.

Young people usually side with someone of their own generation, and at just 50 years of age, President Barack Obama would have an edge in that age bracket, and that could spark a generational conflict.

He is young, agile and downright likable in his own party, the Democratic Party, and a great number of independent voters too are mainly young or younger; therefore, the percentage calculation of voters in the whole country can tilt, and it will be greater on Obama's side.

Cain looked like he was about to climb into his early seventies, and his attraction stemmed from middle-aged and older people; and so far not many young conservative admirers have been seen proclaiming that they were listening to him and his ideas. There has been no report of that in the media, and not even a few interaction circumstances with the young and the restless, by Cain, has been noticed publicly.

That meant that, Cain's age, directly or indirectly, was an element in politics, but it should not to be misconstrued that he has no young sympathisers, or there was an age discrimination pattern being observed to be going on in his party or anywhere else.

It was just pointing out that his face off with Obama, should in case he (Cain) won the Republican Party's nomination, his appeal to young and aspiring voters, which would be pivotal in the Republican National Committee decision making to find a winning candidate, would be strongly argued for or against.

Would he be a problem or not? That would be followed by the discussions within a party, which has had racial contentions in its history. As in a short while ago, there was no meaningful connection between the African American (he preferred the word "black") community and the Republican Party.

This morning's headline in the Politico.com website says it all as, "GOP dilemma: How to handle Herman Cain". It (headline) mainly dealt with his persona, but there was more to it than that.

His rise in the nomination race has been phenomenal, as he was head-to-head with Gov. Mitt Romney, with respect to the front-runner position. A great majority of pollsters seemed to be visualizing that he could be Obama's challenger, and that could somehow pose a threat to party unity. If so, what would the Republican Party do?

Politics have never had sureties, as anything could happen; and Cain has shifted opinion in the whole country to his side, making it evident, that a black man could become the leader of an organization, which had been historically hostile to black needs and agendas.

If there was any type of commotion within the rank and file of that organization, what would the outcome of it be? Would it (outcome) be injurious to race relations or a good and acceptable concept to Americans?

It would also result in "black versus black" in the 2012 general election; and the votes in that community would be split. Even in a normal political atmosphere, that would not be beneficial to that community; and if others would tend to throw in their own grievances, there would be chaos. Where would that lead a nation that was in turmoil with an insecure, fragile economy and a heavy unemployment load of 9.1%.

The only hope would be that, in the latest Republican/CNN debate in Las Vegas, all the contenders for the nomination were poised to win. Rep. Michele Bachmann was great, except for mentioning Obama's extended family; and others, like Perry, Santorum and Gingrich; all showed great potential to become the nominee.

Therefore, it would behove the GOP to arrive at a decision to present a person, who had the best qualifications to be president of the United States, without any sign of division of any kind among its party faithfuls.

A smooth and equitable presidential election was what all the parties were expecting; and when that should happen, it would be good, not only for America, but for the entire world.

Peace would prevail in the Western world to counteract the insurgency, terrorism, radicalism .... from outside.

Cain or no Cain; that is the question.

REPUBLICAN/CNN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

Politics may be considered a dirty game, but it is also a serious one.
If you have watched last night's Republican Party Presidential debate, you would have realized that none of the candidates came to the Las Vegas venue to play it cool.

Putting it another way, all the candidates running in the race came there, well prepared to answer, not any, but all questions, no matter what they were, from the economy through border protection; and so, they belted each other for a "one upmanship" position throughout the debate.

Pundits and analysts, who were there to referee the fracas would have lost count of the punches thrown, because there were too many; yet, the persons, who took the brunt of those fierce exchanges or gabs, were Gov. Mitt Romney and businessman Herman Cain; showing how tough a front runner position was.

The questions came fast and furious for the two, but they both handled themselves as quintessential politicians and came out maintaining their positions in the polls. Gov. Rick Perry tried to engage rival Mitt Romney on the side, on several occasions, on immigration, job creation, health care; and you name it. Romney was 1st (front runner), and Cain came in 2nd, respectively.

Romney was smart to throw out his own health care plan, which he has devised as governor of Massachusetts, and said that he made it to fit "a State". He then, in the same sentence, added that he would repeal the present law that President Barack Obama signed only a year or so ago.

Besides his 999 tax plan, Herman Cain was relatively calm on the statements he has made on the campaign trial, saying, for example, that his electrocution of immigrants crossing the United States border illegally, was only meant to be jovial, except to put "boots on the ground" with other effective measures to secure the border.

He vehemently defended his tax plan, but all the other candidates penetrated his defense and inflicted some holes in it. Rep. Michele Bachmann said that it would not work, for the reason that it sounded very simple; but it was not, as it would rather complicate the tax system, just as a value added tax would do. She had her own plan that would help in creating jobs, with a tax code that would be fairer than Cains 999 plan.

The other six almost unanimously criticized it, while Cain was saying they were comparing oranges with apples.

The power player person of the debate was Rep. Ron Paul, who would isolate the U.S. from unnecessary world matters, like wars in foreign lands and the interference in other countries' affairs. In other words, he would bring home all military forces to protect mainland America instead.

Candidates Rick Santorum strongly defended the sanctity of the family, which has become his trade mark in the campaign; and said that as president he would do his utmost to protect it.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich was eloquent in his statements as usual, but he was not ready to trade punches with his colleagues, except to make essential remarks on what they had said; and also "putting Barack Obama out of office," must be the preference of voters, of course.

Americans would continue to watch to see which of the candidates would be nominated as the Republican Party's challenger to President Barack Obama in the 2012 general election; as there was no clear cut winner, in the right sense of the word, at the Las Vegas CNN presidential debate last night; because they were all qualified. Yet, only one of them could be the nominee.

THE POLLS & THE PUBLIC.

Why should the polls be believed? An organization collects data in person, on the phone, on the Internet and/or by any other means, and then coordinates that information into an analytical result as being the popular or final perception of the people they happen to have polled. Fine.

However, what is actually the deciding factor? Is it the president or the CEO of the organization, who makes the decision that what he or she prefers can be put out for public consumption, or a group of analysts, with nobody knowing their qualifications and political beliefs, get the privilege to act as mediators between the organization and the general public? Nobody can tell.

Each and every single day, there are polls by media and pollster companies of all kinds; Universities have departments that gather information, and they all count the end product in numbers, from 0% through 100%. Then they announce the outcome to the rest of the population.

How can the public know, whether they are being truthful or falsifying the figures that they are making known, or that the percentages they are giving out are not to suit their own whim and caprice?

These organizations can misdirect public opinion at any time they want, because no one can check their facts as being truly factual. In other words, they have the recipients of these polls at the twirl of their little finger or pinky; and any figures they come up with; any figures at all, will be accepted.

The latest being businessman Herman Cain, a conservative candidate running in the Republican Party race for the nomination, beating President Barack Obama in the polls, if a general election is held today. The media and the pollsters have been throwing all kinds of percentages around, in favor of Cain.

Where they canvassed the people that gave them the interviews or answered their questions could be anybody's guess.

Yet, the news and headlines are everywhere, that "Herman Cain edges Obama in polls". That happens to be the topic of the day for all the media outlets; but as the saying goes, "Don't believe everything you read in the papers", who in all honesty can say that the sources of these polls are not a bunch of lying experts, who want to fool the American public?

One cannot assume outright that the pollsters and media pundits are all liars, and that what they are saying is untrue; but there is also the slight chance that they are, or somebody is, taking the people for a ride; and if so, then that piece of news is only to bamboozle readers, viewers and listeners alike.

Nobody is presuming that Cain cannot win an election against Obama. In an election, anything can happen; but the idea goes beyond the pale of sanity, that organizations will gather such information at this present instance, when Cain is, as they say, high in the polls in the Republican race.

That may be true; but the perception of him beating Obama in the 2012 general election is pure speculation. Many doubt the calculations in his 999 tax plan, which is still under scrutiny; as people are searching to know what that (999) really means. Will his calculations add up or not? That has got a big question mark at the end of it.

Until then, the polls can be wrong, and therefore, people must rest assured; as that is also possible (of the polls being wrong). Besides, their collective prediction is too premature.

A WONDERFUL LIFE.

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., deserves a monument as resplendent as the one dedicated to his memory just yesterday, Sunday, October 16th, 2011, and situated in the National Mall, exactly where he made his famous speech, "I have a dream", on August 28th., 1963.

The late civil rights leader's life was one to envy by all men, as being a sacrifice that only a small number of people could lay claims to; a onerous sacrifice that just a few could undertake.

Like the person he molded his life on, he did not have to make that sacrifice. He was a preacher, who could just sit quietly in his Abyssinian Baptist Church, and minding his own business. There was no need for him to come out at all, for he was unequivocally safe where he was.

Yet, in the stillness of the night, he decided to join a people who were under political oppression. They were his people, and he had to do something to free them; honor them, by getting them out to live decent lives, and to have a dignified existence, instead of a mediocre kind of living.

He spoke against racism, and made his thoughts to conform with a noble philosophy that "Man's inhumanity to man must cease". He resisted against bigotry, that one was stupid or idiotic, if one has this or that color of skin; he railed against discrimination and against repression, and even against war, and against any kind of atrocity, all at the expense of his own life.

He did his best to couch a movement of non-violence to face a giant machinery of tyranny, which was loose in the streets of America and running over helpless people. He marched against the powers that be, and fought along side those who were deprived of their freedom in so many different ways, just because they were different. They could not sit here, and they could not eat there, and they could not use this bathroom; and on and on.

He "emancipated our minds and saved us from the bondage of our past,"; America's past that was riped with the history of slavery; even though, it (America) cherished "justice and liberty for all"; but in reality that was not true. It has failed miserably, over many centuries, for a section of its people.

Dr. King's life has enriched all humanity; just as his death has culminated into making easy for any determined person to educate himself of herself, and to be able to achieve the lofty goals in life. Racism, he knew, was still a problem, but one could ward it off through education. America could not have been better off without him.

The monument that President Barack Obama dedicated in his name, the Martin Luther King memorial, would symbolize, more than any other, the freedom that has always attracted people from the world over to embrace liberty and to reject serfdom. He was an inspiration for all mankind; and his achievements would be remembered forever.

His life has caused African Americans, particularly, to emulate the example that he set; a distinguished and selfless life of unimaginable quest for peace, liberty and justice throughout the whole world.

The Martin Luther King Memorial will always be an inspiration to all future generations.

THE PRESIDENT & DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING.

President Barack Obama was 8 years old, when Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated; but he has fulfilled the part of Dr. King's "I have a dream," speech, where he emphasized on a practical partnership between the racial groupings in American society, by his choice of words depicting the sitting at the "table of brotherhood", irrespective of status, whether as descendants of slaves or as descendants of slave owners.

If that was not a prediction of the future, then the picture of former civil rights leaders and the United States Congressional delegation attending the dedication of Dr. King's monument, and a dinner reception after that, would be unrealistic and therefore futile.

The invitees will be sitting across the table in the White House, as guests of the first African American president; talking and chatting as free men and women, over the many concerns affecting the nation and how to redress them.

America of old has passed away; a new spirit has replaced it, with hope, charity and decency; and although, racism still lingered in the minds and hearts of some die hard segregationists, who detested of any change in race relations; however, Dr. King's dream has overshadowed that despicable feeling.

Now, a black person is the master of the House, and he must be accorded the respect that is due him and his family. There is no gainsaying about that, as the attendees to the luncheon will be paying homage to the first Lady Michelle Obama and her two daughters as well.

This will be an emotional session for everyone there, as they dip hands in the same bowl to eat, so to speak. There is no slave amongst them, for they are all free men and women gathering under one roof provided by retrospective presidents and political leaders of the past, who will die to see this special day.

America has come a long way, from the days of slavery and servitude, and from the inexcusable treatment that was directed toward one section of society, due to color or race. That, "All men are created equal..."; and if there should be any distinction between them at all, it must not be based on race, but on merit and achievement, and most of all, on the content of character.

Common education has helped in the development and accomplishment of individuals, to create an opportunity for anyone, who has ample qualifications, to become the president of the United States.

That has come about, not through the notion of mere hope, but of human struggles, centered around the tenacity of hard work, by Dr. King and many other people in the civil rights movement, who were bitten by dogs, overrun by water canons and faced police brutality; and just as by many more, who were sympathisers, and who agreed that, "Man's inhumanity to man must cease", for social change to be fully realized in America.

That end has not been achieved as yet, but it would surely come.

Hatred is a human trait, so it cannot be legislated against; but it must be controlled to the extend of it not spreading and becoming cumbersome for one part of a community to unleash its animosity on the other part, or for that matter, any other part. It is not right, and it has never been right, and it will not ever be right.

Dr. King was assassinated through hatred; but the dedication of his monument is an inspiring proof that it (hatred) has no place in life, and that, in the long run, those who practice it will fail miserably.

AMERICA'S ECONOMY.

American Jobs Act by President Barack Obama, which this blog has mistakenly called it "America Jobs Act" is still being shoved aside by the Congressional Republicans, once again. (Mistake corrected).

They seem to have a new version of their own, each time the occasion arises for them to act, to put people to work. So, any delay in reaching some kind of a job creation compromise is obviously theirs.

The latest being the mantra that the private sector has the capacity to create jobs and not the government, makes people to wonder when they will come down from their high horses and permit the spiraling unemployment rate to stop, instead of it going from bad to worse; as where it stands now, at 9.1%, is pretty risky. It is like consciously inviting a double recession to come to the country's door.

In a Fox News interview, Senator John McCain is insisting that the Republicans have a different philosophy from that of the government; and that the Obama administration must "unleash and unfetter" the private business sector to undertake the jobs creation process, and for it to remove certain government regulations that will enable it (private sector) to bring in the $1.3 trillion dollars that is sitting on the side, overseas; and is more than ready to be used for investments to boost the debilitating economy.

He suggests that the corporate tax rate must be cut and for the government to create a moratorium on regulations of all kinds that are stifling the economy. The tax code must be simplified to allow businesses to know what they are up against.

He maintains that America has the highest corporate tax code in the world; and then he goes on to say that the government must "repeal this and that"; and the list goes on and on, almost infinitum.

However, while the debate continues in Washington D.C., the economic situation does not get any better, as unemployment remains at the same level, which is causing so much hardships in many households in the country.

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations must have a link to joblessness; and how long the lawmakers can wait before they can come out with something to improve conditions is anybody's guess.

If regulations are the only things stopping the growth of the economy then the president must talk about them and see how those that can be removed are set aside for the danger that the country is facing to pass.

Both sides have their plans; the American Jobs Act plan and a plan, or plans, by the Republicans must be concurrently reviewed by the president and opposition leaders for them to negotiate for what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole.

Hiding behind philosophies is not working for the country; and it is about time both the Obama administration and the Republican Party leaders reach an agreement that will make life easy again for all Americans.

So much time has already been wasted on the most important aspect of life that correlates with the United States national security; the economy.

Iran, Libya, North Korea; all that can wait, as President Obama and the U.S. Congress straightens out the economy. In a sense, anything else is secondary if the country is in disarray.

CAIN AND HIS 999 TAX PLAN.

Businessman Herman Cain's 999 tax plan is just wordy; it does not resolve the nation's fiscal woes, and it looks so simple, but it is costly from the point of view that every price must go up by nine percent in its implementation.

He will rattle about it as much as he likes, but that is all there is to it in practical terms; mere words for, probably, entertainment and not for serious politics.

The plan will also be one, loaded against the middle class and working people, because the less money a worker earns, the more taxes he or she will pay, as many financial and tax analysts are predicting.

In other words, the people that, for example, the Wall Street demonstrations around the country are about, the CEOs and the fat cats, will be benefiting more from the plan, for the basic reason that they will be paying only a quarter, or thereabouts, of what they presently pay.

In the case of an executive, who earns, say $250,000 a year, the flat rate of 9% will only be $22,500, instead of the present rate of 34% against the same salary, which is $85,000. The difference will be huge and in his or her (executive's) favor.

On the other hand, a worker earning $50,000 dollars and paying 9%, will incur a tax burden of $4500 in place of $3500, and that will put him or her overboard by $1000 dollars, right there and then.

The math does not compute with the tax rates Cain is proposing, particularly, for the middle class and working people, as in addition to individual personal tax, they will be saddled with a mandatory national sales tax of another 9% against the rest of their already small incomes.

Now, a person earning less than $50,000 will even be severely affected, as taxes will drain his or her spending power to purchase the same consumer items as those who earn more, in the form of bigger paychecks. The percentage in taxes, of his or her earnings, will go up quite considerably, from 7% presently to 18%.

Mr. Cains own associates are calling his 999 tax plan by several derogatory names, and making fun that it sounds like the price of a pizza pie; or that if it is turned upside down, "....I think the devil is in the details,", his colleague Rep. Michele Bachmann has quipped, during the most recent GOP debate of the party's presidential candidates.

In a nutshell, Cain has never had much, and repeat "much", consideration for the average worker, working with him during his tenure as a CEO in the pizza business or in any of the other service industry establishments that he has been involved in.

He was, and still is, thinking about the high ranking personnel, in every case, to reduce their taxes and not that of the person, who has the obligation of mixing the tomato paste or the dough, of which the end product, a slice of pizza, made the companies the profits that went to pay the fat salaries for himself and his executive friends.

He may have been poor before, as almost all African Americans have; but the word "poverty" has ceased to cross his mind, after he is able to achieve his high echelon status in the business world.

Otherwise, he will not make the now famous or infamous, "If you don't have a job, or you are not rich, blame yourself" comment.

He has succeeded in challenging his front-runner presidential mates, Gov. Romney and Gov. Perry, and he has been able to overtake them; but it would be very hard to surpass them if he continued to plug his 999 tax plan.

They were going to overshadow him with foreign policy and other intricate political matters that would take a toll out of his motivation to become a candidate; because they, and some of the other candidates, have had experience in governmental affairs, of which he, Cain, has no inkling.

That would put him at a disadvantage, a point that would cause him to lose the enthusiasm he now has, and which was propelling him in his campaign. It (enthusiasm) was helping him tremendously with the Conservative electorate, but it would be no more, after they, Romney, Perry and the others, were done with him.

The 999 tax idea would be out in the cold by the end of next Summer, (forgive the irony), and Cain's campaign would come to a dismal end. His 999 tax plan would then be history.

MS. ROSEANNE BARR.

Sharp speaking and strong talking Roseanne Barr is on the prowl again; and it is no surprising that she is asking for the heads of bankers, who cannot live on $100 million dollars at a time.

They should be reeducated in a rehab camp, and if that was not successful, then they should face death by the guillotine; she has said. (Fox News, 11/12/11).

That would be the ultimate solution to the nation's fiscal problems; and how extreme that could be; some would say.

However, would there ever be a solution for the poor and the middle class people to overtake the rich in any effective way, since the (crap) dice was always loaded against them; and also, particularly, if the shenanigan in the corporate world went on unabated?

No one would ever think that would happen; meaning the cutting off the heads of guilty bankers; however, she has a case for standing up against corporate greed on Wall Street and elsewhere in the country, and in fact, in the whole world, where CEOs and executives of financial institutions and banks were earning huge sums of money, in pay and bonuses, from the sweat of the middle class and working people.

That was happening everywhere, in all fields of endeavor in which people would get up each day to spend their lives just for subsistence money, to be able to take care of themselves and their families. Millions of people were doing so each and every single hour.

If that did not change, then there would always be a disparity in the earnings of wages and salaries in the workplace; and as such, the woes of the majority of people would continue to be the same or even deteriorate farther for many years to come..

For example, to earn a living of say $50,000 a year for a family of four in today's economy is living on the edge of disaster. It is like hell, because there is never enough to cater to the needs of the children or adolescents in the household.

For food alone takes half of that amount, and then consider what must be covered, like expenses on transportation and other peripheral necessities. There is nothing left at the end of the day, not even a dime for emergencies.

Yet, parents and their children continue to live in that scenario everyday around the world, while some fat cats residing in that same world are walking on money in their opulent apartments and mansions, some in the city and some on the outskirts of town.

This is what the Occupy Wall Street is all about. The greed of 1% versus the basic needs of the other 99% of the population.

Roseanne has been there before, and so she knows what she is talking about, that to have a need for any family is heart wrenching, when the resources or incomes are battered and depleted by overwhelming amount of expenditure. For budgeting on a small amount of $50,000 or less, for a family of four, as many people are likely to face in their everyday living, nothing prosperous can ever be achieved. Only suffering and heartache.

She has also been rich; and she surmises that if the devil's economic system in the world today is allowed to prevail, everybody will prefer Iran, or some crazy entity to have the nuclear bomb and destroy us all.

That is how dissatisfied the world is; for the "end" (of the world) must come, instead of abject poverty for 99% of the people.

As she sees it, the idea of a nuclear explosion is not far fetched at all, and that is why she is asking for such drastic measures, as reeducation facilities and the guillotine for some of the rich people, to solve the fiscal problems of society, of which she is a staunch member.

Besides, she loves to live and enjoy life; and she wants others to do the same. So, that is why she is making a great impact on current affairs.

The people admire you, Roseanne, because they realize that you care about them; and also, you have sympathy for all mankind.

SPEAKING FREELY.

Not many people are backing Rev. Robert Jeffress, the Texas baptist preacher, who says that Mormonism is a cult, so that no one must vote for former Gov. Mitt Romney, because he is a member of that spiritual or religious divinity.

However, the heading, "Jeffress throws Jesus under the bus" on the Internet is too strong, if not naive. (POLITICO, Opinion column, 10/11/11).

The reason for that (heading) is a quotation from Jesus, "Judge not that ye be not judged"; but it does not give credence to the article that it is found in, or is it in line with present day politics in America.

As far as we all know, and in reference to what the news media venues have reported, the pastor was expressing his views on the religious aspect of a candidate, who happened to be a Mormon; and he (the pastor) was, and is still, allowed to exercise that privilege, under the First Amendment Right of the United States Constitution. Freedom of expression, in the current case.

In short, it (Amendment) permitted freedom of speech, among others; and that was exactly what the pastor was doing.

If the public was to leave that out, in regard to its political inclinations, then the whole Constitution would be meaningless. It would only be a collection of words or rules from which there would just be the act of "cheery picking", and not too much else could be done with it.

Romney's faith of Mormonism was what the pastor was referring to, and as faith went in human nature, it should become a trait of the person at whom the assertion, under all circumstances, would be pointing.

The other person then has to come out and defend it (faith) fiercely, and in no uncertain terms, because it was part of his life that was under attack or that has again been released for a closer public scrutiny. The same thing happened a few years back, when Romney ran for the presidency.

Romney should be bold and faced the challenge that came with his religious background. If that did not happen, or would not happen, then who should blame the pastor for doing what his own faith told him to do?

In the same frame from which that first quotation was culled, there was another quotation that started with, "I am the way......"; and went on to show what the pastor was being vociferous about.

So, if there was just one route to use to go to a certain particular place, why on earth would anyone go by any other route?

Putting politics aside, the pastor was demonstrating what the true person of Romney was; and that was exactly what people were aspiring to know. For the person and his beliefs could not be separated; and that must be brought into account, particularly, if that person was running for the presidency of the United States.

It would be like saying that President Barack Obama was a Muslim. That would be talking about his person; and that would be a serious topic indeed, as far as the public was concerned.

In that instance, the president would have no alternative, but to defend himself to the fullest; that he was a converted Christian; and that he was very passionate about his religion; no matter how many times he was confronted with that question.

Right now, the Romney camp is not putting up a strong defence, except by saying or issuing some statements that one's religion was not important in the current political atmosphere.

Of course it is important, because it (religion) is not even the extension of the man; it is his persona, anyway it is looked at.

To many, Rev. Jeffress has not been totally wrong in bringing up the question of Romney's religion once more; for he has every right to speak his mind; and as the U.S. Constitution affords every American that right, so must he.

It will be for voters to decide, as always, what a person stands for; and that, fortunately or unfortunately, will include his religion.

Right or wrong, Rev. Robert Jeffress must be accorded the same right, as anyone else, to speak freely.

OCCUPY WALL STREET RUCKUS.

As the Occupy Wall Street ruckus starts to enter its forth week, politicians are perplexed, and it looks as if they are unaware of the distraction that the demonstration in New York City is causing; but what they are not prepared to do is try to end it.

Also that the spread of it to other cities is picking up steam, and it will not be just one demonstration, but a great number of them all over the country. There is not going to be a let up for municipal governments to grapple with each situation. Law enforcement agencies everywhere have their hands full in controlling the huge assemblies of demonstrators.

It is obvious that the country's struggling economy has a part to play in all this; as well as the 9.1% unemployment level, which has been going for three straight months.

Though, there is a lot of activity in the United States Congress; but there is also a plan to occupy Washington D.C. afoot. However, where the occupation will be is yet not known; either on Capitol Hill itself or on Pennsylvania Avenue or in both places; but it will surely be at somebody's doorstep.

Members of Congress cannot blame anyone for the demonstrations across the nation, for the cause of them is their failure to find common ground on issues, in order to solve the problems that the country is facing.

The stalemates, gridlocks and impasses have become congenital in government business, and everywhere one turns, there is a press conference of one party or another attacking, disputing and deprecating the other party's plans to find a solution to this or that; to the extent that, the very specific place, where the laws of the land emanate, has become dysfunctional form being delusional with just political beliefs.

When President Barack Obama introduced his America Jobs Act proposal, there was a response by the opposition that there were some ideas in it that needed looking into.

In a matter of weeks that it has been around, something could have been done to get a bill before Congress. Now, it was running into one whole month for it to come to the floor of the Senate.

Why the wait and delay tactics by politicians, when there is an emergency, with respect to unemployment; and that immediate steps must be taken to deal with it; but the trading of arguments is what is more important than the real issues at hand.

The common man in the street sees the opportunity to act for himself, because there is nobody else to do so on his behalf. Hence, these demonstrations across the nation.

If Congress will forget about politics and seriously work to achieve compromises, there will not be unlawful assemblies covering the length and breath of America. All that its members have to do is to finalize a bill that can be passed into law to alleviate the chronic unemployment. Simple.

What people are looking for is work; not trouble. With the unemployment situation tackled effectively, the slow economy will pick up speed and grow for peace to come to many homes; from whence a majority of these demonstrators have come.

Fighting over the presidency of the United States can wait. The country has more than a year to go to the polls to elect or reelect a president. However, for the time being, Congress must find a way to resolve the issue of unemployment first. The demonstrations will then stop.

THE UNUSUAL OCCUPANCY.

The Occupy Wall Street demonstration is the outrage the majority of the public feels about the system under which the capitalist has managed to change things in his or her favor.

The system allows capitalism so much leeway, and so it plays out as being discriminatory in the real world. It has been a game for many, many years; but it is dramatically becoming an UNFAIR one.

It does not have to be a game, but corporations and banks that have more money than the Federal Reserve are concealing the hordes of millions, if not trillions, of dollars that can be used in lending to businesses that are poised for improvement.

They are hoarding the money and making interests for themselves via huge salaries and bonuses; and what makes it insidious, if not criminal, is that all is hidden from the common man in the street.

The central point of this horrendous pastime is Wall Street; hence, the demonstration there in New York City. For there is no other way to draw attention to what the CEOs and bankers are doing, because of the concealment of their activities behind those thick walls; plus the security that the government offers them and also the protection they receive from local government law enforcement agencies.

The result of the activities behind closed doors there is what is causing poverty in the United States; and thus making unemployment to become a serious problem.

Unlike Europe, laziness is not rampant in the U.S., so, why the sour economy, particularly in recent years?

That is for just one reason, which is that the present Wall Street game has intensified. It has created an elite group in America that every person leaving college wants to join.

If there ever will be a class warfare in the U.S., that will be the background of it; the imbalance environment, and the permissiveness of it, is being manifested in the minds of people that circumstances within the financial world are not conducive to the public good.

The tactics of the game players and their underhandedness, are placing those on the outside, who do not know how to play, in financial jeopardy.

In other words, these big corporations, banks and financial institutions are only thinking about themselves and their families, while others are going hungry and cannot afford to pay their mortgages or even the rent. Poverty has itself been transformed into a separate societal institution; with low or never increasing pay checks for people who go to work everyday.

At the same time, the cost of living is going up, while it has become common knowledge that the bankers and their cronies are getting better off, and the only way economic conditions can change is to get these people sitting on trillions of dollars to release those amounts for competent and reliable businesses to be emboldened; to start expanding, and to hire people and put the economy back on track in the U.S.

Again, as far as Europe is concerned, what the economies of individual countries are doing stem from the social class system that has been in existence there for centuries, going back to the days of feudalism.

Their economies have entangled the U.S. economy through global financial markets; and whatever downturn happens there, the effect of it becomes widespread and impact the rest of the world. As the U.S. being the largest in the overall economic pattern, it is affected more severely.

However, the buffer is the financial institutions here making use of all the monies idly stored in vaults and starving industries of all kinds, small businesses and manufacturing companies, of the capital investments they need to grow; and that will turn things around.

The outcry of Occupy Wall Street is bound to spread, not because someone has said something to encourage what is obviously an unlawful assembly; but it is the only recourse that the common man in the street can utilize to vent out the enormous outrage that society as a whole feels.

A few people are controlling almost everything, and others are going to bed hungry every night, with their families, to boot.

The government cannot do anything now; The U.S. Congress cannot do anything now. The only entities having to shoulder the problem are the local authorities, because the goings on in Wall Street is engulfing the nation, and it is depleting their emergency budgets.

However, who is finally to pay? The tax payer, of course. So, start thinking, people. Or, the unusual occupancy of Wall Street will continue to be troublesome.

O'REILLY TALKS PLAIN.

Most people are never pleased with Bill O'Reilly and his program on Fox News, because he makes almost everything to seem controversial and sometimes sorely repugnant. Politics, politics, politics and more politics.

He is naturally or highly argumentative, which is somehow good for a television skit like his; and it has serious indentations of some very good scripts, but also a whole lot of crafted versions of himself being idolized, or so he thinks, by the viewers.

He also likes to bring on people, who want to caricature themselves, such as Dennis Miller. He has a part on The O'Reilly Factor; and as it seems he tickles his funny bone so much, he has created a portion known as "Miller Time" for him.

No one really knows, whether he is just using him to fill time or to make a complete segment; however, Miller is actually no fool, in the right meaning of the word; and he wants to delight him, O'Reilly, in reverse, and to show the public that he is useful, every step of the way.

Yet, all that is beside the point, as for the first time, this blog enjoyed the show very, very much, because he puts politics aside and converses brilliantly with an atheist by the name of Richard Dawkins.

He has written a book titled "The magic of reality", which O'Reilly insists that it is directed to children and adolescents, and it contains information idealizing science in opposition to, what else, God and Creation. He denies the accusation and says that it is to point out that all that is seen as reality is happenstance.

O'Reilly is not promoting Creation, but what he says to the gentleman is very interesting, that he does not believe that a meteor crashed into a "boom" and everything in the Universe happened.

He has brought in a bit of religion, to the extent of mentioning the Ten Commandments, saying that it, religion, has imposed constraints on human behavior; and is that not true?.

The author does not have a direct answer to that, except to say that part of it (TC) does no good for anything either, such as "observing the Sabbath".

He has been on the program before, as a combatant in defence of science, and advocating atheism. However, he happens to withdraw into a corner and forgets about what he has said at the time.

O'Reilly finally pins him down with the idea that science explains everything in the Universe; and he gets the answer, "No; it explains everything in the natural world", which does not make any sense at all.

In fact, is not the natural world the same as the Universe?

The two have been talking for a while, and trying to score points for either side; but in the end O'Reilly has won the day, only this time, with plain talk and for being himself, and not for being as argumentative as usual.

THE PASSING OF A GENIUS.

One cannot help, but write about Steve Jobs, the originator of the iPad and former CEO of the company he formed that has become a household name.

Although, the Beatles had called themselves that name, Apple, and had become famous with it, and from it, and by it; it was Jobs, who established it in minds of millions of people who used computers and other electronic devices that bore it.

Many did not personally know him, and scantily saw him on television; but he was a giant of a visionary to have come up with so many ideas that were incomparable in today's world.

His persona was that of a great inventor, who managed his life in secret; his work in private; his appearance in simplicity. However, somehow, he could not hide his God given powers, and allowed his magical brain to perform wonders.

He had a dream at every instance of his life, to use his prowess beyond its limits; to be inventive and creative. He continued in that same spirit, even while he was sick; and through to the point of death.

From the Mac to the iPads, his selflessness showed, that if he had something that improved the quality of his life, everyone must have it too. That was, and is, the nature of all inventors and geniuses; yet, Jobs took his (nature) farther and farther up, starting with the iPad, and then the iPad 2; and counting.

Pretty soon there would be more of his inventions spreading into infant and kindergarten classes, for them to be able learn more of themselves and their environment; as they already were in grade schools, colleges and Universities all over the world. Of learning gadgets that sat quietly on a desk and produced so much, both in intelligence and stupidity, all at the same time; garbage in, garbage out.

That statement was purely metaphoric; but he made it to become a term of fact, even in the hands of people he did not know and would never meet; and vice versa.

Every bit of his work was a stalwart achievement; and there was the hope that the company he left behind would continue with his pieces of advice he gave to his co-workers into the long distant future. They would be very useful some day.

His passing has come too early for his age, 56; he would have done even more than he already did at the age of 72 through 78. Yet, he did enough with the short time that he was on this earth for all the people of this world. For it (World) would have been half foolish without him.

Wherever he might be, he would have peace, because he brought so much joy to millions of people who would surely miss him for being an outlandish genius as he was. His accomplishments deserved all the glowing tributes that had come from people, mostly leaders in engineering, politics, science, finance and many more.

Our condolences should go to his family; we would all remember him very much; one could not finish without saying so.

A NEW CANDIDATE?

Politico.com, the vibrant and innovative political instrument on the Internet, is toying with an idea that would prick the sensibilities of even the die-hard supporters in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Given the present political turmoil in Washington D.C., between Congressional Republicans and President Barack Obama, a third party candidate for the 2012 general election would be preferable.

It is suggesting a few influential citizens, like Erskine Bowles, who has extreme expertise in budgets and financial figures; Hillary Clinton, the present Secretary of State, and also having the support of a highly acclaimed family with the means and wherewithal; John Chambers, the CEO of Cisco Systems, "a company that makes the infrastructure of the Web tick."; and Condoleezza Rice, who was in the Bush Cabinet, and showed a great deal of political strength in her work with foreign countries (as Secretary of State); among others, to stake out their reputation, and as independent candidates pit against Obama.

These are strong and individual minded people who have made it in business, politics and finance; and who will be able to lead the country out of the economic morass that it finds itself.

The newness of a fresh face will add a great deal of momentum to what many people are thinking of, the financial direction the Obama administration is headed, and the stiff opposition that the Conservative Republicans are putting up against it. All that must go and make room for a new kind of political environment.

What happened a few months ago, in the debt ceiling and deficit reduction issues have divided the opinions of even common people to such an extent that nothing can ever be done to patch the differences between the two parties.

The Supercommittee that has come about as a result of the talks to get America out of default in its payments toward its financial obligations, is not a surety for a solution to the crisis.

The country is being pulled apart to the extremes, and therefore a centrist, one who can coordinate the policies of both parties, will be a perfect choice.

However, with all that said, who can vouch or even say that, if it happens that way, that the voters are fed up with what the main political institutions are engaged in, a never ending conflict scenario, things will not get worse with a new president?

Presently, it is hard to find out who the Conservative challenger will be; whether it is Romney, or Perry, or Cain or even Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor.

He has refused to join in the race for the presidency, on behalf of a large portion of the GOP, who in a sense has been forcing him to add himself to the slew of contestants vying for position to be nominated as the party's representative. Nobody knows how long he will resist, because the pressure is still on him to change his mind.

Again, the White House is fervently pushing the president's new plan, which he presented to a joint session of the U.S. Congress last month, and he is running helter skelter to promote it to his political base and the country. However, it is stalled in the most important places, as the painted-over rock, with a discriminatory and diabolical name in a hunting camp in Texas; mainly in the U.S. House of Representatives in particular, and in Congress as a whole.

Now, talking about divisiveness and polarization in the country, bringing in a third party candidate will rather exacerbate the prevailing conditions; as politicians are digging their heels in, with respect to their beliefs, and the president pressing hard to foment his "America Jobs Act" proposals.

So though, a new person must not be ruled out, as it cannot; but the country must remain solid in its fight to come out of a near fiscal recession that is making both the business world and ordinary citizens so uncomfortable.

In that fight, both the government and the opposition have the responsibility to join their efforts in finding common ground, and to reach compromises they need to solve the country's problems. That is what the country must strive and hope for. Not a third party challenger.

Adhering to party policies alone is not getting the U.S. anywhere, politically and economically, of course.

A TOUCHY SUBJECT.

Race is a touchy subject in American politics, and any person running for the highest office in the land, the United States presidency, must know where to step and be very careful with the people he or she associates with.

Particularly, places that patronized only one type of race, have bad vibrations surrounding them, and going close to them will always be misconstrued as being a mistake.

The worst thing for any politician is to have the race issue directed at him or her. Everyone is prejudiced against the persons finding themselves in a situation, where they are targeted with racial connections in any negative way.

That is what seems to be happening in Gov. Rick Perry's campaign, for leasing a place that has, or had, an undertone name involving race. It will be a bit of sad news for him and his family, that it has been discovered that they have rented, or even spent time in a spot under such a derogatory name.

From everybody's perspective, it will be characteristic to rent a place and knowing its title before hand; and the title must not be "Niggerhead," or whatever answer that results from it will be taken with a grain of salt.

Presently, the reaction has been "subdued - even from the White House," and not many of Perry's own co-contestants in the Republican Party presidential nomination contest are making detailed remarks about the controversy.

Except businessman Herman Cain, who previously assailed the connection between his rival and the name, as it implies, as being negative and insensitive on Perry's part. He Cain is also running for the Republican nod for the presidency.

However, later on he "dialed back his earlier criticism of Perry.", according to reports. "I really don't care about that word. They painted over it," Cain had said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney also has said, “All I would say is the name is clearly offensive,”

Others like Rep. Ron Paul, who is also a candidate for the party's nomination, comments that there are better thing to discuss, and left it at that. Just as well as CNN Contributor Donna Brazile, who preferred to make a similar comment, that more important issues are at stake.

" "Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, told Time Magazine he found the situation “very troubling on some many levels, for so many reasons.” " (CNN report), which makes the situation rather very serious.

Yet, it is Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, who really takes Gov. Perry to task, by saying, “Mr. Perry should immediately fully explain how his family rented from a place named after such an obvious racist term or he should withdrawal from the race." (Washington Post).

In other words, the Texas Governor has assented to the nasty name before renting the property bearing it; and it must therefore be agreeable that he and his family had done it not mistakenly, but rather on purpose.

Last but not least is a GOP strategist Alex Castellanos, who is suggesting that, "Perry's ties to the property may become a political millstone around his neck, should he win the nomination and face off against the nation's first African- American president."

It may seem that the Governor is in hot water, to say the least; but to many Americans, nothing sinister, as dropping out, must happen to him, until further claims have come from other people asserting that he has demonstrated in the past, in any way, shape or form, that he has any type of racist feelings.

Renting a place alone cannot brand a person as such and such; yet, if the governor has any unsavory inclinations toward another race, they will, in some fashion or form, come out during the campaign.

However, that does not mean people are supposed to hold off Rev. Sharpton and others, who are interested in knowing all the facts about the Texas Governor's renting or leasing habits before it is too late.

THE "SOFT" OF AMERICA.

It was a fact that America has become a little settled back into a comfort zone in recent years than it was seen only a few decades gone by.

The toughness of its people was draining out, but the strength to sum up courage and triumph over adversity was still showing, for example, in tackling Islamic jihad-ism around the world.

September 11th, 2001 attacks on Washington D.C. and New York City, had stemmed from the idea that America was becoming weak and more inward looking, since the end of World War 2.

Terrorism has engulfed Europe, such as the Madrid train bombing that killed several travellers, the Bali terrorist attacks in 2002 and 2005; the cause of those acts (terrorism) was from religious fanaticism, which was loose in European cities and towns, as well as in other parts of the world.

It would reach the United States in 2001, and although the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was a precursor of global terror, America kept its head down in the sand, until the 2001 attacks.

Then it sprang into action to deal with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and also with the attackers, whose base was in Afghanistan, and led by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terror network. However, that was just beside the point.

On economic side, the outsourcing of manufacturing goods, such as cars and computer technology, to the far east, was sifting power to places like China and India, and thus weakening the home economy and giving way to high unemployment levels, which America was not used to; and so, they warranted commentary.

President Barack Obama's comment of a "great country that had gotten a little soft," was deliberate, and it was to incite to get America up and moving again, in terms of economic innovation and engineering inventiveness.

Those were awesome features that placed it (America) ahead in the world, as the leader in trade and commerce. Where did all that go?

The largest world economy, was in near recession, and it was yielding to lesser economies; or all its prowess seemed to be disappearing to far away countries in recent years, and extending over four or five decades ago, of course.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/30/obama-calls-america-soft-offers-to-whip-nation-into-shape/#ixzz1ZiGLQVSP

What attracted many people to the U.S. were its culture in music, especially jazz, religion and education; but the shadows or skeletal remains or traces of those prominent qualities seemed to be prevailing nowadays.

That depleting sentiment was expressed in disgust by those, who have emigrated to the country between 1946 and 1972. They were seeing it in a different frame; that America has drastically changed, from being resilient to being mediocrity-in-progress.

Apart from its racist impediments for blacks, America was a good country to settle in. The civil rights movement and its result brought people to respect Americans, that things could change for the better, racially; to enable all manner of people to come here, irrespective of their social, political and economic backgrounds; plus color or creed could not distract any persons from becoming contributing citizens.

However, it seemed that all of the true Americans were gone, except perhaps Andy Rooney and Morley Safer; and the country was becoming barren with the ingenuity of old. The present day citizen was a fluke example of those that have built its enormous power, which was enviable by all nations across the world.

Politically, there were those, who would put partisan or party loyalty before anything else; and would make it extraordinarily impossible for laws that would help a strained economy to be put back on track. Such as the "America Jobs Act" by President Obama.

The only target for them was to dislodge the first African American president from office. They were too inward looking, as in Jim Crow days; and too busy in vilifying a black person, because he has risen to the highest political status in the nation.

If that did not demonstrate a kind of softness in their character toward others, then what did? Going back to measuring people by the color of their skin should be a thing of the past.

Yet, working hard to bring peace and harmony, and to push an economy in a ditch out, for others to find work and to achieve a dignified living for themselves and their families; should not be stopped by any one, in any way, shape or form.

To many, that was the "soft" President Obama was commenting on. It was a character flaw in many present day Americans, which needed commenting on.

ANWAR AL-AWLAKI'S DEATH.

If "once a citizen, always a citizen" is the case, then the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki raises the question whether the U.S. Government has any authority to kill the said "major figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula", because he is still an American and under the protection of the nation's Constitution.

However, al-Awlaki abandoned the United States many years ago, and became the leader of a terror organization, whose aim was to destroy America; he chose to hate the nation in which he was born; and to become its enemy.

Many American lives have been threatened on his advice, to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused of the Christmas Day bomb attack, which fortunately failed; and to Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, who killed twelve U.S. soldiers a civilian.

He was still training al Qaeda operatives in Yemen to initiate more terror attacks on his country of birth; and sought to use WOMADs (Weapons of mass destruction) to attack Westerners on foreign soil, most definitely being Americans visiting his newly acquired country of citizenship, Yemen; and across the Arabian Peninsula, according to senior U.S.officials.

He was an enemy combatant to the U.S. in every respect, and he has to be dealt with to stop him from doing more damage; but how?

He could not be found and be placed under arrest for him to have a fair trial, in view of his status as an American citizen, and therefore protected by U.S law(Constitution); and his situation was a bastard case for the U.S. Government.

So, just yesterday, it was reported that a CIA drone had hit a target of al Queda members, who were sworn enemies to the U.S., and al Awlaki was one of the dead.

Now, some people are saying that the killing of an American citizen is illegal, because he must be tried in a court of law and be found guilty before any type of sentence can be passed on him; and again, but how?

If U.S. authorities can lay hands on him, then that will be justifiable for his arrest and eventual trial; but his status has changed from being a free man to that of a fugitive. He is a danger to more Americans passing his way; and therefore, he cannot be allowed to run amok and continue in that mode.

So, his life has to be brought to an abrupt end to save lives. He was a criminal, whose intention was to be part of a terrorist organization, which would not spare a single moment to destroy the United States.

Should he have been permitted to carry on? Not many people would think so.

The liberals, who were admonishing the U.S. for taking al-Awlaki out were wrong for one sole reason, that he had abandoned his native land, and therefore, he had voluntarily relinquished his citizenship as an American.

In view of that, he met his death his own way or of his own choice; and that was to be an enemy fighting in a terror war against the U.S.; and so it (U.S.) had the right, under the law, to defend itself.

Anwar al Awlaki's death was his own making. His ending was, therefore, legal; in every sense of the word.