GINGRICH vs ROMNEY.

If there is confusion in a political party, one can smell it from a mile away, and to say that the final outcome or the decision of the participants, who can be classified as the hierarchy in the party to settle disputes, will be seriously and unimaginably flawed will be an understatement.

The decision will be faulty to such an extent that anyone they will choose to represent the party will not be able to withstand or survive the scrutiny that is waiting on the outside to test him or her as the winner of the decision stemming from that kind of confusion.

It (decision) will not be fair even to the persons, who are embroiled in the controversy that is causing the confusion; because their own consciences will prove them guilty for accepting the final result.

In the Republican Party nomination race to find a fitting candidate to challenge President Barack Obama, the depth of the insinuations between the two leading contestants has never been as diabolical as could ever be in the history of America.

The confusion in the party has become enigmatic, whether the party establishment wants a conservative or someone who can win the forthcoming 2012 general election, despite his political views. That seems to be at the root of that confusion.

However, with that aside, let us just take the two leading candidates and listen to what they are insinuating against each other, and make, not a judgment, but only a simple comparison.

Gingrich has been saying all along that Romney could not be the nominee. He has constantly called him a liar and a dishonest person, and that all his dealings in life have been nothing but unethical. (paraphrasing, of course).

He even has said that in the debates that they were standing next to each other, he found his rival to be despicable. He was horrified by his (rival's) responses to most of the questions being asked; whether they were about his person or in relation to his business involvements.

Romney, on the other hand, has been equally nasty in saying that Gingrich was the first Speaker of the United States House of Representatives to be terminated in disgrace.

"He was fired by his own people in Congress," Romney would say of Gingrich as being disowned by the majority of members of the House, who were also Republicans; and adding that he, Gingrich, was a charlatan and a hypocrite. Also that he was just a high profile influence peddler and a Freddie Mac lobbyist, and thus connecting him to the failed Mortgage and Housing crisis in America today.

Foreclosures by Freddie Mac and its sister company Fannie Mae, both of which were U.S. government sponsored enterprises, ran into millions; and so causing so many families to find themselves "under water", and even in some cases, becoming homeless.

Those sitting on the outside were the voters, looking in and listening; and their final say was what mattered most; yet, the question was that, out of the two front runners in the Republican race presently fighting it out to win the Florida primary this very day, which of them would be considered as "suitable"?

In all honesty, the answer would be, "NONE". They have engaged and battered themselves with so much gruesome accusations that went beyond the pale.

Nevertheless, they (voters) should not take what the two people have said about themselves as being mere rhetoric. Their remarks, as said before, went deeper than that, as they touched on the character of each person; and that became very important, because whoever was the winner, could go on to win his party's nomination and probably become the president of the U.S. (Good grief).

In other words, the end product in the process was what would determine the country's future; however, both men have pointed to each other as being inadequate, to say the least; and so, what should the voters be concerned with in a case like that?

No one would dare advise them on, or to stop them from, exercising their Constitutional right. To tell them to refrain from casting their vote under any circumstance would be illegal; but that they should do so with so much caution that, if they voted for the "wrong" candidate, they could make matters worse.

The candidates themselves have egregiously described each other as much as they possibly could, and therefore the choice would be a difficult one; and so, they (voters) must have their own lives in mind, in relation to what the future held for them and their families, four years from now and beyond before the acted.

However, the real problem was that huge amounts of money have been spent on both sides to get the people of Florida to ignore the only thing that they had working on their side, to enable them to overcome all the obstacles being strewn before them; something so natural, which was always there to help them in making the right decision, even while in the polling booth.

If they did (ignore it), they would not have been a disappointment to themselves only, but to the nation as a whole; and that was each other person's own, true and individual conscience.

Putting it another way, that if they, the Republican voters, voting in the Florida primary at this particular moment, would obey their God given consciences, they would have won the day, in spite of what the consequence would be.

Over to you, Florida.

Footnote:
Forget about the money. It could also come with nothing, but shame, in the long run.

VANESSA LOOKING JUST INCREDIBLY GREAT.

Many people laughed in derision, when actress Vanessa Hudgens "suffered a major wardrobe malfunction when her bikini top suddenly popped undone." said the footnote that came with her picture in ABC News.

The subtitle was even funnier, "Vanessa Hudgens' Bikini Oops,"

The picture was on the ABC News homepage (01/28/12), among high profile and national figures, like President Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan and Gov. Chris Christie, who were all talking serious politics.

For example, the president was urging the United States Congress "to act on his proposals to stem the “corrosive influence of money in politics,” and to give judicial and public service nominations “up-or-down” votes." (ABC News).

That had the heading, Obama: "We Weren't Sent Here to Wage Perpetual Political Campaigns.", or another semi-headline that said, "GOP Establishment Mobilizes Against Newt Gingrich.", which had so many of the Republican Party hierarchy establishment bearing down on his (Gingrich's) campaign.

He, Gingrich, was losing ground in the Florida primary polls, "which is in part because of an anti-Gingrich avalanche raining down from members of his own party." ABC News.

Serious topics, weren't they?

Then, as suddenly as it could ever be, a teeny-weeny "pic" of Vanessa appeared on the page, in the corner of the eye; and you would have missed it, if you were not very careful, a very young lady looking excruciatingly beautiful in a colorful bikini.

Somehow, the two diametrically different topics, of politicians dealing with important national issues, and the one of an actress having a good time in the white sands on the beach in Hawaii, made the page itself to be so picturesque, and above all, extremely hilarious.

At first, the picture was very small, but it became enlarged, when you hovered your computer mouse over it.....and WOW; what a picture?

I for one could not take my eyes off Vanessa, who was unbelievably stunning, and looking just like a real mermaid out of the ocean blue. It made me, for one moment or two, or three, forgot about my worries, which were many. Yet, I couldn't care less about them worries for quite a long, long time. I was just gazing at her, completely mesmerized.

I was saying to myself, that the politicians could be hauling bombs and fire at each other; I was taking time off to enjoy my emotions with the picture of this young, gorgeous actress of 23 years of age. (...and I am 77; funny, isn't it?).

Her silhouetting hair blowing in the Hawaiian breeze in the photo-shot, and her truly angelic figure, physically, came out; No, literally jumped off the page to meet the eye of anyone that had the pleasure of seeing her, though on an abstract computer screen, it was almost lifelike; like meeting her in person, face to face.

In all honesty, her looks were just incredibly great; or should the word be "magnificent"?.

I could not wait to see her on a 3D theater movie screen; one of these days.

She made all the politicians on the page to resemble grumpy old men (except, of course, the president).

Boy, what an experience.

You are awesome, Vanessa!

P.S. The original picture has been around, since January, 25th, 2012; but it appeared on the Internet on 01/28/12.

FLORIDA VOTERS, THE CHOICE IS YOURS.

The reason why many Republicans, particularly the conservative type, are rooting for Romney to be their party's nominee and wrestle the presidency from President Barack Obama is that they think his riches will influence voters.

He is a Wall Street tycoon, who in that sense will be a good financial expert of some sorts. He can manage the present economy better and reduce the high unemployment rate. Compared to Obama, who has no business background, Romney will attract corporations and investment companies.

Their help is needed to revive the overall economy and put it back on track, as a double recession that many economists are forecasting for the years ahead can be avoided.

Between the two people, Gingrich and Romney, who are running in the Republican Party nomination race, Gingrich is the real conservative, as his views on social issues are more in line with the party's policies than those of Romney.

He, Romney, is considered to be a marginal conservative, when it comes to abortion or homosexual marriage. He has flip flopped on those issues several times over; and people still do not know where his stance is on either or both.

The Right (right wing of the party) has been causing so much damage to the Gingrich campaign in recent weeks, so much so that, Sarah Palin, the erstwhile Vice-presidential candidate on the ticket with Senator John McCain in the 2008 election, has decided to come to his aid.

She thinks that "Gingrich is getting a raw deal from the national media and conservative elite, the very same forces who conspired against her when she was on the national ticket." (Politico, 01/28/12).

Her comment about Peggy Noonan, a conservative writer, is very scathing as she, Noonan, calls Gingrich an “angry little attack muffin.” and that is "hypocritical" on her part; Palin asserts.

Though, she has no official part in Gingrich's campaign, she is being vociferous of what the media is doing to inflict irreparable damage to that effort; and she accuses the conservative establishment of being cruel by saying of Gingrich that,

“They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years.
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72096.html#ixzz1kkrFucoL)

However, many cannot agree with her more that Gingrich is far more a better candidate than Romney, especially, when it has been noted that Romney is bereft of being completely honest, where money is concerned.

His connection with Cayman Islands leaves much to be desired of a person, who wants to be president of the United States. His financial holdings there disqualifies him straight away.

Coupled with that, there are rumors of a huge Swiss account belonging to him, which very little or nothing is known about.

“We're not going to beat Barack Obama with someone who owns Swiss bank accounts," says Gingrich.

Also, "Mitt Romney set up shell companies in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda to avoid U.S. taxes." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x812254)

All those factors complicate matters for voters, who are caught between which of the two men must be trusted in the Florida primary next Tuesday, and they are looking for a tie breaker of some kind to be able to decide.

At the minimum, Gingrich has his marital problems to grapple with, as some say he is morally insecure; and Romney has his tax returns' measly rate of 15%, out of the millions of dollars he has made only last year as income, to prove his patriotism.

You be the judge.

IS GINGRICH THE SMARTEST...?

It seemed that the rest of the candidates left in the Republican Party nomination race for the 2012 presidential election have been learning about their rival Newt Gingrich along the way, and so, they handled him differently in yesterday's debate.

As such, he had mellowed a little bit from the other debates that have placed him in the forefront in Iowa and South Carolina. He has also shortened his phrases in answering questions from his rivals; a communication skill that usually left an opponent in confusion.

He would stay at length in responding to a question from the moderator and then expand his explanation, when there was the slightest chance to interject.

In other words, he would do so in between a statement coming from whomever had the floor at that particular moment, and perplexity would set in for that person.

The altercation about English being the official language was an example of that, when Mitt Romney turned and asked him about the "ghetto" comment, as basically meaning that other languages being inferior. He had corrected Romney, and said that his statement has been taken out of context, and added that every person should learn the English language to be able to advance in life in the United States.

He had the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, agreeing with him, and then returning to Romney with the same question. Romney then came out and defended his stance on the issue more effectively and came up on top. (He might have seen the trick).

The exchange there was more lively than ever, making the debate to be one of the best.

That was, and still is, vintage Newt Gingrich. He could make one to struggle with a question, when he had sufficiently responded to it himself. His opponent would then be repeating what he Gingrich had just said; and that would make the opponent's answer a complete tautology.

Politicians come and politicians go, but Gingrich has a style of his own that no one can ever match.

He should have been president a long time ago, during the Clinton impeachment days; but nobody understood why he did not seize that moment. He was Speaker of the House of Representatives then, and his position would have expedited the opportunity for him to have stepped in before the outcome of it (impeachment).

Yesterday's debate found his rivals speaking out more than he; and even about Romney's finances, when Santorum took over and got Romney cornered; and with him finally ending up by saying "I'm not going to apologize," for doing well with his investments.

However, Paul knew him (Gingrich) pretty well, and so he has not been grappling with him all that much in all the debates. He knew that Gingrich always wanted to win; and he had won most of the time.

The others were beginning to realize that fact. Yet, it might be true that, Santorum and Paul were "re-learning" Gingrich; but why? They knew him before, and so they shouldn't have.

The simple fact that the other three, who were "re-studying" Gingrich and knowing or remembering his ways, would be able to handle him sufficiently now, was more important; and that would make the rest of the Republican race more interesting.

The people in Florida have got a tug-of-war on their hands, as who the winner of the primary should be; and they would not, under any circumstance, want to choose a loser to face off with Obama. However, as the situation stood presently, the fight was between Gingrich and Romney, and so the voters would have a real hard time in choosing.

One would say that Santorum and Paul have known Gingrich over the years, and there was no need to re-study him; and so, they have made him slip through their fingers. They should have attacked him more, right from the start, instead of raining most of their attacks on Romney.

People were compelled to ask the question; is Gingrich the smartest politician in America, not today or yesterday, but period? You be the judge.

VOTING IN A WHOLESALE FASHION.

One would say that things were heating up between Gingrich and Romney, the two Republican Party presidential candidates, as the Florida primary got underway a week or so from now.

That would be an understatement; for they (things) were simmering, as the candidates were gearing themselves up to salvage all the votes they could get to win the primary, and then went on to have the Republican nod.

The person succeeding in doing so, would then become the challenger to President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

The polls there were showing different percentage points between Gingrich and Romney, and despite which poll one looked at, they were all too close to call.

Yet, there seemed to be that the two camps, particularly, had one thing in common, and that was to win the Hispanic vote. To have a lion's share of it was what they were both aiming to do. Santorum and Paul seemed to be mere participants or just hangers-on, in that respect.

The question arose, however, whether Americans should be voting along ethnic lines, and for that matter, a particular social group should be voting in a wholesale fashion, one way or the other, based on ethnicity or ethnic affiliation.

Politics, in general, happened to be a great divider, as parties should have a clear watershed between their policies to ensure their differences, so as to be able to attract an organized following; and though there might be some people who would address themselves as being moderates, and would not choose to wholly belong or accept specific ideologies, but they would have some sympathy for this or that party. In some way, they always had a hard time in selecting the party to vicariously follow.

However, getting voters to think on racial or ethnic lines was more than divisive for a country that called itself United; it was destructive, to say the least.

One person might be the right choice in a political contest, in terms of his or her demographic background, but because of his or her race or ethnicity, he or she would not have the majority of people voting for him or her. The least favorite or the wrong choice would be made; and if that was not troubling, then nothing should be.

That was what the Florida primary seemed to be headed; and that was to get Hispanics to vote for the choice of the group, instead of making up their own minds in regards to whom they thought was more or better qualified.

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary were different in the way that the candidates campaigned. In other words, in those states, they presented themselves without anything being said about their race or historical connections; for example, that Santorum had Italian lineage or Romney had Spanish cousins.

They might have mentioned that themselves, but that was not going to have any influence on the outcome of the voting. Or even, if it did, it was not going to be as clear cut as what the Florida primary was purporting or turning out to be; Hispanics on one side and other people on the other.

One thing that Romney said that made a great deal of sense was that, if he became president, he would have Fidel Castro "removed from this planet,"

That caught the attention of many people that, with Communism gone from Cuba, the people there would be very fortunate to have relations with the United States, that would transform the political fervor in that country; and many Cubans would have the opportunity to go back home or to their native land.

Gingrich could also be many voters' preference, because he had said that deporting people, who have been living illegally in the U.S. for many years, was not a good idea. In his view, that policy was doing nothing, but breaking up families. That was not what it (policy) should be designed to do.

That meant that, if he became president, he would have a policy to approach the issue in a relatively humanitarian way; and if that did not win him votes in Florida, nothing else would.

Coming back to the Florida primary itself, the people should be allowed to research the policies and ideologies of the candidates, which would be the factors upon how they should cast their votes; rather than shoving them as sheep into a barn.

It was true that parties were set up to show their differences, for people to have a chance to express themselves or to associate with whomever they preferred; and canvassing on racial or ethnic inclination, though it was improper, it would seem unfair to set it aside, as some people would like that to be their preference. That was referred to as freedom of choice; and it could not be ruled out.

Nevertheless, America would be better off without racism and other divisive influences, whether they were of ethnic or tribal persuasion.

Probably, conscience, instead of conscious, vote should be what America needed most.

THE INHERITANCE OF A DEAD UNCLE.

President Barack Obama's case is one of a simple theory. It is like inheriting a great uncle, who leaves you with a business company of any kind; and before you can do anything with or to it, the outstanding loan(s) must be paid off.

So that, if the value of the business is $100,000 and the loan is $50,000, you have to borrow the second amount to cover it (loan). The first amount is only the equity in the company.

Add that to the running cost of the business, which also has to be borrowed, and you will have a fiscal burden on your hands. You will automatically have a financial hurdle in front of you to surmount; and until that is done, you will not be able to make any cash profit out of the business.

Meanwhile, what do you yourself live on? On borrowed money, naturally.

That is a snapshot of Obama's problems. Since he assumed the office of the presidency of the United States, his work has been cut out for him; and even his situation was worse, because the employees that came with the company, (and that would be the U.S. Congress, in his case), would not lend a helping hand.

They were a "do nothing" bunch; but they have to be paid anyway, because the law demanded it to be so.

The eight or so Trillion dollars that the country had in debt, would have to go up to $15 Trillion dollars, as it presently stood; as spending from borrowed money should continue, or else the U.S. Government would come to a screeching halt.

The president's speech last night did not hinge on the country's fiscal plight; and he did not even mention it, as that would have complicated matters for a whole lot of people.

However, he used the occasion to simplify the overall situation, and went on to say that, if America would use its ingenuity and innovation of old to aid itself, it would remain the economic power that it has always been.

Yet, it (America) was not; for the simple reason that it has all that debt, $15 Trillion dollars of it, hanging over its economy.

The only way to return to that power would be for the outsourcing of investment capital and the creative inventiveness to stop. Those qualities must be brought back home to rebuild America. In other words, the expertise in invention and creativity were within its ordinary people, who have built the magnificent Hoover Dam.

Though, he did not mention the Empire State Building, which was (and still is) an awesome engineering feat; or the computer or the Internet, all being American ideas, through to the ideal iPhone.

He praised the U.S. Armed Forces for maintaining peace around the world; their work was never finished, as they persisted in their effort to make it (world) a better place.

The working men and women were also mentioned, calling them "the middle class", who needed to be rewarded. "Equal work for equal pay," he had said.

His insistence on the wealthy paying their fair share in taxes was not to start a class warfare; but to state that taxes must be shared equally by those, whose investments distinguished them as job creators, and those who labor day and night to support the American way of life.

He indicated that the use of taxes were too numerous to compile; as they formed part of the revenue that was necessary to have, in order to run the country and its affairs effectively and efficiently.

Therefore, each and everyone must proportionately make his or her contribution to the resources that went to make America the attraction of tourists from all over the world.

His eyes were even on clean air and water; and good food for both inhabitants as well as those who came here to visit. Healthy conditions that made America and its people strong did not escape his thoughts.

When it came to the American society, there was no class distinction here; all were one, and so all must work together to achieve the same goals that each person wanted for his or her own family.

A comprehensive immigration law that would make the legal entry into the country to be respected, would be initiated; and border protection got mentioned, to keep the borders safe from drug dealers and terrorists; and from illegal aliens, of course.

To many people, the president's State of the Union address covered all the priorities that required to be covered; including America's dependence on oil, which should be curbed, by opening up our shores for energy exploration, with the development of clean (green) energies of solar and wind, in tow.

In fact, nothing was overlooked, that brought the nation together as one single entity; One Nation.....

That went to demonstrate true leadership, on his part, for America and its future, which should be of more concern to Congress this year, to put the bickering and uncompromising attitude aside, and to allow lawmakers to perform their duty as expected by all citizens; and that was to legislate the laws for making this a great nation as it should be.

With an election year to boot, the U.S. should do well in all spheres of life; politically, economically and socially, if the American people would all cooperate with President Barack Obama.

A first class speech, Mr. President.

A COSTLY JOKE.

If Romney stays aloof, then he is in trouble; as Gingrich will cajole him into thinking that the whole scenario of fighting to get to be the leader of the Free World is merely a joke.

He (Gingrich) will make him feel at ease and underestimate the situation; but behind the scenes, he will be researching his rival for his weaknesses; because that is what his (Gingrich's) "modus operandi" is.

He will dig out facts about an opponent, and then unleash such vituperations to accompany them, which are designed to demoralize him or her (opponent).

That was exactly the methodology that Mitt Romney used in his debate against his rival, Newt Gingrich, in Tampa FL., yesterday, who by his sheer brutal performance in the South Carolina debate, left Romney squirming and thus making him to decide to release his tax returns.

In the polls in Florida, where the battle has moved to, Gingrich was leading Romney by eight percentage points, quoted from an Insider Advantage poll. However, the stage was now set for Romney to gain back his momentum that he had from winning the New Hampshire primary a short while ago.

He was being aggressive in saying that, Gingrich was a loser in maintaining strong leadership, which was a vital assessment under the present circumstances, of which of the two men could lead the country out of the economic quagmire that it was in.

"The speaker was given the opportunity to be the leader of our party in 1994, and at the end of four years, he had to resign in disgrace," Romney said. (Reuters, 01/24/12).

He touched on Gingrich's ethics troubles in the United States Congress, and his lobbying jobs, as a lobbyist for several health care companies. His association with "Freddie Mac", the giant government establishment that has wasted so much of the tax payers' money over so many years; and all were minuses for Gingrich.

He wanted to condemn Gingrich of being a tyrant for no good reason, but for fame and fortune; and for the big fat belly that he carried, from those contracts he reeled in at the expense of the American public; and almost calling his political career a travesty. His professional connections to high level companies proved that point too.

Before that, Romney had under pressure (by Gingrich, as said) released two years' tax returns that "...showed he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $42.5 million in income for 2010 and 2011." (Reuters, 01/24/12).

The numbers being accurate, but the tax rates in relation to his tax burden were sketchy, as both of which fell below the 15% rate that he had previously told his audience in the SC debate.

Gingrich, under pressure from Romney, also reported a source of income of $300,000 to the Gingrich Group, paid under contract by Freddie Mac; making the focus to be on the incomes of the two men, to demonstrate whether they were truthful in their public life, when it came to the question of money earned.

Yet, Romney's real aim in Tampa, was to make people see that he could just be as peevish and waspish as Gingrich; and that the news media, particularly, should take note of that, as their reports after the SC debate, have made him (Romney) to look like he has already accepted defeat from Gingrich.

That his campaign to be the person, who would square off with President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, was on the slopes.

He appeared to be saying that he was not going to concede to Gingrich, who was now considered to be the Republican Party front runner to challenge Obama, to the chagrin of many party leaders that thought Romney should be their candidate.

He must face it, that Gingrich was a shrewd operator, and he has to come out swinging to regain his popularity in Florida.

A series of debates have been scheduled for the Republican candidates, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum and Paul; one on Thursday, in which he, Romney, should do well. Or his ambition to be Obama's opponent would be over.

OBAMA & GINGRICH REVEALED.

It was a good lesson for American voters to see Newt Gingrich ratcheting up his effort to win the Republican Party nomination race with a strong lead in a memorable debate performance.

Just a day or so before the event, Mitt Romney was the candidate that the majority of the people were rooting for; with the support of the news media, of course; yes, the media.

Gingrich knew that a South Carolina primary winning would be a death knell to end the campaigns of one or two of his rivals in the race, and that would be another "notch in his belt" in his long political career.

Engaging his opponents in a debate that would squirm his closest antagonist was what he adroitly managed to get, by using a journalist, who in his stupidity would ask a personal and an annoying question at the very beginning of a debate; nonchalantly, be it a presidential one. What was he (journalist) thinking?

It (question) brought the juices out of Gingrich to rub that journalist's face in the dirt to make his audience really see what he, Gingrich, was made of; of sterner stuff.

That was the Gingrich of old, who was the Speaker of the United States House of Representative in the 90s, and has brutalized his own mates to get his way in almost every argument.

Therefore, those who knew him were not at all surprised to see him go at John King, the CNN moderator. However, on this occasion, it was not the moderator of the SC debate that he wanted to smack down, particularly. His target was not even President Barack Obama at the time, but one of his own party associates, Mitt Romney.

Mind you, his attacks on Romney at the debate was for starters. He was saving him for last, when he was sure that he, Gingrich, would be the Republican nominee. He would then annihilate him to regret that he, Romney, ever became a politician from Wall Street. He would make him swear that he did not have any business in politics.

Yet, the former Speaker's speech after the SC win was even more interesting, and that was when he made mention of Obama. He was expressing his future view of America, and compared him (Obama) to Jimmy Carter; that Carter was even a stronger leader than Obama.

His message was that, by virtue of working with his mentor, Ronald Reagan, he was stronger than the two Democrats, Obama and Carter; or at least that was what he had his followers to believe.

He would be the fighting force that his party and the country needed, to get the sluggish economy moving again and bring the high unemployment rate down.

"I have balanced the budget four times before; and I will do it again", he said.

What made his speech more insightful was that he painted a picture of an earlier age for America, in which there were very few trade laws or regulations to restrict corporate greed; and vilifying the Obama administration with having too many regulatory laws the business world was not so happy about.

He would get rid of them.

On the one hand, while Obama saw those regulations to be necessary for work ethic and honesty on Wall Street, as in his opinion, the poor became poorer, while the rich became richer without them (regulations), Gingrich, on the other hand, thought that they were destructive.

Gingrich has also used the Keystone Oil pipeline, which Obama has placed on the back burner, as his backdrop; accusing Obama for making Canada to look elsewhere for a partnership. His audience applauded him; however, the truth was that Obama's view of the U.S. was more modern and different.

It was one in which America would become completely independent of foreign oil, with clean energies of all kinds at play, such as solar, wind and unwanted vegetation to generate power.

Gingrich has mentioned China of building bridges with Canada to develop the Canadian sands oil project, which Obama has rejected; though, not completely. Nevertheless, people, who knew what China's plans were, acknowledged that it (China) was developing the same solar, wind and renewable resources, just as Obama was envisaging for the U.S.; but why?

If Obama should drop his idea, China would be the giant supplier of all forms of energy, when fossil source or base, like coal and crude oil, became obsolete. America would then be the cropper at some future date, looking to a Communist nation for energy to run its industries.

Now, if Americans would compare the two future views; Obama's and that of Gingrich, they would obviously choose the one that Obama was proposing. They would see that the one by Gingrich belonged to the past. The status quo of America importing oil from unfriendly countries would continue indefinitely. That would reveal the true dinosaur that he, Gingrich, was.

In other words, he has said in his speech that his campaign was for what America should be, but he was forgetting that his plan was already antiquated.

The example being that, coal was used to fuel the Industrial Revolution, from which many of the innovations in the modern world had emanated.

Today, coal has very little use; and so could crude oil, when better and clean energy sources became available; meaning, solar, wind and unwanted vegetation to generate power could become common. Natural gas would be part of that group as well. Oil would then lose its domination, in regard to propelling world industries, as it now did.

Of course, America wants to be rich in oil production, as the Keystone XL oil project may be attractive and viable to have, but when there may be plentiful of clean resources (solar, wind and natural gas), what would it benefit the U.S. to have Canada creating eyesores of pumping stations across its beautiful landscape, from the wilderness and northern plains of the State of Nebraska to the Lone Star State in the opulent south of the country?

With that in mind, there would be a choice for Americans in the 2012 general election, whether they should retain the old ways, or they should opt for a future that has various energy sources; and one that has promise and equal opportunity for all people, no matter what their backgrounds.

It would be Gingrich's view, if he happened to be the Republican nominee; or that of Obama, which was designed to target a better future and prosperity for America. That (future) would be assured, if Americans were to make sure that the country was ready to be independent of foreign oil, by developing its own renewable resources, which would be a far more better idea.

America would be ready for all eventualities in the foreseeable future, when Iran or anyone else would threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz, or such.

When that should happen, the oil flow would stop; but America would have its own resources of energy to fall back on. It would not be like in the past, when the U.S. economy and those of many other nations had to suffer, because of one nation's diabolical action to starve the rest of the world of crude oil.

Obama's world view or that of Gingrich; you must decide for yourself.

MS. ETTA JAMES.

I read about Etta James this morning, and I was fascinated by her bullish kind of talk, as if there was nothing in front of her, when she was to say something.

In other words, she couldn't care less, who was listening or whether they would be hurt not; she would just blare it out (or even blurt it out) anyway, but she would not suffer the consequences, like "I have said it; take it or leave it," kind of attitude attached to it.

Her death has been a shocker, since she was able to leave a hospital only a few short days ago as being declared well, and then, all of sudden, the news came out another day or so after that, that she has passed away.

Many people, like myself, did not know her personally, but they were connected with her through her songs, which always had a "blue-ish" fervor with Southern black (these days, African American) tenure of voice to them.

She captured in her singing the feelings of her own life, from being brought up without conventional parenting. Her mother was not always there, and an "unknown" father, which she thought was the famous pool player Minnesota Fats, was also absent.

Her song "At Last", or her version of it, topped all the others, except that of Glen Miller, which was all brassy instrumental; and it almost paired with that of Aretha Franklin, but her's was slightly different, particularly, with the exceptional voice that she had.

Her life was completely immersed in the "Old Time Religion" gospel songs genre; the style of singing, which did not leave any one that went to church where "spirituals" were sung, humming those songs the day after, all day long.

Her health problems aside, she was a genius, who was not really known as one, but she was still one, inspiring people with nothing and only her booming and spectacular voice.

It was really sad to hear her go; and that her whole existence has meant a great deal to many of those, who danced to her songs at weddings, and a lot more that just heard her records all over the world.

Her name "Miss Peaches" personified her skin tone and made her to stand out as being beautiful and oh! so special.

Her passing has been sorrowful. She was a great singer, and she would be missed by all music lovers, now and forever.

Footnote: I cried, when Eartha Kitt died.

GINGRICH GAINING THE UPPER HAND.

Prospective South Carolina Republican voters in Saturday's primary, saw fire coming out of the belly of Gingrich, who now seemed to be the front runner in the Republican Party nomination race to find a fitting candidate to square off with President Barack Obama in the forthcoming 2012 presidential election.

The year's November month is still far out in the future, but Gingrich has found a way to start it well with his political campaign, and people are speculating that if he continues in that mode, he will inevitably be the person for his party's choice.

Thursday's CNN debate with Romney, Santorum and Paul, all formidable rivals in the race, proved Gingrich beyond all reasonable doubt to be ready for any eventuality in the fight for the White House.

The Democratic Party and Obama are poised to retain it (White House), and will probably reclaim the United States House of Representative while at it, but the forcefulness of Gingrich, which has become an unexpected factor on the campaign trail, must be seriously looked at and be paid attention to before it goes any father.

He is using all his arsenal, political experience, intellectual, coupled with academia savvy and pure human metabolism to keep up and out maneuver his challengers on the platform in every single debate.

His style somehow has been unmatched by Romney or Santorum or Paul, from the way he faces his questions head on and gives forthright responses to them; and that has made him the darling of the live audiences at the debates and those watching him on television.

Throughout the debates, whether the question is about his connection with the giant housing Freddie Mac, through to the one about his ex-wife, designed to take his attention off his routine, he is always being candid and will not mince his words in his answers.

His opponent, Romney, would like to dodge questions about his tax returns and dilly dally around the health care law he has passed, while he was governor of Massachusetts, Gingrich would not do such a thing. He would come out and make his presence felt.

Why? Because he wants to prove that he has nothing to hide, and that his life is an open book for the media and anyone else; though he may have some parts of it (life) that are unsavoury, he will be willing to discuss them without reservation.

That is what people are looking for, to be candid and straight forward, when one is confronted with even nasty questions and the way one reacts to them.

Gingrich has done it all to almost perfection, but should he were to win his party's nomination, would he be able to continue in the way he was going?

Obama, as sitting president, would have all the facts at his finger tips; whether it was foreign policy, the economy or immigration, he would have the correct responses waiting to counteract any criticisms of whoever his challenger would be.

His party was also doing its part to get rid of the "tea party" element in the House of Representatives that presented gridlocks and road blocks to the party's policies that could not materialize in the last session of the U.S. Congress.

Democrats did not want the repeat of what Congress became like; dysfunctional and uncompromising attitudes that pervaded the lawmaking body and divided opinions that almost brought the country to a standstill.

The debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks failed, leading to the failure of the "Super Committee", which became a waste of time; and the latest one being the payroll tax cut extension, forcing it to have a two months duration instead of twelve.

The only thing that would be good for the country would be for lawmakers to realize that there were issues to be resolved, and if they were not taken care of, matters would become worse.

Bi-partisan solutions would be hard to come by; but compromises must be reached somehow, for the country to unite rather than being polarized.

It was the hope that, either under Obama or Gingrich or Romney or Santorum or Paul, that goal could be achieved in the coming year.

As far as yesterday's debate (CNN, 01/19/12) is concerned, Gingrich has managed to gain the upper hand among his peers.

TAXES & THE WEALTHY.

Leona Helmsley, the notorious queen of mean, once put it right, when talking about her family's vast hotel empire fortune that, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

The same is true for Mitt Romney, the front runner in the Republican Party nomination race, that the tax rate for his spiraling investments is only 15%, when ordinary secretaries and laborers are being stuck with higher tax burdens of around 30% or more.

Generally speaking, people have been thinking that, the more one makes, the higher one's tax rate, but that is not specifically accurate for many wealthy Americans, who can use debauchery and shenanigan methodologies to pay less taxes to the United States government; thus they do evade taxes.

They have professional lawyers, accountants and tax experts, who are using the loopholes in the tax system for them to evade paying "their fair share in taxes," at the expense of the regular guy or gal, who works from 9 to 5.

It is obvious that the government is doing all it can to close those tax loopholes, but with much opposition from the people that are benefiting from them, the idea is not catching enough fire. They say that so long as they (loopholes) are legal and stay in "the books", anyone has the right to make use of them.

There is the other side of the coin, when millionaires use offshore investment companies to stash away money, and do not pay a dime in taxes to the U.S. government on it. They would rather pay small taxes to governments in other places like Bermuda, the Bahamas and, of course, Cayman Islands.

This morning's report by ABC News, headlined "Romney Parks Millions in Cayman Islands." makes interesting reading, that the Republican candidate for the party's nomination, with respect to running against President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, is using the Islands as a safe haven for his sprawling investments.

Bain Capital that has come into question on the campaign trail lately, is involved in Offshore Funds that require no taxes to be paid directly in the U.S. Romney has left the company in 1999, but his connection with that equity establishment has not ended there. Part of his gotten gains still come from Bain as personal income.

"Although it is not apparent on his financial disclosure form, Mitt Romney has millions of dollars of his personal wealth in investment funds set up in the Cayman Islands, a notorious Caribbean tax haven." (ABC News, 01/19/12).

The question remains that Cayman Islands may just be one spot that is being mentioned as a place, where tax evaders, like Bain executives are known to patronize; but certainly, there may be others, which the news outlet (ABC) must still be on the prowl to trace some of these shady investment activities outside the U.S. and bring them to light and for future reference. The outlet is highly commended on that effort.

However, the piece of news about taxes so far makes it quite clear that Americans are being cheated by the wealthy, some of whom are in the habit of having huge bank accounts overseas, and it has been that way for many years. The only reason for them to do so is to refrain from paying their fair share in taxes to the government that protects them.

The country is learning a "new" lesson, although it has been going on right under the noses of its citizens for so long; but it now gives them a comparable new chance to thoroughly examine whoever shows up as a candidate for the president of the U.S.

They, citizens, must know where he or she (candidate) is coming from; or they stand to lose abundantly; politically as well as economically.

This piece has got nothing to do with party politics; it is about a real life episode that has come from a viable and reliable source, ABC News.

THE DIVISION WITHIN THE U.S.

The political polarization that is confronting the United States does not come from ordinary people. It has come from the seat of government, which is the U.S. Congress, as it is not being able to find common ground on any and all issues, especially in recent past.

That seemed to have been a curse that has been following through last year, from the debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks through to the payroll tax cut that has ended up with only a two month extension instead of twelve months.

Now Congress is back in session, and all kinds of planning has come with members to deal with the many problems that the country is facing, from the slow economy and high unemployment rate to staving off Iran from initiating any type of conflict with the U.S., whether it is economic or involving a military action.

The election year has given many factions the opportunity to be stoic, because they wanted to win the White House, but their goals must not be achieved at the expense of the nation. There should be peace and unity within the country's borders, to enable it to meet any type of adversity and defeat it, overcome it or win over it.

President Barack Obama has shown that he was willing to work with Congress; and in all the dealings that transpired in 2011, he has done all he could to unite the country; with meetings and telephone calls to both leaders and floor members of the two law making chambers; but he has always ran into a brick wall with just a few of them, particularly, in the House of Representatives, whose aim was not to bring a transformation in government, but a total change of government instead.

If only some lawmakers could relent their opposition and be thoughtful of the country first, rather than of party ideology, there would be a change in the attitude of the American public, because there would be signs of compromises that were needed to build bonds and common ties in Congress, and that scenario would reflect in society.

The headline, "How Congress can hurt the economy." summed it all up by saying, "Having a divisive Congress back in session could produce some nasty side effects for the nation’s still struggling economy." (Politico.com, 01/18/12. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71557.html#ixzz1joKDGq2D).

However, should the country expect that? Of course, there would be differences of opinion and complete consensus would be hard to come by in a year, which was politically loaded. The Republican Party's nomination race would finally pit someone against Obama; and whoever that was would present a path that the country should go.

So would the Democratic Party, whose candidate would not be anyone, but Obama; and the party would also have plans to pursue, in regard to all the "issues". Yet, what would be required of both parties would be cooperation, instead of outright rejection of each other's ideas.

There were some issues that they (parties) might feel very strongly about, such as abortion and its effect on the high cost of Medicaid, and the costly food stamps distribution, which has warranted Newt Gingrich, a candidate in the Republican nomination race to call Obama "The food stamps president,"

Such issues were contributing to the enormous spending by the government, which the opposition wanted to cut. Just as well as social entitlement programs, which were becoming too many for the country to be able to afford them. Some must be cut to streamline the government's yearly budget, which was bloating the national debt of $15 Trillion dollars, and making it worse.

In other words, some of those issues were extremely hard core manifestations, presenting the nation with problems beyond its capacity; however, they should not be made to divide us. Solutions were what they needed, and they (solutions) could only come about, when leaders of society would put their heads together to find a way out of situations of any nature.

Americans could not go to war against each other; for as far as war was concerned, there were enough entities on the outside wanting one with the U.S. They were doing so out of sheer envy; for America was strong, in every sense of the word, and they (outsiders) would want to be like that.

Political parties in a Democracy were there to sustain a country; and not to divide it, for whatever differences that they might have between them (parties), all kinds of ways and means must be found to resolve them.

U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION & IRAN.

Many people are thinking that Iran's provocation of the United States has only one goal, and that is to get the cost of oil to skyrocket to a point, where gasoline price will become part of American politics in a presidential election year.

When that happens, it will be President Barack Obama, who will stand to lose his reelection bid for a second term, as the country's economy, which is already on the forefront of political issues, will be more so.

The economy will have its recovery to reverse and make things difficult for ordinary people. Businesses will be complaining too, and that will create an uncompromising situation for all concerned

They, people, are trying hard to make ends meet in their everyday lives, and so they will be forced to vote against whoever is the leader of the country, meaning Obama, in this instance, and there will be a new person from the field of the Republican Party's nomination race now in progress, to assume the reins of government.

The change will rather be very smooth for the new president, as there will be no actual adjustment for him to make. For he will be coming in under no pressure to deal with everything from the start.

He must be given time to evaluate the problems that are pending in the White House; and also to have the opportunity to appoint a cabinet and to select members of his staff to work with him. It will be a stretch of time that is commonly referred to as the "honeymoon" period.

By the time that is over, there will be so much chaos and confusion, both in the government and within the American public, as the country will be compelled to begin almost totally afresh.

The new president will have an equally new U.S. Congress, if not an entirely makeover one, to deal with; and whose members will have to wait to assess the path that the new government will take. For them to legislate laws based on the policies of the incoming administration, they also will need ample time.

It is obvious that, by its attitude, that is what Iran is envisaging to happen in America; as it is now trying to attack American war ships in the Arabian Gulf, and threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz; but why?

Well, the idea is very simple. Iran, which is in the process of acquiring a nuclear bomb needs time too to address that issue, but in an atmosphere in which everything seems to be quiet, it will not be favorable for its leaders to achieve their ultimate goal.

It will be when the U.S. is busy sorting things out at home, and amid all the bustle and the reshuffling in a transition of government, it (U.S.) will be hard pressed to pay any attention to what is happening on the outside, and particularly, in Iran, where new sites are opening up for uranium enrichment, and that will continue undeterred.

By the time all is peaceful after the honeymoon period, which is also sometimes called "the 100 days" of the new U.S. government, Iran will become unstoppable, as it will be on its way to do whatever it is in its plans to dominate the Middle East, and also, more importantly, to be a nuclear power.

Nobody is saying that a change of government in the U.S. will be a bad thing or not. It must be the risk that people are prepared to take that must concern all alike. After that, the die will be cast; but they must do so without looking back and pinning the blame on someone else.

It will be their own decision, and that whatever the final outcome is, they will learn to live with it. People must admit that Iran has no good intentions for the U.S.; not now or in the future.

DON LEMON'S NEW STORY.

Don Lemon was in the news again; first he was not born "straight", and now his family tree consisted of people coming out of the dark days in the South, the segregationists South, with black blood being part of their genes; and that family members have sometimes suffered the consequences of being what they were, due to the color of their skin.

There was also a documentary mini-series on CNN recently, in which the players have had tremendously "good education", especially in science and technology disciplines; and from what they were telling the public, there was a sub-culture in America consisting of people of African ancestry. It (sub-culture) was what they were, and therefore they should be recognized as such.

In other words, presently, they were "blacks in America", and that was all there was to it; Period. Any reference of Africa, in their view, was immaterial and insignificant to their lives.

However, many people saw them as pompous and ignorant. They were like plants growing out of the ground without roots; yet, in the back of their minds, that was not true. That was even impossible, for to exist without racial affinities, was exactly like "cutting the nose to spite the face".

It was as if they were hurt for being what they were or for being black; or that was how they all sounded like. On top of that, to connect them with Africa was an anathema. They would prefer to be Americans first and blacks second. The rest of their backgrounds was history, and though, it (history) should not be forgotten, there was no need of going back to it.

For in their minds, bygones should be left to be bygones; and so their roots were not, and should not be part of their everyday conversations. However, that would be ludicrous, because a lot of people would be, say, Italian Americans, and they were proud of that; or Irish-Americans, and they still have associations connecting them to their "source", from whence their forefathers came.

Lo and behold, that was where the secret lied, for the advancement in anything, be it art, education, culture, philosophy, and so on and so forth. That those people, who were connecting with their sources or whose sources meant something to them became the good products in American society.

The reason being that they have their historical trees to be barking up, and those trees have ancestral roots, which extracted and attracted the good things to them.

Lemon talking of his aunts and cousins not being black, and that they could pass for being something else, did not hold water in this day and age. It was true that certain things like that were happening in Louisiana and Mississippi many years ago; but times have changed to such an extent that people being multi-racial were not specifically discussed in social circles as they used to be, and that they were common.

In other words, it was not an original subject in society anymore. In fact, it was banal. They, having multi-racial ethnicity, could call themselves any names they chose; and that only hard core racists elements could bring someone's color or background up, as being what it was not.

The point was that, when indigenous Africans heard stories like the one Lemon was telling, or listened to the individuals on the program titled "THE NEW PROMISED LAND/SILICON VALLEY", they (Africans) have to assume that those black Americans have askew minds.

They should ask themselves the question, why the European slave traders went past the Native American or the Red Indian, the Latin speaking groups now inhabiting Mexico, Central and South America, and then decided to bring their black ancestors from the continent of Africa?

The human traffic across the Atlantic Ocean, though inhumane, was a super-natural event, which for some reason or another, foresaw that the African continent would one day need doctors, engineers and technologists of all kinds, due to the enormous raw materials that the continent had.

Now, where would such an army of specialists come from? Would it not be the same people that left, or were forcefully removed from their homelands in Africa, who were coming back to fulfill that "promise"?

One could say that Africa was in need of the expertise that many of those educated black Americans had. If so, why was that continent still be in the dark ages?

Could it not be that those, whose ancestral homes were looted at one time were eschewing their responsibility to go back and help Africa in its development, even in the 21st Century?

To remain in affluent America, and to tell stories; or present a program to represent a sub-cultural existence in American society was not the answer. Besides, where was their dignity? Should they be regarded as being different? NO! No one would be foolish enough to picture them in any other way, but people of African make up.

Africa would always be rich; but where were those, who could use its resources to make it richer still?

The late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it correctly, that his "children will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." and that should be the thought that black Americans should be made to carry always.

Also, they were being called "African Americans" to dignify them; it was an honor and not an insult against them or their forebears, who were fortunately physically and mentally strong, and therefore were able to endure slavery, for them to be living today.

BAIN & ROMNEY.

An article in Politico.com tends to exonerate Romney, the Republican Party front runner in the party's nomination race from blame, in regard to the Bain issue.

Yet, it seems to be a one sided story by a narrow minded individual, who wants people to forget about Bain Capital, the company in question, that pulled the rug from under some workers in South Carolina, and of whether Romney, who headed that venture capital company, is the type of a "job creator" as he wants the public to believe.

However sweet the article wanted Romney to smell, it has already been proven that the Bain management was cumbersome, demanding and therefore inefficient.

Decisions were made on the spur of the moment, with managers meeting supply deliveries at the loading dock with petty cash; as well as the constant demands that production should be raised or labor costs have to be reduced. Such actions made the situation there rather intolerable.

That led finally to the outsourcing of most of Bain's business to the Far East, particularly, to China. WHAT?

He, Romney, has been taunting President Barack Obama of a lousy economic management, and giving the impression that he could do better to boost the economy by using his many experiences in the private sector as his database.

Bain's involvement in Holston, the picture frame company, which went down abruptly and caused some people in Gafney to suddenly become unemployed was a shame; however, it was Bain that was safe in the deal to close the plant.

"Bain invested about $10 million in Holson and made almost $23 million profit over six years, according to a financial document obtained by the Associated Press." the article has claimed.

There was another company, a steel mill in Georgetown, "about 200 miles southeast of Gafney. About 750 steelworkers lost their jobs there when the company, GS Industries went bankrupt in 2001 following a buyout led by Bain." the article has continued.

Perry, who was also running in the Republican Party's nomination race, has called Romney a "vulture" capitalist, and "has accused Bain of making $65 million off the firm, mostly in management fees, before it went belly up." the article has finally said. (Politico.com, 01/14/12).

So, if Romney, who was portraying himself as the savior of the American economy, has so many skeletons in his closet, shouldn't people know about them, especially in the week before the South Carolina's primary?

Romney's background mattered most there, just as it would be very important in the 2012 general election, if he should win the Republican nomination.

He was always talking out of the two sides of his mouth, that "governments do not create jobs; private individuals do," and almost in the same breadth avowing that he "created many jobs in his career." Goodness gracious me!

Did it bother the people in Gafney to lose their jobs; and if the answer happened to be "yes", then voters must feel hesitant to take a person just at his word and to get or ask him to run the American economy. Wasn't that taking a big risk by Americans?

Many thought that they should be skeptical of Romney for hiding his business failures until now. Even then, he did not volunteer them himself; it was the media that found him out.

If the European downturn did not affect the present economy, Obama would have a great chance of winning a second term, since his plans seemed to be steadily working at this very moment.

The economy was speeding up, and the unemployment rate has begun to go down. Those were what would urge the voters to decide as to whether they wanted him to carry on; despite the Politico.com camouflage and stupid things like that.

THE MEDIA & OBAMA.

President Barack Obama must find a way to get into the 2012 election campaign, as all the media attention is being spent on the Republican Party candidates running in the party's nomination race.

It seems to be a fact that he cannot break from his presidential duties, of which he is very passionate, except for fundraiser trips to places here and there around the country, which happen only once in a while and far in between.

Even then in his official duties, such as meeting with business leaders to "insource" jobs back to the United States, people are being made to believe that he is using the occasion to bolster his reelection bid.

"He has been in a campaign mood since the start of last year," his Republican "friends" will say, just to intertwine everything the president is attempting to do with what their party candidates are doing and saying on the campaign trail.

Bunching the two sets of activities together, the president's and that of his potential opponents, does not seem right. It really does not make any sense either.

However, is it true that the president is spending time talking about himself and of his reelection or is it the other way around? Or is it that some of the media are propelling themselves in their reports to misinterpret him to be doing and saying things that pointed to his person or to his reelection?

In other words, is it the media's own attitude of being partial that is pointing to that effect, and thus painting a wrong picture of the president?

They will then turn around and be echoing what the Republicans are narrating to the American people; particularly the minority leader in the U.S.Senate, Sen. Mich McConnell, who is always referring to the president as using every opportunity "to save his job", by speaking about his (Obama's) efforts to remain in the White House.

For example, ABC News' Mary Bruce (@marykbruce) reports:
"In what was billed as an official visit to Iowa by the president today to highlight manufacturing, President Obama urged citizens to be patient with the slow economic recovery and tried to incite some of the infamous excitement that propelled him to victory in that state in 2008."

Or with headlines like, "Obama visits New Hampshire on Tuesday; is he running scared there?" (Posted on Nov. 21, 2011)(http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/11/21/130960/obama-visits-new-hampshire-on.html).

Of course, Obama and the Democrats do want to retain the White House, as it must be obvious that they will need four more years to accomplish their agenda for the country, to get it out of foreign wars and to utilize the resources pertaining to them for the home economy, which has been devastated by these wars; namely, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The count of the costs of the wars is phenomenal, in terms of U.S. dollars running into billions and billions. In human terms, families of men and women in the military have suffered enough, their sacrifices must not go unchecked.

They have mostly come from the middle class of American society, since the end of the draft, while candidates like Romney, Paul and Huntsman keep their grown up children by their sides and out of harm's way.

In fact, it is not all the media that are playing the game of sensational broadcast or producing sneering headlines; however, the ones that are doing so are slowly moving journalism from under the protection of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which "prohibits....infringing on the freedom of the press,"

In view of that, the media must be neutral as much as they can; not that they must not express opinions, but they must do so within the confines of the amendment that grants them the liberty for their existence.

Many do not surmise that the Democratic Party is fully active with its campaign plans, as the general election is still far off into 2012; November, to be exact. So, the party has plenty of time to have its presence felt.

So does Obama, who knows very well that, as president, the country must come first in all his deliberations in and out of the White House.

Fiery headlines sell newspapers, and television networks thrive on grand advertisements for huge revenues; but they tend to be sacrilegious, when their vendors are seen by the public they cater to, to be siding with one party against another.

SOUTH CAROLINA & RELIGION.

It would not be fair to denigrate one candidate in the Republican Party's race for the nomination of the individual, who would be running against President Barack Obama in the 2012 general election.

However, the South Carolina primary happened to be a little bit different from the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, in that there were more evangelicals involved, whose core beliefs were stable to such an extent that it would take a whole bunch of dynamite explosions to separate the two; meaning religion and politics.

To have the three main people standing before them and asking for their vote was more than just getting some speeches out and expecting the numerous religious groups to change their minds.

The three people were Romney, Santorum and Gingrich; and according to news reports, they (evangelicals) were looking at the past histories of those three, and for the moment, Santorum's credentials seemed to fall in line with their views on social issues.

Gingrich has not been sanctified in any way, being compared with the other two; yet, most people doubted whether he was religious enough. His core values were akin to their own, but he had marital problems in his background that gave him failed marks.

Romney's nature of flip-flop and jumping or changing his mind from one issue to another made him the least favorite; as ".... many evangelicals consider issues such as abortion “major” concerns, and, without naming Romney, said that candidates who have murky histories on positions like that will have trouble persuading religious voters that they’re sincere." (ABC News, 01/12/12).

That was a statement coming from a very influential evangelical, Brad Atkins, the president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention; and that would be denigrating, but that was how many religious voters saw him (Romney) to be.

There were others, who would not touch him with a ten foot pole, because of his own religion, Mormonism; as they considered that to be adverse to their faith.

It would make the situation in South Carolina more religious than political; although, some were saying that independent voters would have Romney up in the contest there; yet, would that be enough to put him over the top?

The media, of which most seemed to have already taken sides in the campaign and the political process, were saying that Romney was leading in the polls in that state.

However, the fact remained that all the candidates taking part in the SC primary would have to be gauged by their connections with the many organizations in the "bible belt", of which the state was prominent.

Rick Perry stood a chance of getting most people to vote for him, owing to his southern heritage affiliations; and being so, the religious vote could split several ways; and that would be to the advantage of Romney, for him to slip through, as he would be getting much of the independent voters on his side.

Paul and Huntsman would still factor in the primary; but no one was favoring them to be strong players as the other three candidates.

Nevertheless, the common man in the street saw the Republican race as a charade, and an effort to give more power to the wealthy people in the United States.

The huge amounts of monies that were changing hands in the campaign, with respect to media advertisements alone, gave the party's goal away. That, for economic reasons, the wealthy should be handed the scepter to dominate American politics.

Sovereignty would then be the name of the game. However, would that be what a great majority of citizens wanted? You and I should just think about that.

ROMNEY'S NEW HAMPSHIRE WIN.

The news headlines today show how the Republican Party's nomination race is picking up, with Mitt Romney being the winner of the New Hampshire primary.

That is naturally good for the party, but the win there and the one in Iowa do not constitute a win in the 2012 general election.

Why? Because President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have not started to focus on the president's reelection bid as yet, as the president himself has been so busy with the affairs of the nation, and his party waits for whomever will come out as his challenger from the Republican field.

Romney's win in NH was not a phenomenal occurrence, because he has been campaigning there for months, and until his handlers had told him to spend some time in Iowa, he would have remained in the Granite state somehow. It was his favorite place (or was it hideout?).

Nevertheless, the Iowa and the NH wins did not signify as gauging what would the political atmosphere look like, come November of this year. Therefore, there was no big deal about seeing flashy headlines with respect to how the process of selecting an opposition candidate was going (or what it, what all that noise was about).

Suffice it to say that the season was one for choosing a contender by the Republicans, and so, much of the media attention would be concentrated on that than any other topic.

It was obvious that Romney was the likely person, who would win the nomination in the long run; but any of his rivals, like Ron Paul or Huntsman or Santorum could jump ahead of him in the Southern states of the country, where voters there have an entirely different view of him.

He could not be considered as the unblemished governor of Massachusetts, because there were so many things he did not do right in that state. His business endeavors have been strewn with failures, such as the Bain debacle, just as much as his accomplishments.

All that, the good, the bad and the ugly, would be laid bare in the coming months and thoroughly scrutinized by the American people, especially if he should be the Republican nominee.

As far as the other candidates in the nomination race were concerned, Romney was still just one of them, fighting to gain the nod of the party. He was not out of the woods as the public was being told to believe; and in fact, he could not be, if Rick Perry, governor of Texas, could help it.

No one would say that the Republican Party was in complete disarray, the notion that its members have not had their decisions crystallized about who should be their presidential candidate for the 2012 general election could not be hidden.

Meanwhile, the Democrats would not make it too easy for the Republicans to grab all "the magic and jubilation" that seemed to be happening at the present moment. They were only bidding their time until when they would fully launch their own version of the political hoopla to retain the White House.

President Obama would demonstrate his achievements before the nation, and he would make the claim that despite all the setbacks, such as the Japan's Tsunami and nuclear meltdown, the Arab Spring and the European economic problems, the country has done extremely well under the circumstances, and during his watch.

There still remained a lot to be done to put the economy on a sound track, and to reduce the high unemployment rate; and he was the one who could do both.

Romney's NH win would not have any bearing on his efforts then.

BILL DALEY'S DEPARTURE.

Mr. Bill Daley's departure from the White House should not be surprising as the third Chief-of-staff for President Barack Obama, for his background did not measure up to the new image that Obama's campaign operatives would want to promote in an election year.

The Obama camp wanted to portray him as championing the cause of the middle class and working people; a picture that has improved the president's approval rating tremendously, and the idea of letting that slip through the fingers of the top campaign personnel would be ludicrous.

Daley was the campaign chairman for Al Gore's presidential bid in 2000, and what happened then has become history. He has also played a vigorous part in the debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks last year that did not materialize; and his connection with Democratic lawmakers have been sour as time went on.

His advice to the president to cut a deal with Speaker John Boehner during the debt ceiling talks angered Democrats, as the negotiations fell through.

"A top Democratic congressional aide told CNN that Daley's relations with Democratic legislators were strained. According to the aide, congressional Democrats believed Daley did a poor job of reaching out to legislators and listening to their ideas during contentious budget and debt ceiling negotiations last year" (CNN 01/11/12).

Although, he was a Chicago native, there was a distance between him and the president before former Chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel recommended him as his replacement.

At the time, his services were needed to bring closer ties between the new administration and the business sector, and that might have worked for a while, until the Wall Street reform dampened the hopes of corporations. With the reform came several regulations that businesses thought to be too restrictive.

The United States economy has been slower than usual ever since; and that could not be allowed to go unchecked by campaign planners.

Daley himself has approached the president for his ouster due to family reasons. He might have sensed that the mood has to change, if Obama's reelection run should have no impediments, and that the timing was right at the start of a new year than into the middle of 2012, when the campaign was in full swing.

"Does Daley departure mean trouble?", as Politico.com has been asking, and many people were saying, "No."; as the change was almost a natural process for any advice to the president now to not come from a complete bureaucrat, but from his operatives, who were "the generals" on the ground in the campaign.

President Obama has no alternative, but to grant Mr. Daley's wish to move on to become part of his reelection effort from a different vantage point.

Besides, from the many rifts that have gone on in recent months between the White House and Congress on Daley's watch, a new face in a new year would be welcomed by all sides for a new beginning to be established in Washington D.C.

That would also be a welcome respite for the country as a whole, as it entered into a year that would be more pivotal than unusual.

Also, America's leadership should be potent and effective, as the world moved into an era of controversy of what should or should not be good for all nations; and toward achieving global peace and stability.

BILL DALEY'S DEPARTURE.

Mr. Bill Daley departure from the White House should not be surprising as the third Chief-of-staff for President Barack Obama, for his background did not measure up to the new image that Obama's campaign operatives would want to promote in an election year.

The Obama camp wanted to portray him as championing the cause of the middle class and working people; a picture that has improved the president's approval rating tremendously, and the idea of letting that slip through the fingers of the top campaign personnel would be ludicrous.

Daley was the campaign chairman for Al Gore's presidential bid in 2000, and what happened then has become history. He has also played a vigorous part in the debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks last year that did not materialize; and his connection with Democratic lawmakers have been sour as time went on.

His advice to the president to cut a deal with Speaker John Boehner during the debt ceiling talks angered Democrats, as the negotiations fell through.

"A top Democratic congressional aide told CNN that Daley's relations with Democratic legislators were strained. According to the aide, congressional Democrats believed Daley did a poor job of reaching out to legislators and listening to their ideas during contentious budget and debt ceiling negotiations last year" (CNN 01/11/12).

Although, he was a Chicago native, there was a distance between him and the president before former Chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel recommended him as his replacement.

At the time, his services were needed to bring closer ties between the new administration and the business sector, and that might have worked for a while, until the Wall Street reform dampened the hopes of corporations. With the reform came several regulations that businesses thought to be too restrictive.

The United States economy has been slower than usual ever since; and that could not be allowed to go unchecked by campaign planners.

Daley himself has approached the president for his ouster due to family reasons. He might have sensed that the mood has to change, if Obama's reelection run should have no impediments, and that the timing was right at the start of a new year than into the middle of 2012, when the campaign was in full swing.

"Does Daley departure mean trouble?", as Politico.com has been asking, and many people were saying, "No."; as the change was almost a natural process for any advice to the president now to not come from a complete bureaucrat, but from his operatives, who were "the generals" on the ground in the campaign.

President Obama has no alternative, but to grant Mr. Daley's wish to move on to become part of his reelection effort from a different vantage point.

Besides, from the many rifts that have gone on in recent months between the White House and Congress on Daley's watch, a new face in a new year would be welcomed by all sides for a new beginning to be established in Washington D.C.

That would also be a welcome respite for the country as a whole, as it entered into a year that would be more pivotal than unusual.

Also, America's leadership should be potent and effective, as the world moved into an era of controversy of what should or should not be good for all nations; and toward achieving global peace and stability.

OBAMA'S CHANCES.

It is not that people are attracted to President Barack Obama for his charisma, his policies are beginning to show signs of being effective, as the unemployment rating has dropped to 8.5% this month.

200,000 individuals were hired in the private sector, indicating that the slump in job hiring was abating to the point that, if the employment rate continued to grow quickly in the span of time between now and election day in November, 2012, his chances for a second term reelection could be assured; for he has been able to energize the economy and bring down the unemployment figures.

His political rivals in the Republican Party's nomination race have been arguing among themselves in the past two days, in debates that were as uneventful as drinking a cup of coacoa in West Africa, where its (coacoa's) fruit was produced.

They would allude to his economic policies, but they would have contradictory comments to make about them.

Romney would say that governments did not create jobs, but private concerns, individuals or companies, did; or that the president was not knowledgeable of how the economy runs; yet he (Obama) was doing fine; while Perry would opine that his own record as governor of Texas showed his ability to create jobs. He would be inclined to reduce unemployment in creating jobs by the load, if he was elected.

So, which was which? Governments created jobs or not?

Look, what all those politicians wanted to do was to scar the coastline of the U.S. with oil rigs all over the place and messing up the sublime shores as they were now. The environment would be damaged, as oil spills and accidents would become rampant, just as many scientific studies have indicated or even predicted.

Obama's foreign policy was on the rise and making friends for the United States, with Burma being the latest. The economic sanctions that he initiated through a U.N. resolution against Iran was biting so much so that Iran has become catatonic, for its silly effusion that it would close the Strait of Hormuz; and it, Iran, was gradually becoming isolated by many nations around the globe.

Except, perhaps, for Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, was himself paranoid and needed the company of a politically and economically besmeared Iran; otherwise, that country (Iran) has nowhere else to go for sheer comfort.

New Hampshire is a great state and the people are hospitable, but they are hearing the same speeches from the remainder of the Republican field all over again, that the candidates can do better. Yet, how they (candidates) will do so is not clear.

No one is embellishing Obama's achievements, or trying to make him what he is not; however, if the trend shows that he is doing well by getting the slow economy back on track, and being able to reducing unemployment, in spite of the stark opposition by a U.S. Congress that will say "NO" to everything he is doing, then he must be commended for moving the country in the right direction.

If so, then that must be made pretty clear to the American people, especially by the media.

Santorum, the Republican presidential candidate is insisting that there is no class barrier in the U.S., and that Obama's assertion of helping the "middle class" is dividing the country. It is designed to start a class warfare.

Yet, at the back of his mind, he knows for sure that there are those who are wealthy and those who are considered to be working to feed their families. He is also aware that times are hard for the people in that group.

In Obama's view, the wealthy people must not have all the power, economically or in any other way; and that the rights of the ordinary citizen must be protected from laws that are unfair in society, particularly when they affected the working people of America.

Not many people want their tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, or laws for people with different sexual orientation to be recognized. What the majority are interested in is a just and equitable society; one in which no one is above the Constitutional laws of the country.

If that is the country Obama and the Democrats are attempting to build, why must anyone stop them? His critics say that he is a socialists. Well, can we all be conservatives?

There is freedom of choice in America, and that is why many people want to live here and call themselves Americans.

OBAMA'S CHANCES.

It is not that people are attracted to President Barack Obama for his charisma, his policies are beginning to show signs of being effective, as the unemployment rating has dropped to 8.5% this month.

200,000 individuals were hired in the private sector, indicating that the slump in job hiring was abating to the point that, if the employment rate continued to grow quickly in the span of time between now and election day in November, 2012, his chances for a second term reelection could be assured; for he has been able to energize the economy and bring down the unemployment figures.

His political rivals in the Republican Party's nomination race have been arguing among themselves in the past two days, in debates that were as uneventful as drinking a cup of coacoa in West Africa, where its (coacoa's) fruit was produced.

They would allude to his economic policies, but they would have contradictory comments to make about them.

Romney would say that governments did not create jobs, but private concerns, individuals or companies, did; or that the president was not knowledgeable of how the economy runs; yet he (Obama) was doing fine; while Perry would opine that his own record as governor of Texas showed his ability to create jobs. He would be inclined to reduce unemployment in creating jobs by the load, if he was elected.

So, which was which? Governments created jobs or not?

Look, all those politicians wanted to do was to scar the coastline of the U.S. with oil rigs all over the place and messing up the sublime shores as they were now. The environment would be damaged, as oil spills and accidents would become rampant, just as many scientific studies have indicated or even predicted.

Obama's foreign policy was on the rise and making friends for the United States, with Burma being the latest. The economic sanctions that he initiated through a U.N. resolution against Iran was biting so much so that Iran has become catatonic, for its silly effusion that it would close the Strait of Hormuz; and it, Iran, was gradually becoming isolated by many nations around the globe.

Except, perhaps, for Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, was himself paranoid and needed the company of a politically and economically besmeared Iran; otherwise, that country (Iran) has nowhere else to go for sheer comfort.

New Hampshire is a great state and the people are hospitable, but they are hearing the same speeches from the remainder of the Republican field all over again, that the candidates can do better. Yet, how they (candidates) will do so is not clear.

No one is embellishing Obama's achievements, or trying to make him what he is not; however, if the trend shows that he is doing well by getting the slow economy back on track, and being able to reducing unemployment, in spite of the stark opposition by a U.S. Congress that will say "NO" to everything he is doing, then he must be commended for moving the country in the right direction.

If so, then that must be made pretty clear to the American people, especially by the media.

Santorum, the Republican presidential candidate is insisting that there is no class barrier in the U.S., and that Obama's assertion of helping the "middle class" is dividing the country. It is designed to start a class warfare.

Yet, at the back of his mind, he knows for sure that there are those who are wealthy and those who are considered to be working to feed their families. He is also aware that times are hard for the people in that group.

In Obama's view, the wealthy people must not have all the power, economically or in any other way; and that the rights of the ordinary citizen must be protected from laws that are unfair in society, particularly when they affected the working people of America.

Not many people want their tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, or laws for people with different sexual orientation to be recognized. What the majority are interested in is a just and equitable society; one in which no one is above the Constitutional laws of the country.

If that is the country Obama and the Democrats are attempting to build, why must anyone stop them? His critics say that he is a socialists. Well, can we all be conservatives?

There is freedom of choice in America, and that is why many people want to live here and call themselves Americans.

IRAN; A MERE NUISANCE.

The rescuing by United States sailors of the crew of an Iranian fishing vessel makes a benign observation of a malignant situation easy.

In that, Iran's objective to dominate the Persian Gulf defies common sense, as it cannot deal with an issue that involves its own citizens, and it takes Americans to free a registered Iranian fishing vessel and its crew at sea.

Only early this week, the Iranian threat to U.S. Aircraft carriers not plying the Gulf was an act of war by Iran, which should know that such warning was contrary to all International Maritime Laws, and that it could have taken the captain of the USS John C. Stennis, as a precautionary measure, to sink the Iranian frigate from where the warning came.

The U.S. fleet was there for a good reason to ensure the free passage of ships mainly carrying oil in the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of sea, that Iran wanted to close.

The "closure" was the second act of war by Iran; but it (Iran) has put that off for the obvious fact that it would be forced to deal with the consequences, even if it only attempted to follow up with closing the Strait of Hormuz.

Piracy has become a daily occurrence in that part of the world by Somalian citizens, whose country has no laws of any kind, and so conditions there have become extremely difficult, they would take to the high seas and would detain other nationalities for money.

That should be what the Iranian Army and Navy were to be doing something about, to make the area safe for all ships and ordinary people doing business there.

However, instead of being a law abiding country, Iran was breaking International law, and provoking the U.S. to take drastic action in response to the threats from Tehran.

"The Pentagon today answered an Iranian warning to keep U.S. aircraft carriers out of the Persian Gulf by declaring that American warships will continue regularly scheduled deployments to the strategic waterway," The statement has added that, "a constant state of high vigilance," was needed there "to ensure the flow of sea commerce." (Richmond Times-Dispatch 01/07/12).

Iran was playing with fire that could engulf the region and affect the rest of the world. By indulging in such a dangerous confrontation with a super power, as the U.S., it was putting its citizens at an unnecessary risk.

It would be fair for the U.N. to release the strictest warning through the Security Council to Iran, to immediately stop its activities of war exercises that were nothing, but mere saber rattling, which did not have any effect on the U.S. presence in the area; and that Iran was just being a nuisance, by putting up a meaningless "stupid show of strength" and thus disturbing world peace.

Iran must take heed.

HAYDEN ON OBAMA.

What caught many political minded Americans attention this week was not mostly the Iowa caucuses voting, which was obvious to be leading in the news headlines, but a scathing article by a former CIA director for President George W. Bush, Michael V. Hayden, on troops withdrawal from Iraq.

From his professional position as head of the United States Intelligence at one time, his experience and a wonderful career of serving his country in the post 9/11 years, nobody could downgrade his views on the troops withdrawal taking place in Iraq last month.

His remarks were too tangent and realistic than idealistic, that America has taken upon itself to leave troops in several volatile spots around the world, and that was a good record. It was a trend that has helped the rest of the world to observe peace and stability in more ways than one.

It was every person's wish that America could go on and do the same everywhere, but that was impossible. It has been done in Korea, in Japan and in Europe; but all that has caused the country a great deal of inconvenience and at an enormous expense.

One would be paraphrasing Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate in the Republican Party nomination race, by saying that, "Policing the world is not America's job," as well as "Nation building should not be part of U.S. foreign policy"; and that peace keeping should be left to the United Nations to deal with. In that sense, the U.S. could always make a contribution.

With regard to Iraq, President Barack Obama, besides his promise to end the war there in his 2008 campaign speeches, has found himself "between the devil and the deep blue sea", as he was facing a huge national debt of over $14 trillion dollars. In addition to that, fighting two wars with that backdrop was nothing, but preposterous, as continuing them (wars) was only making the home economy to suffer.

The president has made it abundantly clear that Iraq has been equipped with the basic political tenets of Democracy, and it was the responsibility of its people to build on them (tenets) to achieve equality among all its sectarian factions.

Mr. Hayden was not being critical of President Obama per se in his article, that troops have to be left in Iraq on a permanent basis, as some critics were advocating. He was directing his observations at the timing of the event of U.S. troops being withdrawn from that country. Even that was a moot point, as it had its pros and cons, and no one could predict the proper time frame in which to end the Iraq war.

Yet, the man in the street has also realized that some of the Iraqis themselves were foaming around the mouth and saying that the U.S. has overstayed its presence, and that they (Iraqis) were ready to run their own affairs. The Obama administration has had talks with the Al-Maliki government for a fraction of American troops staying behind; however, in the long run, that government had the final say, and so the idea did not come to fruition, when it said "No". In view of that, what should the president do?

Mr. Hayden has been loyal to his country throughout his career; but what he could not do was to force his country's hand to do the impossible.

He, Hayden, has also weighed in on Iran and Al Qaeda, but those entities would be causing trouble, no matter what any one person did, even though that person might be the most powerful individual in the world, the president of the United States.

P.S. Obama has his eyes on those two entities, and he was bound to nail them, one way or another.