The Republican Party nomination race could be the same one as in the 1980s, when Reagan and G.W. Bush, Sr., battled for the nomination, and ended up with Reagan becoming the president, and Bush, his vice-president.
The same dreary episode is being played out in the 2012 election campaign, to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, that a strenuous fight is going on in the party, which is true, but for the same purpose of the "three card monte" game in the 80s by the Republicans.
The encounters between the two candidates, Reagan and Bush happened to be more furious than the ones going on now with Romney and Santorum. Yet, in the end, Americans have been bamboozled to accept the outcome as being "alright".
Reagan actually did nothing after that, except attacking a little Island in the Caribbean, Granada, and calling Mikhail Gorbachev of the then the USSR, to "tear down the Wall," dividing Berlin.
Reagan's vice-president, G.W.Bush, Sr., then became the United States president and saved Kuwait from getting to be overrun by Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Those two periods, except for the thwarting of Hussein from owning the oil rich enclave of the Persian Gulf, were actually wasted, with the U.S. doing nothing spectacular, either politically or socially, that would bring about any practical change in the world.
In other words, those who are in a position to know, can say that there will be a repeat of Romney or Santorum, with one becoming the president, and the other being his vice-president, or even vice-versa; replicating the exact pattern of government or governments during the 80s.
However, it will be a good thing for Americans to see through the charade that is presently going on; and do not get me wrong, it is a "fight" all the same. Yet, if there is ever a chance for the Republicans to win the 2012 presidential election, the U.S. will have another sixteen years of wasted time and effort to make things better for its citizens.
Again, people in the know are hoping that that will not happen; for an entirely new experiment is just starting, as of January, 2009, to prove to the world that America has something substantial and realistic to offer, and that is true freedom, in which opportunities are equally opened to people, irrespective of demographics or social origins.
That is the period the nation is in today; with the first African American as president, opening the path for anyone to pursue his or her ambition, as far as possible; and not just allowing only a few to dominate the affairs of the U.S., and for that matter, the world.
To change or reverse that trend, the wealthy and the affluent in society are poised to foil its (trend) progression, by coming together under the old banner of conservatism to "reclaim America and to restore it to its former glory"; which is nothing short of a myth, because what its organizers are looking for is to maintain the status quo.
In that situation, as we are all aware, the "rich becomes richer; and the poor, poorer", as the economic picture will eventually show, that no real transformation in the lives of a great majority of people is taking place.
In the 2012 presidential election, the future is what is at stake, not just for America, but for the world at large, as anyone; yes, anyone, with the capacity to lead and be able to formulate effective changes that will bring peace among all nations.
If America is to remain a great nation, it cannot isolate itself from the myriad of nationalities surrounding it; who are thirsting for a real leadership example to follow, in order for actual peace and prosperity extending to all peoples of differing backgrounds to exist.
From the year 2008, America has proved that it can provide that kind of leadership, and therefore, it could not go back to the ways that would tend to invite animosity and hate to itself as before.
It has an enormous military power to protect itself from its enemies, as the 9/11 perpetrators; but it could not save only itself, as it has to save the whole world in the process; or else all would come to nought, with the great doom trailing after for every person on earth.
It is not that anyone is cursing the political system, as it presently stands; no, not at all, but it (America) must embrace a formula that will equally please all its citizens. That is, equal chance must be made available for all to chase after their dreams; and that will be an example worth following by the rest of humankind.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
BRACING FOR A NEW TYPE OF LEADERSHIP.
One of the front runners in the Republican Party nomination race is claiming that his own personal successes will reflect in his economic policies to help or make individual Americans to become prosperous.
However, his tax plan that he enunciated recently, is loaded against ordinary workers, as the wealthy will be paying less taxes ranging from 25% and below, but there is no limit or cap for middle class income earners, like secretaries and other workers, who are presently paying approximately 30% in taxes. Their rates can be adjustable, as they can be made to move farther up, depending on how the government feels.
He does not even mention the millions of working men and women, who rely on medial salaries and low wages, compared to those in the upper echelon of society, such as executives of money and market management companies and oil moguls, who have several streams of income, as he does.
His fiscal assets and financial holdings in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere give him away as one interested solely in the upper scale of social mobility than those, who are struggling day by day to make ends meet, and those, perhaps, living from "paycheck to paycheck".
The phrase "Minimum wage" is not to be found anywhere in his plan; showing that his mind is more on what many refer to as the 1% percent, and those aspiring to join their ranks, such as speculators on Wall Street and monetary market supervisors, than on the 90% of the people, some of whom do not pay any taxes at all, due to the fact that they do not earn enough to afford paying taxes or they are on government assisted programs to survive. (The "Safety net for the poor," caper. Remember?).
In other words, the economic plan Mitt Romney presented in Michigan last week, must have had everything in it for all the people of the United States, in view of the fact that it was an initiative designed to appeal to those, who would vote in the primary election there on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 (today); but under careful scrutiny, only part of the voters would really benefit from it, if it were to materialize.
The two front runners are neck and neck in the polls, but the truth is that if any of them, or for that matter, any of all four of the Republican presidential hopefuls becomes the nominee, his party's ideologies will be foremost on his agenda, rather than the well being of all Americans.
All of them are critical of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, but they do not offer any cogent alternatives, except to vociferously claim and promise that they will do better.
Voters in today's primaries in Arizona and Michigan have a duty to perform, in voting for the one person, who is not self centered among the remaining Republican candidates. It will be very hard to choose, as there is nobody in the group, who fits the leadership skills they themselves advocate that they have.
Again, one of them says that he is wealthy, and therefore everybody must be inclined to emulate his success; but how he has made his wealth, he is not at all happy to discuss it; and that makes one to wonder as to what type of leadership one must expect from him; surreptitious or, perhaps, corrupt? Who knows.
America must brace for a new type of leadership, as anything can happen, judging from what these candidates are saying in their scare tactics speeches on the campaign trail.
However, his tax plan that he enunciated recently, is loaded against ordinary workers, as the wealthy will be paying less taxes ranging from 25% and below, but there is no limit or cap for middle class income earners, like secretaries and other workers, who are presently paying approximately 30% in taxes. Their rates can be adjustable, as they can be made to move farther up, depending on how the government feels.
He does not even mention the millions of working men and women, who rely on medial salaries and low wages, compared to those in the upper echelon of society, such as executives of money and market management companies and oil moguls, who have several streams of income, as he does.
His fiscal assets and financial holdings in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere give him away as one interested solely in the upper scale of social mobility than those, who are struggling day by day to make ends meet, and those, perhaps, living from "paycheck to paycheck".
The phrase "Minimum wage" is not to be found anywhere in his plan; showing that his mind is more on what many refer to as the 1% percent, and those aspiring to join their ranks, such as speculators on Wall Street and monetary market supervisors, than on the 90% of the people, some of whom do not pay any taxes at all, due to the fact that they do not earn enough to afford paying taxes or they are on government assisted programs to survive. (The "Safety net for the poor," caper. Remember?).
In other words, the economic plan Mitt Romney presented in Michigan last week, must have had everything in it for all the people of the United States, in view of the fact that it was an initiative designed to appeal to those, who would vote in the primary election there on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 (today); but under careful scrutiny, only part of the voters would really benefit from it, if it were to materialize.
The two front runners are neck and neck in the polls, but the truth is that if any of them, or for that matter, any of all four of the Republican presidential hopefuls becomes the nominee, his party's ideologies will be foremost on his agenda, rather than the well being of all Americans.
All of them are critical of President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, but they do not offer any cogent alternatives, except to vociferously claim and promise that they will do better.
Voters in today's primaries in Arizona and Michigan have a duty to perform, in voting for the one person, who is not self centered among the remaining Republican candidates. It will be very hard to choose, as there is nobody in the group, who fits the leadership skills they themselves advocate that they have.
Again, one of them says that he is wealthy, and therefore everybody must be inclined to emulate his success; but how he has made his wealth, he is not at all happy to discuss it; and that makes one to wonder as to what type of leadership one must expect from him; surreptitious or, perhaps, corrupt? Who knows.
America must brace for a new type of leadership, as anything can happen, judging from what these candidates are saying in their scare tactics speeches on the campaign trail.
Monday, February 27, 2012
IS THE PRESIDENT TO BLAME?
There is plain criticism, which people normally glance over, in terms of whether it has any real meaning or effect on whom it is directed against; and judging from the reason for the kind of criticism, it becomes destructive, if it (criticism) is selfish.
While there is one that delves deep into analysing an opinion to prove that some wrong needs to be corrected, if there is ample room to make that opinion reversible or to be rescinded. That is usually referred to as constructive criticism.
The second type is the one that must be prevalent in the present political campaign that will play out in the 2012 general election, to elect a president, who is capable of handling the enormous issues that the country is facing; the huge National debt, the sluggish economy and the high unemployment rate.
Yet, in a very regrettable way, if not regretfully so, that is not the case, as politicians, who are running against President Barack Obama are engaged in. They are lambasting him, although "the ample room" is not there for them to do so.
Two clear examples are. 1. The disturbances in Afghanistan stemming from the burning of the Quran, and 2. The rising of oil and gas prices.
In the first incident, the disturbances will strain the already fragile relationship that the United States is having with Afghanistan; and so he apologizes for a diabolical act by members of NATO forces, and as president, it is his duty to safeguard them in every possible way, since the U.S. is the major part and also playing a leading role in operations there.
He will be the one to blame, when things go wrong; as the burning of the Quran is the worst of those things in that part of the world.
His critics are capitalizing on the issue for mere political points, and that is appalling, as they know that the only way to bring calm to come over the situation is to appease the Afghans. Therefore, an apology must be the proper thing to use in a case of that nature.
With oil and gas prices rising, the president has no control over them; and besides, his critics are more than aware of why crude oil price is rising. 1, The fact is that the United States and its allies in the United Nations are imposing economic sanctions on Iran, to stop it from pursuing its nuclear program.
Iran is in serious trouble economically, as those sanctions are having the supposed effect on that country; and therefore, the president must be exonerated from such an unnecessary critique.
In other words, if a situation calls for such criticism, a great number of people will confirm it to such a degree that it will achieve its goal; as it is justified by how and for what it is made, if it (criticism) is appropriate.
It can also be done just to malign a person, to reduce the standing and the integrity of that person in the eyes of the public; and in this instance, it is President Obama that his critics are attacking for that purpose; which is really bad.
It is just like doing something to put a person to shame for what he is responsible; but he (Obama) is not the one making oil prices to rise. 2. In all honesty, it is the so called Speculators in Wall Street that are manipulating crude oil prices for profit. They must be the ones to blame.
Otherwise, if any criticism is part of a planned rhetoric to assail an innocent individual, as the president is in this case, then all the candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, with the exception of Paul, must be ashamed of themselves, as they are doing a great deal of damage and disservice, not only to Obama, but to the U.S.
In any kind of criticism fairness is key, and that is what all fair minded people look for to make sure the it (criticism) is appropriate and constructive.
So far, that is not what the Republican candidates are doing. They are rather indulging in unfair criticism to gain political favor. Besides, many U.S. presidents have apologized on behalf of the nation on many occasions. So, do not single out Obama.
While there is one that delves deep into analysing an opinion to prove that some wrong needs to be corrected, if there is ample room to make that opinion reversible or to be rescinded. That is usually referred to as constructive criticism.
The second type is the one that must be prevalent in the present political campaign that will play out in the 2012 general election, to elect a president, who is capable of handling the enormous issues that the country is facing; the huge National debt, the sluggish economy and the high unemployment rate.
Yet, in a very regrettable way, if not regretfully so, that is not the case, as politicians, who are running against President Barack Obama are engaged in. They are lambasting him, although "the ample room" is not there for them to do so.
Two clear examples are. 1. The disturbances in Afghanistan stemming from the burning of the Quran, and 2. The rising of oil and gas prices.
In the first incident, the disturbances will strain the already fragile relationship that the United States is having with Afghanistan; and so he apologizes for a diabolical act by members of NATO forces, and as president, it is his duty to safeguard them in every possible way, since the U.S. is the major part and also playing a leading role in operations there.
He will be the one to blame, when things go wrong; as the burning of the Quran is the worst of those things in that part of the world.
His critics are capitalizing on the issue for mere political points, and that is appalling, as they know that the only way to bring calm to come over the situation is to appease the Afghans. Therefore, an apology must be the proper thing to use in a case of that nature.
With oil and gas prices rising, the president has no control over them; and besides, his critics are more than aware of why crude oil price is rising. 1, The fact is that the United States and its allies in the United Nations are imposing economic sanctions on Iran, to stop it from pursuing its nuclear program.
Iran is in serious trouble economically, as those sanctions are having the supposed effect on that country; and therefore, the president must be exonerated from such an unnecessary critique.
In other words, if a situation calls for such criticism, a great number of people will confirm it to such a degree that it will achieve its goal; as it is justified by how and for what it is made, if it (criticism) is appropriate.
It can also be done just to malign a person, to reduce the standing and the integrity of that person in the eyes of the public; and in this instance, it is President Obama that his critics are attacking for that purpose; which is really bad.
It is just like doing something to put a person to shame for what he is responsible; but he (Obama) is not the one making oil prices to rise. 2. In all honesty, it is the so called Speculators in Wall Street that are manipulating crude oil prices for profit. They must be the ones to blame.
Otherwise, if any criticism is part of a planned rhetoric to assail an innocent individual, as the president is in this case, then all the candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, with the exception of Paul, must be ashamed of themselves, as they are doing a great deal of damage and disservice, not only to Obama, but to the U.S.
In any kind of criticism fairness is key, and that is what all fair minded people look for to make sure the it (criticism) is appropriate and constructive.
So far, that is not what the Republican candidates are doing. They are rather indulging in unfair criticism to gain political favor. Besides, many U.S. presidents have apologized on behalf of the nation on many occasions. So, do not single out Obama.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
SANTORUM OR ROMNEY.
The Republican Party nomination race looks like a war zone, with front runners, Santorum and Romney attacking each other with anything they can lay their hands on; from No child left behind, a Bush era reform, to American jobs coming back from overseas.
The two are blaming each other for false attacks, and they are not sparing any chances to grab as much votes as possible for winning the Arizona and Michigan primaries.
Gingrich and Paul are still in the fray, but the real fight is between Santorum and Romney; and with Michigan being the home state of Romney, he is making sure that he gets the support he deserves as a "native son".
However, the polls are telling a different story, as over 1500 potential Republican voters are ditching Romney for Santorum. The reason being that Romney is more a of a Wall Street player with too much special interest backing; he cannot be trusted to do anything for ordinary folks.
"An American Research Group poll released Thursday shows 38% of likely Michigan GOP primary voters backing Santorum, and 34% supporting Romney --- " (CNN, 02/25/12).
Headlines, like "Mitt Romney's Ford Field Fumble." is plaguing his campaign, in spite of the huge PACs (Political Action Committees) funding that runs into millions of dollars flowing into his political war chest.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is doing well, in terms of his approval rating, notwithstanding the spike in oil and gas prices that motorists are being forced to grapple with.
Small businesses are the most hit, but they are aware that Iran has cut production of oil, due to the sanctions that the United States and its allies are imposing on that country for its nuclear program, which some say is aimed at producing weapons, and therefore it has to stop.
Gingrich, is attempting to cash in on the "apology" that the president has made to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, for the Quran burning by U.S. and allied military personnel.
However, people are thinking that an apology is fair, under the circumstances, as no one has any right to burn religious books. He (Obama) has to step in, somehow, to save the situation from getting worse.
As for Santorum and Romney, they have to keep on fighting until one of them (or someone else) becomes the choice of their party to meet with Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
They have their work cut out for them, even after Tuesday's primaries in Arizona and Michigan; and all this blog can do is to wish them luck.
The two are blaming each other for false attacks, and they are not sparing any chances to grab as much votes as possible for winning the Arizona and Michigan primaries.
Gingrich and Paul are still in the fray, but the real fight is between Santorum and Romney; and with Michigan being the home state of Romney, he is making sure that he gets the support he deserves as a "native son".
However, the polls are telling a different story, as over 1500 potential Republican voters are ditching Romney for Santorum. The reason being that Romney is more a of a Wall Street player with too much special interest backing; he cannot be trusted to do anything for ordinary folks.
"An American Research Group poll released Thursday shows 38% of likely Michigan GOP primary voters backing Santorum, and 34% supporting Romney --- " (CNN, 02/25/12).
Headlines, like "Mitt Romney's Ford Field Fumble." is plaguing his campaign, in spite of the huge PACs (Political Action Committees) funding that runs into millions of dollars flowing into his political war chest.
Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is doing well, in terms of his approval rating, notwithstanding the spike in oil and gas prices that motorists are being forced to grapple with.
Small businesses are the most hit, but they are aware that Iran has cut production of oil, due to the sanctions that the United States and its allies are imposing on that country for its nuclear program, which some say is aimed at producing weapons, and therefore it has to stop.
Gingrich, is attempting to cash in on the "apology" that the president has made to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, for the Quran burning by U.S. and allied military personnel.
However, people are thinking that an apology is fair, under the circumstances, as no one has any right to burn religious books. He (Obama) has to step in, somehow, to save the situation from getting worse.
As for Santorum and Romney, they have to keep on fighting until one of them (or someone else) becomes the choice of their party to meet with Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
They have their work cut out for them, even after Tuesday's primaries in Arizona and Michigan; and all this blog can do is to wish them luck.
Friday, February 24, 2012
IS GINGRICH ANTI-APOLOGY TOO?
Newt Gingrich is running for president, but he does not seem to know anything about the three things that form the basis of good relations in international affairs; and they are courtesy, protocol and diplomacy.
Those three things combine to give credence to any type of undertaking on behalf of a group, an organization or a nation. They have been used to normalize volatile situations. When there is a breach, especially, if it (breach) is inadvertent or accidental between nations, a simple apology can settle the matter.
He criticizes President Barack Obama for apologizing to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, for the burning of the Quran by NATO military personnel, the backlash of which is causing religious uproar around the world and violence in Afghanistan itself.
Two American soldiers have been killed, according to reports, "by a person wearing an Afghan National Army uniform," and Gingrich is expecting the president to remain aloof over the issue.
Obama is the president of the United States, and he must have the political acumen to respond immediately to calm sentiments that are fueling the outburst of mayhem in a society, like that of Afghanistan, where even a sporadic word of mouth can start a riot.
For the president to just sit an wait for the situation to get worse before he acts does not make any sense. His action is appropriate, under the circumstance, to send a message to the leader of that country, appealing for calm.
That is exactly what Obama has done, to extend sympathy and to show respect to the Afghan people (who are people too, Mr. Speaker) and to bring understanding to find a common solution to the problem.
Apologies are not made just for their own sake, but to indicate that wrong actions demand responses that are fair and just to appease the offended.
As The Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, Obama is responsible for their conduct; and so, he is more than right to be involved in a situation that will affect the morale of all the U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, which is a very important aspect. Judging from how the citizens there are reacting to the incident, they (soldiers) are bound to feel disheartened.
In this particular case, one may say that only a few are culpable, but the effect will be widespread and will dampen the spirits of many of their own colleagues. Their presence in that country has several connotations; to protect U.S. National interest and to bring peace in that region, among others.
If Gingrich does not subscribe to peace around the world, then his presidency, if it ever materializes, will throw America into violent turbulence each and every time, because in some cases only an apology, as in this one, is required or expected to show sympathy and sincerity.
He must therefore recognize that Obama has done right to extend a friendly hand to Hamid Karzai, even only to demonstrate that he (Obama) cares about both the men and women under his command and the Afghan people, and for them to be able to settle their differences in peace and harmony.
No one knows the political points or impact Gingrich is looking to derive from his combative statements, with regard to the Quran burning event; however, it is a commonality that American voters always know better, and they will therefore side with President Barack Obama for rendering an apology to the Afghan people, on behalf of the people of the U.S.
Gingrich may be anti-apology. Obama is definitely not.
Those three things combine to give credence to any type of undertaking on behalf of a group, an organization or a nation. They have been used to normalize volatile situations. When there is a breach, especially, if it (breach) is inadvertent or accidental between nations, a simple apology can settle the matter.
He criticizes President Barack Obama for apologizing to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, for the burning of the Quran by NATO military personnel, the backlash of which is causing religious uproar around the world and violence in Afghanistan itself.
Two American soldiers have been killed, according to reports, "by a person wearing an Afghan National Army uniform," and Gingrich is expecting the president to remain aloof over the issue.
Obama is the president of the United States, and he must have the political acumen to respond immediately to calm sentiments that are fueling the outburst of mayhem in a society, like that of Afghanistan, where even a sporadic word of mouth can start a riot.
For the president to just sit an wait for the situation to get worse before he acts does not make any sense. His action is appropriate, under the circumstance, to send a message to the leader of that country, appealing for calm.
That is exactly what Obama has done, to extend sympathy and to show respect to the Afghan people (who are people too, Mr. Speaker) and to bring understanding to find a common solution to the problem.
Apologies are not made just for their own sake, but to indicate that wrong actions demand responses that are fair and just to appease the offended.
As The Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, Obama is responsible for their conduct; and so, he is more than right to be involved in a situation that will affect the morale of all the U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, which is a very important aspect. Judging from how the citizens there are reacting to the incident, they (soldiers) are bound to feel disheartened.
In this particular case, one may say that only a few are culpable, but the effect will be widespread and will dampen the spirits of many of their own colleagues. Their presence in that country has several connotations; to protect U.S. National interest and to bring peace in that region, among others.
If Gingrich does not subscribe to peace around the world, then his presidency, if it ever materializes, will throw America into violent turbulence each and every time, because in some cases only an apology, as in this one, is required or expected to show sympathy and sincerity.
He must therefore recognize that Obama has done right to extend a friendly hand to Hamid Karzai, even only to demonstrate that he (Obama) cares about both the men and women under his command and the Afghan people, and for them to be able to settle their differences in peace and harmony.
No one knows the political points or impact Gingrich is looking to derive from his combative statements, with regard to the Quran burning event; however, it is a commonality that American voters always know better, and they will therefore side with President Barack Obama for rendering an apology to the Afghan people, on behalf of the people of the U.S.
Gingrich may be anti-apology. Obama is definitely not.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
OBAMA & THE REPUBLICAN FIELD.
This blog was right in predicting that the CNN Arizona debate between the Republican Party field of presidential candidates would focus on Santorum and Romney, and that the other remaining two, Gingrich and Paul, would just be contributors.
That was exactly what viewers saw, with the two men, Santorum and Romney, wallowing in criticisms from earmarks to health care.
They had managed to throw government or having the chance to govern to the wind, and winning the debate, which would lead to winning the Arizona and Michigan primaries was foremost on their minds.
At certain points, it was only Gingrich that was referring to "...the Obama administration", just to finish his sentences. He had made some of those comments before, and so their effects on the debate were minuscule.
Paul was as jocular as usual, especially when he said that his colleague, Santorum, was a "fake". He did not mean his listeners to take him seriously, and more so it (comment) did not generate enough laughter to make any difference or add to his stature on the debate floor.
What many noticed, however, was that there were three elderly men that would represent the Republican Party; and that one of whom would or could be the party's choice to meet with President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
If that should be the case, age discrimination could become a problem for the Republicans, as only Santorum looked younger on the stage yesterday, and that he would be a fair match for Obama, in the eyes of the public, when it came to bringing age under scrutiny.
On the debate itself, Romney was trying to slug Santorum with "the bridge to nowhere," salient point; a vote that he (Santorum) had cast to give support for a shady Alaskan construction, while he was in the United States Congress, as the former Senator (Santorum) was alluding to the fact that the Salt Lake Winter Olympics program that Romney took over, could have been a failure, if it was not for an instrument or a process referred to as an "earmark".
In Congress, earmarks were, and still are, legislative provisions used to direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects; and that was what happened, when Romney was in trouble to keep the Salt Lake project from sinking. Disaster was stirring him in the face, and so he sought governmental help.
In fact, a earmark was similar to a bailout, like TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) that Wall Street banks received from both the Bush and Obama administrations, to save them from declaring "managed bankruptcy".
Not too many years after, Romney, of all people, wanted General Motors to fall under that same methodology of managed bankruptcy that he had previously refused for his Salt Lake project.
G.M. has since been profitable in spite of Romney's non-support; but that alone would give him (Romney) a bad mark for him to lose the Michigan primary, because bankruptcy was not what the car maker company in that state was looking to go through. It (GM) had made a come back through the Obama Economic Stimulus Package instead.
Again, on the age question, the four men, except perhaps Santorum, looked too pale and grumpy, to be standing next to Obama in any debate, if any of them was chosen by his party to be its presidential candidate.
Also, from now on, strength and agility would count more on the campaign trail; substances that Obama has plenty of, and it would almost be suicidal, if Paul or Gingrich or Romney, in that order, tried to overtake him (Obama). Any of the above mentioned persons running alongside him would be a perfect "mismatch", or should it be a "mishmash", politically or otherwise; and that would not be a good sight for the Republican Party.
Santorum running against Obama? Maybe. However, any of the rest of the Republican candidates comparing his stamina to that of Obama? Ridiculous.
Many doubted it, from what they saw on the CNN Arizona Republican debate, judging from how much off color Paul, Gingrich and Romney were, due, of course, to age differentiation.
P.S. This blog did not say "old" anywhere.
That was exactly what viewers saw, with the two men, Santorum and Romney, wallowing in criticisms from earmarks to health care.
They had managed to throw government or having the chance to govern to the wind, and winning the debate, which would lead to winning the Arizona and Michigan primaries was foremost on their minds.
At certain points, it was only Gingrich that was referring to "...the Obama administration", just to finish his sentences. He had made some of those comments before, and so their effects on the debate were minuscule.
Paul was as jocular as usual, especially when he said that his colleague, Santorum, was a "fake". He did not mean his listeners to take him seriously, and more so it (comment) did not generate enough laughter to make any difference or add to his stature on the debate floor.
What many noticed, however, was that there were three elderly men that would represent the Republican Party; and that one of whom would or could be the party's choice to meet with President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
If that should be the case, age discrimination could become a problem for the Republicans, as only Santorum looked younger on the stage yesterday, and that he would be a fair match for Obama, in the eyes of the public, when it came to bringing age under scrutiny.
On the debate itself, Romney was trying to slug Santorum with "the bridge to nowhere," salient point; a vote that he (Santorum) had cast to give support for a shady Alaskan construction, while he was in the United States Congress, as the former Senator (Santorum) was alluding to the fact that the Salt Lake Winter Olympics program that Romney took over, could have been a failure, if it was not for an instrument or a process referred to as an "earmark".
In Congress, earmarks were, and still are, legislative provisions used to direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects; and that was what happened, when Romney was in trouble to keep the Salt Lake project from sinking. Disaster was stirring him in the face, and so he sought governmental help.
In fact, a earmark was similar to a bailout, like TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) that Wall Street banks received from both the Bush and Obama administrations, to save them from declaring "managed bankruptcy".
Not too many years after, Romney, of all people, wanted General Motors to fall under that same methodology of managed bankruptcy that he had previously refused for his Salt Lake project.
G.M. has since been profitable in spite of Romney's non-support; but that alone would give him (Romney) a bad mark for him to lose the Michigan primary, because bankruptcy was not what the car maker company in that state was looking to go through. It (GM) had made a come back through the Obama Economic Stimulus Package instead.
Again, on the age question, the four men, except perhaps Santorum, looked too pale and grumpy, to be standing next to Obama in any debate, if any of them was chosen by his party to be its presidential candidate.
Also, from now on, strength and agility would count more on the campaign trail; substances that Obama has plenty of, and it would almost be suicidal, if Paul or Gingrich or Romney, in that order, tried to overtake him (Obama). Any of the above mentioned persons running alongside him would be a perfect "mismatch", or should it be a "mishmash", politically or otherwise; and that would not be a good sight for the Republican Party.
Santorum running against Obama? Maybe. However, any of the rest of the Republican candidates comparing his stamina to that of Obama? Ridiculous.
Many doubted it, from what they saw on the CNN Arizona Republican debate, judging from how much off color Paul, Gingrich and Romney were, due, of course, to age differentiation.
P.S. This blog did not say "old" anywhere.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
SANTORUM, ROMNEY AND THE OTHERS.
"Slowdown, Buddy. We are all Republicans," look that Romney has for Santorum will not work for Romney, as Santorum will emphasize on the differences the two of them have politically, instead of strictly ideologically.
Today's debate is about who has a lot in common with the Republican Party base, where most of the votes for the primaries, caucuses and, yes, the presidential election, are.
Going away from that will be a mistake for either Romney or Santorum; however, Santorum seems to be ready for every eventuality, but his rival Romney is hedging; and that is whether he has all the facts to present against Santorum is the main question.
The issues are many, and they are confronting not just Republican candidates running for the party's nomination, but they also go for President Barack Obama, who will not be on the stage in Arizona.
However, his image will be reflecting on the minds of the audience and many people around the country all the same; notwithstanding the fact that he is many miles away from the debate venue.
He will have to find a way to redeem himself, if needs be, as his policies will be roasted before the American public, from gas prices going up through to religious belief systems.
Yet, there is no denying that the other contenders in the fray, Gingrich and Paul, will have to contribute to the debate as much as they wish, but much of the focus will be on Santorum and Romney to come up with sensible responses and cogent answers, both from the moderator, John King, and other sources.
Santorum has come forward even to the point of attacking "Obama's theology", which is not very clear whether he is questioning the president's religious beliefs or not. He. Santorum, is seemingly withdrawing from that remark, but many aspiring voters think that is what he is driving at in his recent statements.
When it comes to Romney, it is a little bit different, the way he is approaching the situation. There seems to be a great deal of evasiveness on his part, and that makes people to wonder.
“We believe Romney’s very good at what we would call ‘hit and run," and/or he Romney "“has a surrogate throw out half a story on Rick Santorum,” and then tries to lob shots from a safe distance."", says John Brabender, a Santorum adviser (Politico, 02/22/12).
Well, Romney is not going to have a place to hide his pretty face in a setting, which is being played out on national, live television. He has to present himself as a man, who can withstand pressure and be able to come from being knuckled under, as Obama has demonstrated many times over.
That is a mark of true leadership, and both Santorum and Romney must show that they also have that quality.
As for Gingrich, he will be making frivolous comments, such as "Obama is the most dangerous president in history"; but how, Mr. Gingrich?
He is doing so to please the Republican hierarchy, however, he must know by now that the party's elitists are not interested in him. From many insider reports, they are even looking for an "outsider".
In other words, Santorum and Romney are not satisfactory material to pit against Obama.
Tonight's debate will be pivotal for all the candidates, including Ron Paul, who seems to be out of range, because his chances to be the party's nominee are non-existent; or that is what many people are saying.
In fact, if any of them is likely to be a "crowd pleaser", he must direct that toward former Gov. Sarah Palin, for she can galvanize the "tea party" support that all the candidates need for any of them to really become the de facto front runner in the Republican Party nomination race.
Outrageous effusion by Gingrich does not help, when the country is facing all kinds of issues, such as Iran, Eurozone fiscal crisis and Mexican drug cartels operating in Texas.
He must consider that Obama has got too much on his plate, and as a true patriot he (Gingrich) must behave accordingly. The world is already a dangerous place; he must not make it even more dangerous.
Today's debate is about who has a lot in common with the Republican Party base, where most of the votes for the primaries, caucuses and, yes, the presidential election, are.
Going away from that will be a mistake for either Romney or Santorum; however, Santorum seems to be ready for every eventuality, but his rival Romney is hedging; and that is whether he has all the facts to present against Santorum is the main question.
The issues are many, and they are confronting not just Republican candidates running for the party's nomination, but they also go for President Barack Obama, who will not be on the stage in Arizona.
However, his image will be reflecting on the minds of the audience and many people around the country all the same; notwithstanding the fact that he is many miles away from the debate venue.
He will have to find a way to redeem himself, if needs be, as his policies will be roasted before the American public, from gas prices going up through to religious belief systems.
Yet, there is no denying that the other contenders in the fray, Gingrich and Paul, will have to contribute to the debate as much as they wish, but much of the focus will be on Santorum and Romney to come up with sensible responses and cogent answers, both from the moderator, John King, and other sources.
Santorum has come forward even to the point of attacking "Obama's theology", which is not very clear whether he is questioning the president's religious beliefs or not. He. Santorum, is seemingly withdrawing from that remark, but many aspiring voters think that is what he is driving at in his recent statements.
When it comes to Romney, it is a little bit different, the way he is approaching the situation. There seems to be a great deal of evasiveness on his part, and that makes people to wonder.
“We believe Romney’s very good at what we would call ‘hit and run," and/or he Romney "“has a surrogate throw out half a story on Rick Santorum,” and then tries to lob shots from a safe distance."", says John Brabender, a Santorum adviser (Politico, 02/22/12).
Well, Romney is not going to have a place to hide his pretty face in a setting, which is being played out on national, live television. He has to present himself as a man, who can withstand pressure and be able to come from being knuckled under, as Obama has demonstrated many times over.
That is a mark of true leadership, and both Santorum and Romney must show that they also have that quality.
As for Gingrich, he will be making frivolous comments, such as "Obama is the most dangerous president in history"; but how, Mr. Gingrich?
He is doing so to please the Republican hierarchy, however, he must know by now that the party's elitists are not interested in him. From many insider reports, they are even looking for an "outsider".
In other words, Santorum and Romney are not satisfactory material to pit against Obama.
Tonight's debate will be pivotal for all the candidates, including Ron Paul, who seems to be out of range, because his chances to be the party's nominee are non-existent; or that is what many people are saying.
In fact, if any of them is likely to be a "crowd pleaser", he must direct that toward former Gov. Sarah Palin, for she can galvanize the "tea party" support that all the candidates need for any of them to really become the de facto front runner in the Republican Party nomination race.
Outrageous effusion by Gingrich does not help, when the country is facing all kinds of issues, such as Iran, Eurozone fiscal crisis and Mexican drug cartels operating in Texas.
He must consider that Obama has got too much on his plate, and as a true patriot he (Gingrich) must behave accordingly. The world is already a dangerous place; he must not make it even more dangerous.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
AN "UNEVEN LANDSCAPE".
Even though, there are only four men left in the Republican Party nomination race, the landscape of the race is getting to be rougher and uneven still, as each candidate makes sure that the others do not get too far ahead before he catches up.
According to press reports, Romney, who everyone thought was more electable among his colleagues was losing his reputation of a strong managerial figure, when it came to getting the nation's economy back on track.
Santorum was now outpacing him with attacks of Romney's failures in business being more than his successes. Even some of the successes were mere "so called", because he sought the help of the United States government to bail him out, like the Salt Lake Olympics program that he took over and made it "successful".
Millions of dollars came from the Federal government to redeem the project, without which it would have been a total flop.
Talking about "flop", Romney has been portrayed as the master of the art of flip flop on almost every major social issue, from global warming to homosexual marriage; and so, his sincerity to champion any cause, political or cultural, was in doubt.
He, Romney, has been making gaffs that were speeding up his decline, for being out of touch with society, such as the poor always having a "safety net" provided, of course, by the taxpayer.
The internal wranglings of the Republican Party have been getting worse and worse on the campaign trail, with Newt Gingrich accusing his rivals for being far more less conservative in their beliefs; and also that Santorum, just as Romney, has been bungling things up all his life; thus making both of them unsuitable for the party's nomination.
Somehow, in spite of his oratory and masterful language expertise, he has been falling in the polls, from second last to last and back to second last. His poll numbers were more unstable than a yo-yo.
As for Ron Paul, his argument of interference by the U.S. in other nations' affairs has branded him an isolationist, and his message was still being heard by only the Libertarian Party platform, die-hard support. He could hardly win a single state in the primaries and/or the caucuses, which could determine a nominee by a delegation count.
The party's ardent supporters were looking for another person to "jump" in the fray, as the present field could not actually boast of any of the candidates, who could be a real good match for President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
They were eying a few potential candidates, which included former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, to come to the rescue of the GOP. Otherwise, the party's Tampa Convention in Florida would have a foregone conclusion, a botched up one.
According to press reports, Romney, who everyone thought was more electable among his colleagues was losing his reputation of a strong managerial figure, when it came to getting the nation's economy back on track.
Santorum was now outpacing him with attacks of Romney's failures in business being more than his successes. Even some of the successes were mere "so called", because he sought the help of the United States government to bail him out, like the Salt Lake Olympics program that he took over and made it "successful".
Millions of dollars came from the Federal government to redeem the project, without which it would have been a total flop.
Talking about "flop", Romney has been portrayed as the master of the art of flip flop on almost every major social issue, from global warming to homosexual marriage; and so, his sincerity to champion any cause, political or cultural, was in doubt.
He, Romney, has been making gaffs that were speeding up his decline, for being out of touch with society, such as the poor always having a "safety net" provided, of course, by the taxpayer.
The internal wranglings of the Republican Party have been getting worse and worse on the campaign trail, with Newt Gingrich accusing his rivals for being far more less conservative in their beliefs; and also that Santorum, just as Romney, has been bungling things up all his life; thus making both of them unsuitable for the party's nomination.
Somehow, in spite of his oratory and masterful language expertise, he has been falling in the polls, from second last to last and back to second last. His poll numbers were more unstable than a yo-yo.
As for Ron Paul, his argument of interference by the U.S. in other nations' affairs has branded him an isolationist, and his message was still being heard by only the Libertarian Party platform, die-hard support. He could hardly win a single state in the primaries and/or the caucuses, which could determine a nominee by a delegation count.
The party's ardent supporters were looking for another person to "jump" in the fray, as the present field could not actually boast of any of the candidates, who could be a real good match for President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.
They were eying a few potential candidates, which included former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, to come to the rescue of the GOP. Otherwise, the party's Tampa Convention in Florida would have a foregone conclusion, a botched up one.
Monday, February 20, 2012
A "NEW CHANCE" FOR IRAN.
Iran must not be declared a bastard case as yet, as it has allowed new talks to take place between the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iranian officials.
It would be understandable that it is feeling the pinch of the sanctions that the United States and it allies are spearheading at the U.N., and that something must be done to buffer the two situations; the nuclear ambition, which is a threat to its neighbors, on one hand and its erratic idiosyncrasies in the region to close the Strait of Hormuz, with military exercises to booth, on the other.
With all that is the Syrian conflict, where Assad is getting a great deal of support from Iran for religious reasons, and that can turn into a sectarian or civil war and cause the whole of the Middle East to be involved in an enormous conflagration.
The rest of the world will not sit idly by, particularly, in the midst of Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon, through its uranium enrichment program cloaked in strict secrecy. The only thing that must be done to ensure any kind of safety for other countries and especially Iran's arch enemy, Israel, will be to take out its nuclear facilities one by one, which Israel is prepared to do.
The U.S. is staving off a preemptive attack on Iran, not for the fear of it, but for the sake of peace that can easily come out of all the commotion, if Iran will be sensible enough to realize that, any attempt to disrupt the peace in the region will not be in its favor.
The only result will be to engulf the world in a nuclear warfare, in which there will be no winners, but all will be losers; as it will create a tumultuous bombshell that will affect every human being on earth.
Iran has been warned many times that it cannot play it both ways, to arm itself with "the bomb" and to co-exist peacefully with others; and if it is feeling any type of isolation, it is because of its own refusal to be part of the world community. By behaving in an acceptable, conventional and sensible manner, it will be welcome into the comity of nations, or else, it will have problems.
In other words, the differentiation between Iran and its counterpart members in the U.N. is due to its actions that are far from being friendly toward its neighbors; because in this day and age, a threat to one nation is a threat to all nations.
It will have Russia and China defending its behavior, but that is only temporary, as both countries are seriously involved in the economic and political well being of their own people, more than engaging in a standoff with the U.S. and its allies, who have a great majority of the U.N. membership on their side.
Iran will lose big time, if it will rely on the hope that another country, like Russia or China, will systematically come to its aid to confront the world. For they themselves have issues that are prevalent for them to handle, which will be in the best interests of their people, than sending their armies to a war that will have no end, on behalf of another country.
Iran will be wise, to cease and desist from its tomfoolery, and to have meaningful talks with the IAEA officials, and to come up with tangible responses to their (IAEA officials') inquiries to their satisfaction. They (officials) will then have something good to say about Iran, to put the many anxieties about that country to rest.
Or any negative responses on the part of Iran will increase the unfavorable risk the world is taking with it; that it (Iran) is up to no good and therefore it must be stopped before it is too late.
Iran must therefore not attept to misuse or abuse this new chance.
It would be understandable that it is feeling the pinch of the sanctions that the United States and it allies are spearheading at the U.N., and that something must be done to buffer the two situations; the nuclear ambition, which is a threat to its neighbors, on one hand and its erratic idiosyncrasies in the region to close the Strait of Hormuz, with military exercises to booth, on the other.
With all that is the Syrian conflict, where Assad is getting a great deal of support from Iran for religious reasons, and that can turn into a sectarian or civil war and cause the whole of the Middle East to be involved in an enormous conflagration.
The rest of the world will not sit idly by, particularly, in the midst of Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon, through its uranium enrichment program cloaked in strict secrecy. The only thing that must be done to ensure any kind of safety for other countries and especially Iran's arch enemy, Israel, will be to take out its nuclear facilities one by one, which Israel is prepared to do.
The U.S. is staving off a preemptive attack on Iran, not for the fear of it, but for the sake of peace that can easily come out of all the commotion, if Iran will be sensible enough to realize that, any attempt to disrupt the peace in the region will not be in its favor.
The only result will be to engulf the world in a nuclear warfare, in which there will be no winners, but all will be losers; as it will create a tumultuous bombshell that will affect every human being on earth.
Iran has been warned many times that it cannot play it both ways, to arm itself with "the bomb" and to co-exist peacefully with others; and if it is feeling any type of isolation, it is because of its own refusal to be part of the world community. By behaving in an acceptable, conventional and sensible manner, it will be welcome into the comity of nations, or else, it will have problems.
In other words, the differentiation between Iran and its counterpart members in the U.N. is due to its actions that are far from being friendly toward its neighbors; because in this day and age, a threat to one nation is a threat to all nations.
It will have Russia and China defending its behavior, but that is only temporary, as both countries are seriously involved in the economic and political well being of their own people, more than engaging in a standoff with the U.S. and its allies, who have a great majority of the U.N. membership on their side.
Iran will lose big time, if it will rely on the hope that another country, like Russia or China, will systematically come to its aid to confront the world. For they themselves have issues that are prevalent for them to handle, which will be in the best interests of their people, than sending their armies to a war that will have no end, on behalf of another country.
Iran will be wise, to cease and desist from its tomfoolery, and to have meaningful talks with the IAEA officials, and to come up with tangible responses to their (IAEA officials') inquiries to their satisfaction. They (officials) will then have something good to say about Iran, to put the many anxieties about that country to rest.
Or any negative responses on the part of Iran will increase the unfavorable risk the world is taking with it; that it (Iran) is up to no good and therefore it must be stopped before it is too late.
Iran must therefore not attept to misuse or abuse this new chance.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
YOUCEF'S PLIGHT.
In this day and age, you don't kill a man for what he believes in; and that is what is going on in Iran with the death sentence on a priest, who will not renounce his religious faith.
Lawmakers in the United States Congress are calling for his immediate release, not because he is a Christian, but for the reason that his civil and human rights are being violated by his own government.
It is like, "if you do not want to convert from one religion to another, we will stop you from breathing," which hardly makes any sense whatsoever.
That is the case of a young Christian priest in today's Iran, where he is facing "apostasy" for embracing the Christian faith. The country's leaders believe that he is a threat to "national security".
Youcef Nadarkhani will therefore be put to death "for refusing to renounce his faith."
The law of apostasy is itself criminal, as it cannot make any differentiation between people. It fails to take into consideration that a person can be in a Mosque on a Friday, but he does not believe in what he is seeing or hearing around him. So, who will ever know?
In other words, one cannot read anybody's mind, to be sure that the next person is entrenched in the Muslim faith, just because he is in a Mosque. The mere fact that he is present there does not make him a devout Muslim believer.
As faith is a state of mind, you cannot physically delve into it; and if so, that makes you a sycophant, if you try.
Trained doctors and specialists, like psychologists and sociologists, try to do just that; but they are just scratching on the surface of an unseen state (of mind), as they cannot reach into it and come up with anything substantial as proof or evidence.
They will then write a report after an examination of a "patient", but that cannot be genuinely accurate, and so, that makes them into sycophants, for prying into other people's minds.
The Ayatollahs in Iran fit perfectly into that mode, but what makes their situation worse is that they are not trained. They just look into a face and deduce that it (face) is a regular at the Mosque and so it belongs to or it is that of a Muslim.
Nadarkhani can pretend to be such a person, and he can get away with his death sentence; and who will ever know?
They will call him a covert Christian, but who cares.
Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) is sponsoring a resolution, which "denounces Iran for its leaders' ruling of apostasy against Youcef Nadarkhani and calls for his immediate release." (Fox News, 02/18/12).
He has the support of millions of Americans; for Youcef's plight is appalling.
Footnote: No, Doctors are necessary. They protect society from people with mental deficiencies.
Lawmakers in the United States Congress are calling for his immediate release, not because he is a Christian, but for the reason that his civil and human rights are being violated by his own government.
It is like, "if you do not want to convert from one religion to another, we will stop you from breathing," which hardly makes any sense whatsoever.
That is the case of a young Christian priest in today's Iran, where he is facing "apostasy" for embracing the Christian faith. The country's leaders believe that he is a threat to "national security".
Youcef Nadarkhani will therefore be put to death "for refusing to renounce his faith."
The law of apostasy is itself criminal, as it cannot make any differentiation between people. It fails to take into consideration that a person can be in a Mosque on a Friday, but he does not believe in what he is seeing or hearing around him. So, who will ever know?
In other words, one cannot read anybody's mind, to be sure that the next person is entrenched in the Muslim faith, just because he is in a Mosque. The mere fact that he is present there does not make him a devout Muslim believer.
As faith is a state of mind, you cannot physically delve into it; and if so, that makes you a sycophant, if you try.
Trained doctors and specialists, like psychologists and sociologists, try to do just that; but they are just scratching on the surface of an unseen state (of mind), as they cannot reach into it and come up with anything substantial as proof or evidence.
They will then write a report after an examination of a "patient", but that cannot be genuinely accurate, and so, that makes them into sycophants, for prying into other people's minds.
The Ayatollahs in Iran fit perfectly into that mode, but what makes their situation worse is that they are not trained. They just look into a face and deduce that it (face) is a regular at the Mosque and so it belongs to or it is that of a Muslim.
Nadarkhani can pretend to be such a person, and he can get away with his death sentence; and who will ever know?
They will call him a covert Christian, but who cares.
Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) is sponsoring a resolution, which "denounces Iran for its leaders' ruling of apostasy against Youcef Nadarkhani and calls for his immediate release." (Fox News, 02/18/12).
He has the support of millions of Americans; for Youcef's plight is appalling.
Footnote: No, Doctors are necessary. They protect society from people with mental deficiencies.
Friday, February 17, 2012
RELIGION AND CONTRACEPTION.
The controversy brewing in Washington D.C. will always have its two sides, with no wiggle room of any kind for neutrality.
There is a religious principle that condemns contraception, because it is equivalent to abortion on the part of a woman or women; and having to do it; that is using "the pill" several times every month, makes it even more serious of an act of crime.
However, women mostly fall prey to the practice from the advice by doctors, who will prescribe the methodology for patients that need not to have more babies; either that they already have had too many, or their health will be jeopardized in some way or another. Even that is no good an excuse.
Many of us are not Catholics, and will not understand the teachings of the Papacy, with respect to procreation; but it must be recognized that life is so special and an exceptional occurrence, if you like; and therefore to terminate it at any point, even from its inception, must be considered a criminal conduct.
Yet, a lot of people, mainly women, perhaps for any flimsy reason, will take the pill, such as for staying in shape, from the aspect of physical looks or appearance, due their occupation as models or actors (actresses), or just to stop themselves from birthing.
Apart from doctors wanting to curtail pregnancies, some women will do so on their own or from the piece of the mind by their male counterparts, who are not ready to start having children, leading to forming families. Or they cannot stand babies for all the trouble they bring, in feeding and taking care of them, which to them (men) are boring and too time consuming.
That also goes for many women; particularly, when they are too young to carry that kind of a burden, with respect to child bearing and rearing.
The training after that is even worse, as the (baby) will be having a formal education and other necessities in life to be able to have a normal growth and upbringing; all that put together, constitutes a great deal of responsibility on the part of the couple, who are doing the parenting.
In a religious environment, only married couples have the privilege (and not the right) to have babies; and to have children out of wedlock is an anathema.
Contraception, after all, is another form of masturbation, which religious sects detest even more. It (masturbation) can happen naturally; however, indulging in it, just for the passion or the pleasure of it, makes no real sense. It only demeans human existence.
In recent years, population count has been deemed very important to benefit national interest and security; such as Russia wanting to expand its population growth; and so authorities there are encouraging citizens to copulate and produce more children.
No argument can therefore justify contraception as being an alternative to anything other than to end a life. In short, it is against the principle of life or living itself. Animals do not have to resort to it, so why must humans?
For that reason alone, some religious groups will fight to the death against the use of contraception.
There is a religious principle that condemns contraception, because it is equivalent to abortion on the part of a woman or women; and having to do it; that is using "the pill" several times every month, makes it even more serious of an act of crime.
However, women mostly fall prey to the practice from the advice by doctors, who will prescribe the methodology for patients that need not to have more babies; either that they already have had too many, or their health will be jeopardized in some way or another. Even that is no good an excuse.
Many of us are not Catholics, and will not understand the teachings of the Papacy, with respect to procreation; but it must be recognized that life is so special and an exceptional occurrence, if you like; and therefore to terminate it at any point, even from its inception, must be considered a criminal conduct.
Yet, a lot of people, mainly women, perhaps for any flimsy reason, will take the pill, such as for staying in shape, from the aspect of physical looks or appearance, due their occupation as models or actors (actresses), or just to stop themselves from birthing.
Apart from doctors wanting to curtail pregnancies, some women will do so on their own or from the piece of the mind by their male counterparts, who are not ready to start having children, leading to forming families. Or they cannot stand babies for all the trouble they bring, in feeding and taking care of them, which to them (men) are boring and too time consuming.
That also goes for many women; particularly, when they are too young to carry that kind of a burden, with respect to child bearing and rearing.
The training after that is even worse, as the (baby) will be having a formal education and other necessities in life to be able to have a normal growth and upbringing; all that put together, constitutes a great deal of responsibility on the part of the couple, who are doing the parenting.
In a religious environment, only married couples have the privilege (and not the right) to have babies; and to have children out of wedlock is an anathema.
Contraception, after all, is another form of masturbation, which religious sects detest even more. It (masturbation) can happen naturally; however, indulging in it, just for the passion or the pleasure of it, makes no real sense. It only demeans human existence.
In recent years, population count has been deemed very important to benefit national interest and security; such as Russia wanting to expand its population growth; and so authorities there are encouraging citizens to copulate and produce more children.
No argument can therefore justify contraception as being an alternative to anything other than to end a life. In short, it is against the principle of life or living itself. Animals do not have to resort to it, so why must humans?
For that reason alone, some religious groups will fight to the death against the use of contraception.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
IRAN AND "THE TWIST".
Iran's nuclear program is picking up steam, as the country's political leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has personally been present for the first home made fuel rod to be inserted into a research reactor in Tehran.
There are other nuclear facilities that are pushing on with uranium enrichment, for which the Natanz facility is famous, with new generation of Iranian centrifuges being brought into operation there.
Probably that and other pieces of Iran's nuclear program are the "surprises" that Ahmadinejad has been talking about a few days before, in touting the scientific achievements of his country, and how far the Iranians have advanced.
"Iran claimed two major advances in producing nuclear fuel..." (ABC news, 02/16/12).
However, Iran with its bad history of secrecy, is gradually developing the trickery of twisting the world around its little finger, for coming up with the idea of new talks with world powers of its "peaceful purposes for its nuclear program."
President Barack Obama is making sure that Iran never reaches the point of producing a nuclear weapon to threaten friends and allies of the United States, very stiff sanctions have been imposed on Tehran and they are harshly hurting the country's (Iran's) economy.
America and European leaders are serious to stop Iran in its tracks from realizing its ambition, which is the right approach; and so they are determined to ratchet up the sanctions that are leaving no room for that country to breathe.
As such, the Iranians are using intimidation, with the progression of their nuclear program, and coercion of being ready for "talks", all at the same time, to negate the pressure they are feeling. The talks are designed to find a way out, but the U.S. and its allies must never concede to Iranian tricks.
"We voice our readiness for dialogue on a spectrum of various issues which can provide ground for constructive and forward looking cooperation," a letter from Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has said in a letter to the European Union's foreign policy administrator, Catherine Ashton.
Almost in the same breath, Iran is "on the verge of imposing an oil embargo on European countries to retaliate for sanctions." (ABC news, 02/16/12).
So, which is which? Either to be cooperative and defuse a dire situation, or be defiant and suffer the consequences of the actions of U.S. and its friends.
The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany are demanding "that Iran freeze all uranium enrichment." and that is what Iran's leaders must be concentrating on.
Lately, due to the erratic behavior of Iran in the Gulf region, oil is becoming expensive, and that will not sit well with American consumers, especially in an election year; but America must keep the pressure on, as Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb is a more unwelcome situation than oil prices going up. Everything, including US, can go up in smoke, with a nuclear armed Iran.
Ahmadinejad is using rhetoric and threats to twist the U.S. and its allies around his little finger, but that will not work. He must be made to understand that the idea of Iran having such a bomb will not be conducive to world peace, for the sheer danger that it presents.
There are other nuclear facilities that are pushing on with uranium enrichment, for which the Natanz facility is famous, with new generation of Iranian centrifuges being brought into operation there.
Probably that and other pieces of Iran's nuclear program are the "surprises" that Ahmadinejad has been talking about a few days before, in touting the scientific achievements of his country, and how far the Iranians have advanced.
"Iran claimed two major advances in producing nuclear fuel..." (ABC news, 02/16/12).
However, Iran with its bad history of secrecy, is gradually developing the trickery of twisting the world around its little finger, for coming up with the idea of new talks with world powers of its "peaceful purposes for its nuclear program."
President Barack Obama is making sure that Iran never reaches the point of producing a nuclear weapon to threaten friends and allies of the United States, very stiff sanctions have been imposed on Tehran and they are harshly hurting the country's (Iran's) economy.
America and European leaders are serious to stop Iran in its tracks from realizing its ambition, which is the right approach; and so they are determined to ratchet up the sanctions that are leaving no room for that country to breathe.
As such, the Iranians are using intimidation, with the progression of their nuclear program, and coercion of being ready for "talks", all at the same time, to negate the pressure they are feeling. The talks are designed to find a way out, but the U.S. and its allies must never concede to Iranian tricks.
"We voice our readiness for dialogue on a spectrum of various issues which can provide ground for constructive and forward looking cooperation," a letter from Saeed Jalili, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator has said in a letter to the European Union's foreign policy administrator, Catherine Ashton.
Almost in the same breath, Iran is "on the verge of imposing an oil embargo on European countries to retaliate for sanctions." (ABC news, 02/16/12).
So, which is which? Either to be cooperative and defuse a dire situation, or be defiant and suffer the consequences of the actions of U.S. and its friends.
The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany are demanding "that Iran freeze all uranium enrichment." and that is what Iran's leaders must be concentrating on.
Lately, due to the erratic behavior of Iran in the Gulf region, oil is becoming expensive, and that will not sit well with American consumers, especially in an election year; but America must keep the pressure on, as Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb is a more unwelcome situation than oil prices going up. Everything, including US, can go up in smoke, with a nuclear armed Iran.
Ahmadinejad is using rhetoric and threats to twist the U.S. and its allies around his little finger, but that will not work. He must be made to understand that the idea of Iran having such a bomb will not be conducive to world peace, for the sheer danger that it presents.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
THE SITUATION IN SYRIA.
The situation in Syria is a mixture of sectarian war and a revolution stemming from the erstwhile Arab Spring; and although, the suffering there of civilians, consisting mainly of children and women, is horrible and reprehensible, it can mean that Assad has lost control of the country and he himself is confused and totally flabbergasted.
He is dubbed the "butcher of Damascus", and that is appropriately so, but he is being pushed and getting support from Iran to continue to encourage the atrocious behavior of the Syrian Security forces under his command, and so if he decides to relent his aggression on his own people, his backers will consider him ungrateful on religious grounds.
Russia and China are also involved. The two have jointly vetoed the resolution at the United Nations Security Council, backed by the United States and its allies, and which also has the approval of the Arab League, requesting Assad to step down. The resultant is still negative, and it can only make the matter to remain open-ended.
International pressure and sanctions are proving worthless, and the crackdown continues, with several people being killed on a daily basis. The U.S. is considering taking another route by sending humanitarian help to Syria, which will be just a good idea, for it will have come too late for the dead and the injured, among whom are little infants and the very old.
The crisis has come before the Senate Armed Services Committee, yesterday, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey recalling that there is no clear view of what is happening in Syria. The U.S. does not have "as clean an understanding of the nature of the opposition," he is reported to say.
Adding that there are too many elements involved, as "All of the players in the region, it seems, have a stake in this,"
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/14/dempsey-syria-much-different-than-libya-big-players-involved-in-conflict/#ixzz1mRnymcyF).
President Barack Obama is making every effort to take the brunt off the civilian population caught up in the violence, through diplomatic and other means, as U.S. military intervention is not possible as in Libya; at least not at this point.
However, if Syria's case is a Sunni-Shia fight then the rest of the world cannot be safe in any real sense of the word, as such a conflict can escalate beyond the region and further threaten other countries and therefore world peace.
In other words, it is not just the U.S. that has got its work cut out for it to do something to stop the carnage; the U.N. has a more vital role to play for all its members to come to an agreement, sooner than later, to resolve a "deadly issue." that can become global.
Assad may be considered a killer, but he is allegedly having the backing of Iran, whose leaders may be tying up his hands. To free him will not be so easy.
He is dubbed the "butcher of Damascus", and that is appropriately so, but he is being pushed and getting support from Iran to continue to encourage the atrocious behavior of the Syrian Security forces under his command, and so if he decides to relent his aggression on his own people, his backers will consider him ungrateful on religious grounds.
Russia and China are also involved. The two have jointly vetoed the resolution at the United Nations Security Council, backed by the United States and its allies, and which also has the approval of the Arab League, requesting Assad to step down. The resultant is still negative, and it can only make the matter to remain open-ended.
International pressure and sanctions are proving worthless, and the crackdown continues, with several people being killed on a daily basis. The U.S. is considering taking another route by sending humanitarian help to Syria, which will be just a good idea, for it will have come too late for the dead and the injured, among whom are little infants and the very old.
The crisis has come before the Senate Armed Services Committee, yesterday, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey recalling that there is no clear view of what is happening in Syria. The U.S. does not have "as clean an understanding of the nature of the opposition," he is reported to say.
Adding that there are too many elements involved, as "All of the players in the region, it seems, have a stake in this,"
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/14/dempsey-syria-much-different-than-libya-big-players-involved-in-conflict/#ixzz1mRnymcyF).
President Barack Obama is making every effort to take the brunt off the civilian population caught up in the violence, through diplomatic and other means, as U.S. military intervention is not possible as in Libya; at least not at this point.
However, if Syria's case is a Sunni-Shia fight then the rest of the world cannot be safe in any real sense of the word, as such a conflict can escalate beyond the region and further threaten other countries and therefore world peace.
In other words, it is not just the U.S. that has got its work cut out for it to do something to stop the carnage; the U.N. has a more vital role to play for all its members to come to an agreement, sooner than later, to resolve a "deadly issue." that can become global.
Assad may be considered a killer, but he is allegedly having the backing of Iran, whose leaders may be tying up his hands. To free him will not be so easy.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
TURMOIL IN THE SPEAKER'S CORNER.
The payroll tax cut bill is still having a hard time in the chambers of the United States Congress; particularly, in the House of Representatives.
Its expiration will retard the progress of the economic recovery the country needs so badly to ensure that the years ahead will see more substantial growth, in terms of job creation, and also reduced unemployment.
The consensus to extend the legislation for another ten months is there among members of both parties, but what is stopping it is how to pay for it.
In President Barack Obama's budget yesterday, he had made it clear that low tax burden of the wealthy must be raised to cover any such cost. That is not unusual, for he has maintained all along that all people "playing by the same set of rules and paying their fair share in taxes," will solve the problem.
160 million working men and women will have a tax break for the rest of the year, if the bill is passed; and that will be a step in the right direction, as that will help the slow recovery and further grow the economy, now and in the future.
Speaker of the House John Boehner has his own plan, which does not have the appeal he speculates with the rank and file of his party, but they have to make concessions, which will be in line with President Obama's demand of boosting the tax level of the well-to-do.
After months of opposition that raising taxes on the "rich" will kill jobs, the Republicans are being forced to relent; which is nothing less than embarrassing.
The plan also goes against the grain of the rational that has brought "the tea party" into being, that the huge national deficit must be increased, instead of levying any surtax on the rich to make up for the cost of the program.
Thus, "adding $100 billion to the deficit by passing a 10-month extension of a Social Security payroll tax cut without paying for it." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72821.html#ixzz1mM8uG3gb).
Meaning, the Republican lawmakers "can have their cake and eat it too." by not raising taxes, but the payment has to go on the nation's already bulging account. That piece of news is sending chills and feelings of discontent among the rank and file, as that will be a big step back by the party and setback for Republican policy.
However, the leadership has been cornered in an election year, and the jobs of party members and gaining the White House are paramount, than to take a firm stand on waiving taxes on the wealthy. Instead, the leaders are giving in so easily.
That will expose the Republican Party as protecting "some people from paying their fair share in taxes, and dumping the ramifications of the payroll tax cut extension on top of the deficit heap the nation is presently carrying.
In other words, the announcement is showing up in the form of a malaise among members of the Speaker's caucus; yet, the most important thing is that they are supposed to find a way out before the measure expires at the end of this month.
Hence, the new plan, which has taken many lawmakers seeking a compromise by sheer surprise. They are even asking the Speaker to "sweep the matter under the carpet," for the time being.
The funniest thing is that his (Speaker's) caucus is blaming the Democrats in the House with a statement that goes like this,
“Our goal is to reach a responsible agreement in conference. But in the face of the Democrats’ stonewalling and obstructionism, we are prepared to act to protect small businesses and our economy from the consequences of Washington Democrats political games."
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72821_)
The president has established a firm stance on the issue that tax revenue is not just the alternate avenue; it is the only way left to meet the cost of the payroll tax cut, in order to assure millions of workers that their taxes will not go up after February 29, 2012.
The court of the Speaker will be in turmoil as there is bound to be a backlash from "floor members" of his own party; but they must think very fast and act to commensurate with what the Democrats have on the table. They are in a hurry to reach an agreement "including one idea to eliminate certain tax preferences for corporations and individuals," they now confess. WHAT?
President Obama has been asking for that for months, with the Republicans refusing to budge. Though they know fully well that amounts to a waste of time on their (Republicans) part, which will not sit well with the voters in the forthcoming presidential election.
The fact remains that this Congress, with a Republican majority, has made it its duty to thwart the Obama administration with all kinds of obstacles, and it is a wounder that the government is able to move forward to put the country's economy back on track and bring down the high unemployment rate. The Obama administration has had a great deal to surmount.
Yet, will they (Republicans) stop there? No! They are on the attack to knock down the president's budget for next year, which is designed to create more jobs, make America energy independent and reduce the large deficit he has inherited, in order to have a substantial effect on the enormous National Debt that continues to haunt the nation.
Hoping, as it has been said before, voters should pay more attention from now on, to decide how and to whom they would cast their votes.
Its expiration will retard the progress of the economic recovery the country needs so badly to ensure that the years ahead will see more substantial growth, in terms of job creation, and also reduced unemployment.
The consensus to extend the legislation for another ten months is there among members of both parties, but what is stopping it is how to pay for it.
In President Barack Obama's budget yesterday, he had made it clear that low tax burden of the wealthy must be raised to cover any such cost. That is not unusual, for he has maintained all along that all people "playing by the same set of rules and paying their fair share in taxes," will solve the problem.
160 million working men and women will have a tax break for the rest of the year, if the bill is passed; and that will be a step in the right direction, as that will help the slow recovery and further grow the economy, now and in the future.
Speaker of the House John Boehner has his own plan, which does not have the appeal he speculates with the rank and file of his party, but they have to make concessions, which will be in line with President Obama's demand of boosting the tax level of the well-to-do.
After months of opposition that raising taxes on the "rich" will kill jobs, the Republicans are being forced to relent; which is nothing less than embarrassing.
The plan also goes against the grain of the rational that has brought "the tea party" into being, that the huge national deficit must be increased, instead of levying any surtax on the rich to make up for the cost of the program.
Thus, "adding $100 billion to the deficit by passing a 10-month extension of a Social Security payroll tax cut without paying for it." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72821.html#ixzz1mM8uG3gb).
Meaning, the Republican lawmakers "can have their cake and eat it too." by not raising taxes, but the payment has to go on the nation's already bulging account. That piece of news is sending chills and feelings of discontent among the rank and file, as that will be a big step back by the party and setback for Republican policy.
However, the leadership has been cornered in an election year, and the jobs of party members and gaining the White House are paramount, than to take a firm stand on waiving taxes on the wealthy. Instead, the leaders are giving in so easily.
That will expose the Republican Party as protecting "some people from paying their fair share in taxes, and dumping the ramifications of the payroll tax cut extension on top of the deficit heap the nation is presently carrying.
In other words, the announcement is showing up in the form of a malaise among members of the Speaker's caucus; yet, the most important thing is that they are supposed to find a way out before the measure expires at the end of this month.
Hence, the new plan, which has taken many lawmakers seeking a compromise by sheer surprise. They are even asking the Speaker to "sweep the matter under the carpet," for the time being.
The funniest thing is that his (Speaker's) caucus is blaming the Democrats in the House with a statement that goes like this,
“Our goal is to reach a responsible agreement in conference. But in the face of the Democrats’ stonewalling and obstructionism, we are prepared to act to protect small businesses and our economy from the consequences of Washington Democrats political games."
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72821_)
The president has established a firm stance on the issue that tax revenue is not just the alternate avenue; it is the only way left to meet the cost of the payroll tax cut, in order to assure millions of workers that their taxes will not go up after February 29, 2012.
The court of the Speaker will be in turmoil as there is bound to be a backlash from "floor members" of his own party; but they must think very fast and act to commensurate with what the Democrats have on the table. They are in a hurry to reach an agreement "including one idea to eliminate certain tax preferences for corporations and individuals," they now confess. WHAT?
President Obama has been asking for that for months, with the Republicans refusing to budge. Though they know fully well that amounts to a waste of time on their (Republicans) part, which will not sit well with the voters in the forthcoming presidential election.
The fact remains that this Congress, with a Republican majority, has made it its duty to thwart the Obama administration with all kinds of obstacles, and it is a wounder that the government is able to move forward to put the country's economy back on track and bring down the high unemployment rate. The Obama administration has had a great deal to surmount.
Yet, will they (Republicans) stop there? No! They are on the attack to knock down the president's budget for next year, which is designed to create more jobs, make America energy independent and reduce the large deficit he has inherited, in order to have a substantial effect on the enormous National Debt that continues to haunt the nation.
Hoping, as it has been said before, voters should pay more attention from now on, to decide how and to whom they would cast their votes.
Monday, February 13, 2012
THE SUNDAY NEWS PROGRAMS.
The Sunday political talk shows were leaving the door open for the media to be impartial in political campaigns now, more than ever.
They were attacking President Barack Obama from two different points of view; one about his Contraception Rule, that has antagonized the religious sector, particularly, the Catholic Church, and made him to look like he was against religion.
The general public would be spared the aggravation, if the bishops and cardinals would tell the truth about why contraception, and abortion per se, were contrary to their core belief, that murder took place in the Garden of Eden; hence the suffering in the world from thence to the present.
The explanation of that would be quite lengthy, but it was now ripe for people to know the truth about the fact that Jesus had to shed his blood for humanity, because Adam and Eve, through the help of ____, have initiated the act of murder in the Garden of Eden.
The Creator could not go against His own laws, and He had no alternative but to send his son to die to expiate what had taken place; and that was blood for blood.
That would enable people to know more about their beliefs and teachings; and they would also not be subjected to laws that dealt with contraception and abortion.
The second criticism of the media, in the Sunday programs, was the unlimited and unhindered amounts of money going to the so called PACs (Political Action Committees), which has overflowed the war chests of Republican Party candidates running against the president.
They were saying that he had made a turn around from his previous statement, that huge amounts of cash from corporations and Wall Street moguls was a "threat to our Democracy," and he has now decided that he would involve his campaign in the practice. That, they emphasized, was a flip flop on the president's part.
It should not be that one would want to defend the president, but in all honesty, when the media was directly taking sides in politics, it made no sense to believe their fairness, as in "fair, balanced and unafraid" theory; and that would force one to go to his defence.
What the president did was to predict the occurrence of money being used to "buy" elections; and if that should be the case, then only the wealthy and the affluent in society would have the opportunity to choose and back a candidate to protect their interests against another candidate, who had lesser resources.
He never said that he or anyone else should desist from participating in the PAC idea. He only pointed out the dangers of what huge sums of money being pumped into campaigns would present. It would make attaining office at any level difficult for the majority of the people.
That was what the Sunday news programs should have had their contributors and analysts discussing.
Instead, they chose to attack the president; but the public always saw through their dirty tricks, and the majority eventually did the right thing.
Hopefully it (public) would do the same this time around.
They were attacking President Barack Obama from two different points of view; one about his Contraception Rule, that has antagonized the religious sector, particularly, the Catholic Church, and made him to look like he was against religion.
The general public would be spared the aggravation, if the bishops and cardinals would tell the truth about why contraception, and abortion per se, were contrary to their core belief, that murder took place in the Garden of Eden; hence the suffering in the world from thence to the present.
The explanation of that would be quite lengthy, but it was now ripe for people to know the truth about the fact that Jesus had to shed his blood for humanity, because Adam and Eve, through the help of ____, have initiated the act of murder in the Garden of Eden.
The Creator could not go against His own laws, and He had no alternative but to send his son to die to expiate what had taken place; and that was blood for blood.
That would enable people to know more about their beliefs and teachings; and they would also not be subjected to laws that dealt with contraception and abortion.
The second criticism of the media, in the Sunday programs, was the unlimited and unhindered amounts of money going to the so called PACs (Political Action Committees), which has overflowed the war chests of Republican Party candidates running against the president.
They were saying that he had made a turn around from his previous statement, that huge amounts of cash from corporations and Wall Street moguls was a "threat to our Democracy," and he has now decided that he would involve his campaign in the practice. That, they emphasized, was a flip flop on the president's part.
It should not be that one would want to defend the president, but in all honesty, when the media was directly taking sides in politics, it made no sense to believe their fairness, as in "fair, balanced and unafraid" theory; and that would force one to go to his defence.
What the president did was to predict the occurrence of money being used to "buy" elections; and if that should be the case, then only the wealthy and the affluent in society would have the opportunity to choose and back a candidate to protect their interests against another candidate, who had lesser resources.
He never said that he or anyone else should desist from participating in the PAC idea. He only pointed out the dangers of what huge sums of money being pumped into campaigns would present. It would make attaining office at any level difficult for the majority of the people.
That was what the Sunday news programs should have had their contributors and analysts discussing.
Instead, they chose to attack the president; but the public always saw through their dirty tricks, and the majority eventually did the right thing.
Hopefully it (public) would do the same this time around.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
NEWT, THE CROCODILE.
Did you see the "Crocodile" having an afternoon meal at the CPAC meeting yesterday?
Without mentioning any names in particular, he took the whole Conservative establishment to task, enumerated his accomplishments and espoused his plans for the future.
In each compartment, he showed that he was the best of the field of candidates now vying for the nomination of the Republican Party; namely, to choose the right person to face President Barack Obama for the White House in the forthcoming 2012 presidential election.
He was masterful in his eloquence, his command of the English language was superb, and his delivery was nothing short of excellence.
Before then, his two close rivals, Santorum and Romney, have made their speeches, and they both did their best to energize the membership of the party, and indicated that they were Conservatives (with a capital C). One of them went to the extent of saying that he was a "severely conservative governor".
Severely? A word that is used to describe a wound or something of that kind.
Romney was made to look like an accountant counting on his fortune to sweep him to the nomination. Santorum has been reduced to resemble a blue collar worker and a "novice" in American politics, and he would not even know where to start, given that he was a complete "duffer", when it came to the question of leadership.
That was the quality most preferred by voters in anyone wanting to be the President of the United States; and the two were bereft of that essential element, as a truly convincing speech was able to achieve its objective, at the end of the day, stringently focusing on the subject of leadership.
In short, the speech has striped the rest of the Republican candidates of their prowess to redeem the party's nomination; and if the party establishment did not see it that way, then it was at a loss.
Yet, it did not stop there, but went on to galvanize the support of the American people, regardless of party or no-party affiliation. Even then, that was for starters, as he would be coming forth with more of it on this year's presidential campaign trail. They would be designed to mesmerize voters to no end.
That was Newt Gingrich; and he was brilliant at the CPAC gathering yesterday.
The only person that could make a similar speech was Barack Obama, because he was a lawyer, and he would use his legalese expediency to offset his opponent's academic craftiness.
The Democratic Party might wish to have someone else to be the Republican nominee, it would be a big mistake on its part to take its eyes off Newt Gingrich.
He was, and still is, a dangerous person to contend with, politically; and in any other fashion.
Without mentioning any names in particular, he took the whole Conservative establishment to task, enumerated his accomplishments and espoused his plans for the future.
In each compartment, he showed that he was the best of the field of candidates now vying for the nomination of the Republican Party; namely, to choose the right person to face President Barack Obama for the White House in the forthcoming 2012 presidential election.
He was masterful in his eloquence, his command of the English language was superb, and his delivery was nothing short of excellence.
Before then, his two close rivals, Santorum and Romney, have made their speeches, and they both did their best to energize the membership of the party, and indicated that they were Conservatives (with a capital C). One of them went to the extent of saying that he was a "severely conservative governor".
Severely? A word that is used to describe a wound or something of that kind.
Romney was made to look like an accountant counting on his fortune to sweep him to the nomination. Santorum has been reduced to resemble a blue collar worker and a "novice" in American politics, and he would not even know where to start, given that he was a complete "duffer", when it came to the question of leadership.
That was the quality most preferred by voters in anyone wanting to be the President of the United States; and the two were bereft of that essential element, as a truly convincing speech was able to achieve its objective, at the end of the day, stringently focusing on the subject of leadership.
In short, the speech has striped the rest of the Republican candidates of their prowess to redeem the party's nomination; and if the party establishment did not see it that way, then it was at a loss.
Yet, it did not stop there, but went on to galvanize the support of the American people, regardless of party or no-party affiliation. Even then, that was for starters, as he would be coming forth with more of it on this year's presidential campaign trail. They would be designed to mesmerize voters to no end.
That was Newt Gingrich; and he was brilliant at the CPAC gathering yesterday.
The only person that could make a similar speech was Barack Obama, because he was a lawyer, and he would use his legalese expediency to offset his opponent's academic craftiness.
The Democratic Party might wish to have someone else to be the Republican nominee, it would be a big mistake on its part to take its eyes off Newt Gingrich.
He was, and still is, a dangerous person to contend with, politically; and in any other fashion.
Friday, February 10, 2012
CNN & Mr. ROLAND MARTIN.
Roland Martin has been a pain in the neck of CNN head producer or director of political programs for quite sometime; and now he has found a way to get him out of his hair, either for good or for the time being; because that was what the end of Martin's suspension announcement said, "...for the time being,"
Martin has been too outspoken, for Obama, for most of the time, as he often showed his irascible side, when someone would come on a program that he was participating in and tried to assail the president.
He was eclectic, as he would dabble in facts only and never in rhetoric. He was savvy and bullish, and he made those two elements to go together so well on television like twisted candy; he scared many contributors that appeared on the same show as him. He was not afraid of controversy, for he has the "bring it on, and we will have a dialog on it," attitude or approach to issues, which was good for that particular medium, because of its dramatization nature.
One could not sit still on television; it was not made for that type of aloofness, and Martin was the exact opposite of that. He knew that television was a "positive action" tool, and he used it to that effect, and mainly to his advantage. That made him crude sometimes, but exceptional; and that was what the medium was generally designed to do; to show activity, non-stop.
He would demonstrate a great deal of boldness at the least instance and caused anyone to knuckle under to his side of an argument almost each and every time; and that angered many people on the set itself, including those running the program; especially the producers and directors.
Very few people have those characteristics, or should one say, qualities; but his were not learned; he was born with them and that made him (no, not special, but) rather unique. He was therefore interesting to watch on the television screen, but he could turn and become strange and irritable, when there was an argument between himself and any other person, who held a different view.
So, his firing (no, suspension) from CNN was not a surprise to many viewers of television; however, it was not for something he did on a show, but for a tweet that offended some homosexuals. WHAT?
Many did not know him personally, but they were miffed to such an extent that they would boycott CNN until he was brought back; honestly.
You see, people did not watch television because of its abstract appearance; they watched it because of the animation, either of persons or things, that caused them to pay attention and which aroused their emotions. In other words, the actions and the words coming out of a character motivated television viewers; and advertiser knew that for a fact; so that they were frequently making cartoon figures to talk and act more humanly nowadays to attract patrons.
For example, the gecko or the little lizard, was not made to just entertain; the motive was to have him reassuring motorists with (his) its words, and to have them think twice before they purchased car insurance. Now, (he) it was covering all kinds of insurance products, from golf carts to motorcycles.
Well, Martin was not that type, but he was not just boisterous at times either: he attracted audiences for the media as a whole, whenever he appeared in a political discussion on television or wrote a skit in the newspaper or a blog on the Internet.
To tout him was not (and I always write in the past tense) the objective of this blog; yet, to come off television for something he did on another social medium raised a whole lot of eyebrows; and the decision has become apoplectic, if CNN should know.
He has even apologized for the "smack the 'ish" tweet, which would leave David Beckham in stitches. He, David, would laugh his head off for being the center of such a controversy. Martin, has agreed to meet with his accusers, who took offence, because it (tweet) fomented violence, from their perspective; however, they were approaching the case in a different way, for them to say that,
"We look forward to hearing from CNN and Roland Martin to discuss how we can work together as allies and achieve our common goal of reducing such violence as well as the language that contributes to it.” (The Huffington Post, 02/09/12).
Nevertheless, the crux of the matter was, should he have been "suspended" in the first place?
Mr. Martin, incidentally, was an African American; and therefore CNN should reconsider; or people would be liable to think that it (suspension) was racially motivated.
That should put CNN on the spot; or nothing else should.
Martin has been too outspoken, for Obama, for most of the time, as he often showed his irascible side, when someone would come on a program that he was participating in and tried to assail the president.
He was eclectic, as he would dabble in facts only and never in rhetoric. He was savvy and bullish, and he made those two elements to go together so well on television like twisted candy; he scared many contributors that appeared on the same show as him. He was not afraid of controversy, for he has the "bring it on, and we will have a dialog on it," attitude or approach to issues, which was good for that particular medium, because of its dramatization nature.
One could not sit still on television; it was not made for that type of aloofness, and Martin was the exact opposite of that. He knew that television was a "positive action" tool, and he used it to that effect, and mainly to his advantage. That made him crude sometimes, but exceptional; and that was what the medium was generally designed to do; to show activity, non-stop.
He would demonstrate a great deal of boldness at the least instance and caused anyone to knuckle under to his side of an argument almost each and every time; and that angered many people on the set itself, including those running the program; especially the producers and directors.
Very few people have those characteristics, or should one say, qualities; but his were not learned; he was born with them and that made him (no, not special, but) rather unique. He was therefore interesting to watch on the television screen, but he could turn and become strange and irritable, when there was an argument between himself and any other person, who held a different view.
So, his firing (no, suspension) from CNN was not a surprise to many viewers of television; however, it was not for something he did on a show, but for a tweet that offended some homosexuals. WHAT?
Many did not know him personally, but they were miffed to such an extent that they would boycott CNN until he was brought back; honestly.
You see, people did not watch television because of its abstract appearance; they watched it because of the animation, either of persons or things, that caused them to pay attention and which aroused their emotions. In other words, the actions and the words coming out of a character motivated television viewers; and advertiser knew that for a fact; so that they were frequently making cartoon figures to talk and act more humanly nowadays to attract patrons.
For example, the gecko or the little lizard, was not made to just entertain; the motive was to have him reassuring motorists with (his) its words, and to have them think twice before they purchased car insurance. Now, (he) it was covering all kinds of insurance products, from golf carts to motorcycles.
Well, Martin was not that type, but he was not just boisterous at times either: he attracted audiences for the media as a whole, whenever he appeared in a political discussion on television or wrote a skit in the newspaper or a blog on the Internet.
To tout him was not (and I always write in the past tense) the objective of this blog; yet, to come off television for something he did on another social medium raised a whole lot of eyebrows; and the decision has become apoplectic, if CNN should know.
He has even apologized for the "smack the 'ish" tweet, which would leave David Beckham in stitches. He, David, would laugh his head off for being the center of such a controversy. Martin, has agreed to meet with his accusers, who took offence, because it (tweet) fomented violence, from their perspective; however, they were approaching the case in a different way, for them to say that,
"We look forward to hearing from CNN and Roland Martin to discuss how we can work together as allies and achieve our common goal of reducing such violence as well as the language that contributes to it.” (The Huffington Post, 02/09/12).
Nevertheless, the crux of the matter was, should he have been "suspended" in the first place?
Mr. Martin, incidentally, was an African American; and therefore CNN should reconsider; or people would be liable to think that it (suspension) was racially motivated.
That should put CNN on the spot; or nothing else should.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
PACs, CNN & THE MONEY.
The other day, this blog mentioned of money, and lots of it, being used to pull the political rug from under poor people, with the PACs (Political Action Committees) reining in tons of cash in support of their candidates.
The Republican Party could be guilty of the art of getting billionaires, the well-to-do, and of course, the moguls on Wall Street to shell out huge amounts for expenses needed to keep up with the cost of advertisements in the media; yet, it was all "legal", and so nothing could stop them.
One such PAC group could not stop to catch its breath for the loot that was rolling in from every corner of the country, and even from abroad. Those were the contributors to the large pools of revenue for political campaigns; and if so, they knew that they were not throwing their donations away, for by that they would be influential in "controlling, conducting and managing" the affairs of the country. Their front men would be the elected representatives, the politicians.
Their contributions naturally went to protect their personal interests, and that was precisely why they were doing so.
However, as money was no object for those persons making such contributions to political parties; the investors that were feeding on the common people by investing in corporations and big companies and thus building bulging portfolios to enable them to afford those types of giveaways, they would always gain the upper hand, where it mattered most, the political arena; and as such, there was not a chance in hell that politics would ever be clean in any way, here in America or elsewhere.
In other words, the whole world was caught in a vicious cycle of just a few individuals having the means to effectively control society any way they chose, and they could buck anything, be they ideas or benefits, that would help the majority of people anywhere. Dishonest, wasn't it?
Yet, out of all the confusion going on with the fundraising business by political organizations, CNN, of what the focal point of its main news should be was the Obama camp wanting to participate in the money gathering process, as the PACs have made it into some kind of a monetary game.
CNN programs were pinpointing the fact that President Barack Obama condemned the practice, when he campaigned in 2008; and therefore, wanting to indulge in it now was a flip-flop on his part. His excuse was that "everyone was doing it, so why not us," the news outlet has alleged the Obama campaign to be saying.
Instead of it (CNN) being critical of what the media was doing in what would eventually "destroy our Democracy," as CNN said the president had repudiated before, its commentators were using the occasion to play the tactics of being just by-standers looking in, when they fully knew that their industry was a principal player in the money collection "game".
Of course, they (media) got their "cut" legitimately through advertising revenues, and so they could fool the rest of us that they were not part of the racket; they just reported the news. WHAT?
If people like Anderson Cooper could turn around and blame Obama for the activities of the so called PACs, who were using their power to undermine the political system, then he was being impartial as his profession as a journalist demanded.
Nevertheless, people like him could not be impartial, because they got paid huge salaries or even have lucrative contracts with their respective news organizations that would never be made public; they (contracts) could not see the light of day, for the mere fact that those television personalities would be found out for the charlatans they were, and not as being mere news reporters.
In other words, they all had vested interests in the conundrum that was going on; and we the common people were made to turn on each other from what their editorial board masters have dictated to them to release to us and the public, as "the news".
Obama did not have a change of mind, as the media was purporting; he was being realistic, that the enormous war chests possessed by the Republicans alone could even lead to influence peddling and voter fraud, among others; and that situations of that nature could sabotage his reelection bid.
The only thing to use to stop that from happening was not to solely rely on the little donations that came in from ordinary folks, but to get the equivalent amounts of money his opponents had, to be able "to fight fire with fire."
Political campaign expenditure was skyrocketing; and showing a pair of flip-flop sandals on the television screen would not stop it. Such a "prop" was designed to infuriate public sentiment by CNN; as it surely did.
The Republican Party could be guilty of the art of getting billionaires, the well-to-do, and of course, the moguls on Wall Street to shell out huge amounts for expenses needed to keep up with the cost of advertisements in the media; yet, it was all "legal", and so nothing could stop them.
One such PAC group could not stop to catch its breath for the loot that was rolling in from every corner of the country, and even from abroad. Those were the contributors to the large pools of revenue for political campaigns; and if so, they knew that they were not throwing their donations away, for by that they would be influential in "controlling, conducting and managing" the affairs of the country. Their front men would be the elected representatives, the politicians.
Their contributions naturally went to protect their personal interests, and that was precisely why they were doing so.
However, as money was no object for those persons making such contributions to political parties; the investors that were feeding on the common people by investing in corporations and big companies and thus building bulging portfolios to enable them to afford those types of giveaways, they would always gain the upper hand, where it mattered most, the political arena; and as such, there was not a chance in hell that politics would ever be clean in any way, here in America or elsewhere.
In other words, the whole world was caught in a vicious cycle of just a few individuals having the means to effectively control society any way they chose, and they could buck anything, be they ideas or benefits, that would help the majority of people anywhere. Dishonest, wasn't it?
Yet, out of all the confusion going on with the fundraising business by political organizations, CNN, of what the focal point of its main news should be was the Obama camp wanting to participate in the money gathering process, as the PACs have made it into some kind of a monetary game.
CNN programs were pinpointing the fact that President Barack Obama condemned the practice, when he campaigned in 2008; and therefore, wanting to indulge in it now was a flip-flop on his part. His excuse was that "everyone was doing it, so why not us," the news outlet has alleged the Obama campaign to be saying.
Instead of it (CNN) being critical of what the media was doing in what would eventually "destroy our Democracy," as CNN said the president had repudiated before, its commentators were using the occasion to play the tactics of being just by-standers looking in, when they fully knew that their industry was a principal player in the money collection "game".
Of course, they (media) got their "cut" legitimately through advertising revenues, and so they could fool the rest of us that they were not part of the racket; they just reported the news. WHAT?
If people like Anderson Cooper could turn around and blame Obama for the activities of the so called PACs, who were using their power to undermine the political system, then he was being impartial as his profession as a journalist demanded.
Nevertheless, people like him could not be impartial, because they got paid huge salaries or even have lucrative contracts with their respective news organizations that would never be made public; they (contracts) could not see the light of day, for the mere fact that those television personalities would be found out for the charlatans they were, and not as being mere news reporters.
In other words, they all had vested interests in the conundrum that was going on; and we the common people were made to turn on each other from what their editorial board masters have dictated to them to release to us and the public, as "the news".
Obama did not have a change of mind, as the media was purporting; he was being realistic, that the enormous war chests possessed by the Republicans alone could even lead to influence peddling and voter fraud, among others; and that situations of that nature could sabotage his reelection bid.
The only thing to use to stop that from happening was not to solely rely on the little donations that came in from ordinary folks, but to get the equivalent amounts of money his opponents had, to be able "to fight fire with fire."
Political campaign expenditure was skyrocketing; and showing a pair of flip-flop sandals on the television screen would not stop it. Such a "prop" was designed to infuriate public sentiment by CNN; as it surely did.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
GIVEN TIME & OBAMA.
Santorum's wins in the caucuses in all three states of Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado do not constitute a surprise to many people, because the Republican Party is having a constipation with the choice of a viable candidate that will pass for a president.
Otherwise, party members will not bypass Romney, who is the front runner in the party's nomination race for them to vote for in the three states. They have just done so in Florida, and in New Hampshire before that, so why will they stop now? To be positively frank, none of the four candidates qualifies for the standard of being president.
The party's hierarchy has been struggling with the thought that the field of the remaining contestants in the nomination race, comprising of Santorum, Romney, Gingrich and Paul, has persons, who have a whole lot in common; and those were fundamental flaws that were inconsistent with what independent voters, particularly, would prefer in a candidate.
No matter how much money the party spent on the campaign, in addition to the expenditures of the candidates themselves, plus the slush funds coming from the numerous PACs (Political Action Committees) and private contributors, the Republican Party could not go it alone to face the Democratic Party, which has a solid candidate with no social or political smear of any type to talk about in the person of President Barack Obama.
Besides being a sitting president, Obama has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he has the strongest moral character required in a leader. He was also pragmatic, as his policies have been consistent with the promises he has made in the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, that he would stop the Iraq War and would bring United States troops home.
Also that he would provide health care insurance to millions of people, who were without; and he did.
Now, let us go through the other candidates for the U.S. presidency in the 2012 general election.
Santorum, despite his winnings in Iowa and in the other three states, has only the support of the extreme right of his party, and therefore he was not a smart bet to gamble on, due to his tight or stringent ideological beliefs.
Meaning that the conservative support that he had would dissipate, as he really has no wiggle room of any kind beyond the ideologies that his party catered to, which he has so much endeared himself; like being anti-abortion and in the defence of traditional life style, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Something that a great majority of Americans agreed with, one might confess; but there was a wonder, whether independent voters would be attracted to him.
Romney has been found to be dishonest in his business deliberations, as he was indulging in "tax shelters and safe havens" more than anything else all over the world, to cease from paying his fair share in taxes to the U.S. Government.
In other words, over the years, he has been an obnoxious businessman, who has acquired his wealth through nefarious ways, and also by avoiding paying taxes just like everybody else.
He was too nervous to have answered a question in one of the debates on the campaign trail, when he blared out his wife's medical records in public. Everybody in the world now knew what his wife was suffering from; something so confidential that should be between only herself and her doctors.
That showed a great deal of nervousness and insecurity, as well as a weakness in a man, who would say anything, when he was cornered by the media. It also demonstrated a lack of wisdom and integrity. America did not need a nervous type to be president.
Gingrich, with his astute intellectual and academic background, has so much marital and other social cum political problems, which would disqualify him, even though among the rest of his colleagues, he was the true conservative. Party loyalists would gravitate toward him for that reason; yet, because of the bismal "baggage" that he had, he would never be the party's choice.
Also, he has been a Washington insider for many years, it would be impossible to keep his promise that he would change how things worked in that city. He was "Mr. Speaker" for a very long time; so, why didn't any changes take place during his tenure?
Paul was regarded as an ultra isolationist, who would make the U.S. into an "island", and would cut all International connections to prove the country's sovereignty and independence.
He couldn't care less, whether Iran would produce nuclear weapons or not; and so long as America was "safe" in terms of minding its own business, the rest of the world could go to blazes.
He believed in the old Barry Goldwater adage of "extremism is no vice in the defence of liberty." and so he would be at a disadvantage, and as much as a prime political fodder that Obama needed to win a second term pretty easily.
He, Paul, would come down like a deck of tower of playing cards in front of American voters; because besides his isolationism, his policies, particularly his foreign policy, would make more enemies for the country.
So, you see, the Republican Party was tied up internally to such a degree that it would be very difficult for it to present a completely acceptable candidate; for no one that they would choose would be an equal match in the eyes of the public for the president.
On the one hand, no one was saying that Obama was superior to any of the candidates in any sense of the word, when it came to the fact that they were all human beings; however, on the other hand, his flawless character, and the indelible mark of being able to keep his promises, such as bringing U.S. combat forces home to their families would be cherished by voters.
In addition to that, he was making tangible strides to bring an end to the conflict in Afghanistan; and that would be another feather in his cap; yet, he must be given time to accomplish that.
When all that was said and done, winning his second term bid would be assured. In fact, it would be a cinch, which his detractors have discovered would happen; an idea they were not at all happy about.
So, the question then is; who will be your choice?
Otherwise, party members will not bypass Romney, who is the front runner in the party's nomination race for them to vote for in the three states. They have just done so in Florida, and in New Hampshire before that, so why will they stop now? To be positively frank, none of the four candidates qualifies for the standard of being president.
The party's hierarchy has been struggling with the thought that the field of the remaining contestants in the nomination race, comprising of Santorum, Romney, Gingrich and Paul, has persons, who have a whole lot in common; and those were fundamental flaws that were inconsistent with what independent voters, particularly, would prefer in a candidate.
No matter how much money the party spent on the campaign, in addition to the expenditures of the candidates themselves, plus the slush funds coming from the numerous PACs (Political Action Committees) and private contributors, the Republican Party could not go it alone to face the Democratic Party, which has a solid candidate with no social or political smear of any type to talk about in the person of President Barack Obama.
Besides being a sitting president, Obama has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he has the strongest moral character required in a leader. He was also pragmatic, as his policies have been consistent with the promises he has made in the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, that he would stop the Iraq War and would bring United States troops home.
Also that he would provide health care insurance to millions of people, who were without; and he did.
Now, let us go through the other candidates for the U.S. presidency in the 2012 general election.
Santorum, despite his winnings in Iowa and in the other three states, has only the support of the extreme right of his party, and therefore he was not a smart bet to gamble on, due to his tight or stringent ideological beliefs.
Meaning that the conservative support that he had would dissipate, as he really has no wiggle room of any kind beyond the ideologies that his party catered to, which he has so much endeared himself; like being anti-abortion and in the defence of traditional life style, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Something that a great majority of Americans agreed with, one might confess; but there was a wonder, whether independent voters would be attracted to him.
Romney has been found to be dishonest in his business deliberations, as he was indulging in "tax shelters and safe havens" more than anything else all over the world, to cease from paying his fair share in taxes to the U.S. Government.
In other words, over the years, he has been an obnoxious businessman, who has acquired his wealth through nefarious ways, and also by avoiding paying taxes just like everybody else.
He was too nervous to have answered a question in one of the debates on the campaign trail, when he blared out his wife's medical records in public. Everybody in the world now knew what his wife was suffering from; something so confidential that should be between only herself and her doctors.
That showed a great deal of nervousness and insecurity, as well as a weakness in a man, who would say anything, when he was cornered by the media. It also demonstrated a lack of wisdom and integrity. America did not need a nervous type to be president.
Gingrich, with his astute intellectual and academic background, has so much marital and other social cum political problems, which would disqualify him, even though among the rest of his colleagues, he was the true conservative. Party loyalists would gravitate toward him for that reason; yet, because of the bismal "baggage" that he had, he would never be the party's choice.
Also, he has been a Washington insider for many years, it would be impossible to keep his promise that he would change how things worked in that city. He was "Mr. Speaker" for a very long time; so, why didn't any changes take place during his tenure?
Paul was regarded as an ultra isolationist, who would make the U.S. into an "island", and would cut all International connections to prove the country's sovereignty and independence.
He couldn't care less, whether Iran would produce nuclear weapons or not; and so long as America was "safe" in terms of minding its own business, the rest of the world could go to blazes.
He believed in the old Barry Goldwater adage of "extremism is no vice in the defence of liberty." and so he would be at a disadvantage, and as much as a prime political fodder that Obama needed to win a second term pretty easily.
He, Paul, would come down like a deck of tower of playing cards in front of American voters; because besides his isolationism, his policies, particularly his foreign policy, would make more enemies for the country.
So, you see, the Republican Party was tied up internally to such a degree that it would be very difficult for it to present a completely acceptable candidate; for no one that they would choose would be an equal match in the eyes of the public for the president.
On the one hand, no one was saying that Obama was superior to any of the candidates in any sense of the word, when it came to the fact that they were all human beings; however, on the other hand, his flawless character, and the indelible mark of being able to keep his promises, such as bringing U.S. combat forces home to their families would be cherished by voters.
In addition to that, he was making tangible strides to bring an end to the conflict in Afghanistan; and that would be another feather in his cap; yet, he must be given time to accomplish that.
When all that was said and done, winning his second term bid would be assured. In fact, it would be a cinch, which his detractors have discovered would happen; an idea they were not at all happy about.
So, the question then is; who will be your choice?
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
RICHES, INFINITUM.
Mitt Romney's five sons, who never did anything for society have a slush trust fund running into millions of dollars; $100 million to be exact, to date. (Politico.com, 02/07/12).
It has been amassed through tax loopholes the ordinary person did not know they existed in the United States tax code; and methods that could be used to syphon off profits of all sorts have been deliberately manipulated and directed money into the sons' ever growing trust fund to make them rich, while they practically did nothing.
In other words, the different investments that Romney made have their benefits, first for himself and then for his sons, through gifts with little or no tax ever to be paid. All the kids have to do was to just sit back and wait for the money to flow into their bank accounts, tax free, from dear, good, old Dad.
Some of the companies that made him rich included Apple, Goldman Sachs, Target and Oracle, all of which were Fortune 500 concerns; plus the Bains Capital inflow of funds called "carried interest", the share of investment profits that is paid to private equity fund managers."
Remembering that Romney managed Bains till 1999, when he left; but the "pay" kept coming in, unabated.
The article in Politico.com summed up the investment strategies that Romney has been using in high growth companies as an "intentionally defective grantor trust," a tricky tax strategy, which made his fortune to be a lasting "proposition" forever.
He has been spending his life to become rich, so that the idea of being poor would never cross his mind, and he was passing it (idea) to his children and posterity, infinitum.
His holdings in off-shore financial interests were enormous, with some in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda; plus his Swiss bank accounts too numerous to fully ascertain in any sense of the word. Everything in his life went to show that he was a big player in Wall Street greed.
Now, he was running in the Republican Party nomination race, and could become the nominee to challenge President Barack Obama for the nation's highest post, the U.S. presidency. He was spending tons of money to achieve his goal.
To him, the 2012 election was about nothing but making more money for himself and his family, when that "goal" was reached; however, at whose expense? One might bother to ask.
Well, you guessed it right; that the answer should be, "at the expense of the American tax payer", and he would do so through the tax code, which he was promising on the campaign trail to "change and make it better"; and again for whom? For his family and friends, undoubtedly.
Everything he has done so far was legal, and that could never be taken away from him; but Americans should be on notice that they were dealing with a very crafty person. He was passing his "skills" to his sons, who would want to follow through with their own individual and future ambitions; and for that reason, they (Americans) must be very, very careful.
National political positions could be bought and sold, and be paid for as on the stock exchange. That, my friends, could not be far fetched, come to think of it.
"You've got people who are paid $1 million a year to work 3,000 hours just to figure out ways to transfer money from older generations to younger generations, and Romney has the money to hire the best of the best," (Politico.com, 02/07/12).
This should not be looked on as "My three sons" television show; for this was real life.
It has been amassed through tax loopholes the ordinary person did not know they existed in the United States tax code; and methods that could be used to syphon off profits of all sorts have been deliberately manipulated and directed money into the sons' ever growing trust fund to make them rich, while they practically did nothing.
In other words, the different investments that Romney made have their benefits, first for himself and then for his sons, through gifts with little or no tax ever to be paid. All the kids have to do was to just sit back and wait for the money to flow into their bank accounts, tax free, from dear, good, old Dad.
Some of the companies that made him rich included Apple, Goldman Sachs, Target and Oracle, all of which were Fortune 500 concerns; plus the Bains Capital inflow of funds called "carried interest", the share of investment profits that is paid to private equity fund managers."
Remembering that Romney managed Bains till 1999, when he left; but the "pay" kept coming in, unabated.
The article in Politico.com summed up the investment strategies that Romney has been using in high growth companies as an "intentionally defective grantor trust," a tricky tax strategy, which made his fortune to be a lasting "proposition" forever.
He has been spending his life to become rich, so that the idea of being poor would never cross his mind, and he was passing it (idea) to his children and posterity, infinitum.
His holdings in off-shore financial interests were enormous, with some in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda; plus his Swiss bank accounts too numerous to fully ascertain in any sense of the word. Everything in his life went to show that he was a big player in Wall Street greed.
Now, he was running in the Republican Party nomination race, and could become the nominee to challenge President Barack Obama for the nation's highest post, the U.S. presidency. He was spending tons of money to achieve his goal.
To him, the 2012 election was about nothing but making more money for himself and his family, when that "goal" was reached; however, at whose expense? One might bother to ask.
Well, you guessed it right; that the answer should be, "at the expense of the American tax payer", and he would do so through the tax code, which he was promising on the campaign trail to "change and make it better"; and again for whom? For his family and friends, undoubtedly.
Everything he has done so far was legal, and that could never be taken away from him; but Americans should be on notice that they were dealing with a very crafty person. He was passing his "skills" to his sons, who would want to follow through with their own individual and future ambitions; and for that reason, they (Americans) must be very, very careful.
National political positions could be bought and sold, and be paid for as on the stock exchange. That, my friends, could not be far fetched, come to think of it.
"You've got people who are paid $1 million a year to work 3,000 hours just to figure out ways to transfer money from older generations to younger generations, and Romney has the money to hire the best of the best," (Politico.com, 02/07/12).
This should not be looked on as "My three sons" television show; for this was real life.
Monday, February 6, 2012
BREWER'S AWKWARD GESTURING.
The strange woman wagging her finger at President Barack Obama the other day on an airport tarmac, was Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona; and it looked rude and disrespectful from that angle of the photo that appeared in the media.
Even die-hard Republican Party individuals knew that President Obama was an astute gentleman, and he would not do anything to anger the governor for her to react indifferently, and therefore, what might have caused her to wag her finger was still not very clear.
She and the president have had their differences on immigration and border patrol; but that was as far as they (differences) went, until she made conflicting statements to media representatives that he was "thin-skinned,” and then telling other reporters, she “felt a little threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had,”
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72485.html#ixzz1lbCgpkXM).
Her attitude has rightly angered many African Americans, as it has been considered a "schmuck" behavior, whose etymology meant "A foolish or contemptible person".
Nobody really knew the actual words that were used, but the governor's gesture smacked of some kind of personal confrontation with the president of the United States, and the question still remained, "should she have done that?"
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has made a sharp rebuke of the governor's posture, and so has Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, as being despicable.
As everyone else, they were horrified to see a woman, for whatever reason, showing dissent to the president in a public setting, as that would not have happened to any other president, but to the first African American one.
Their annoyance has stemmed from the fact that the governor and people like Newt Gingrich, who was running in the Republican Party nomination race, and Glenn Beck, were ready to throw in the "race" card. Thus, interjecting race into the campaign and taking advantage of it.
Meaning that racism was showing its ugly head in modern day American politics from the idiotic vituperation and stupid comments those people have been making, such as Obama being a "food stamp president", and that African American kids in the New York school system "burnish their work ethic by picking up mops."
Those were outrageous remarks, smelling of ignorance and racism, and they should not have come out of anybody, but a buffoon. They deserved the contempt of all decent Americans; as they were designed to divide the country, as Obama himself has said elsewhere.
Attorney General Eric Holder made a vitriol assessment recently, which hit the nail right on the head that he could be identified with Obama “due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” (Politico.com, 02/06/12).
The world has postulated after Obama's election to the U.S. presidency that the nation was out of the woods, when it came to discrimination due to the color of a person's skin. America was being hailed throughout the world; except perhaps in the Arab sector, that North Africa would return to black people, if a powerful position as that of the U.S. President was given to a black person.
It would recall history as they, Arabs, were strangers in Africa, and they would be depicted as an "invented group".
Even that was for future generations to deal with. Nevertheless, today's America has been built with the blood, sweat and tears of Africans, who came here as slaves. Their history must never be forgotten or be relegated into the past, as CNN article having a subtitle as "3,200 slaves identified" from 1860 archives, was showing just this morning.
The president has shown no favoritism for any race, since he took office, knowing fully well that he has had the vote of all Americans in his election. One of his chief advisers, if not his main adviser, has been David Axelrod; and their relationship was as anti-septic as a clean rod.
Those attempting to introduce racism into the 2012 presidential campaign would be doing a grave disservice to the efforts of the 2008 election that brought respect to, and the recognition that, America has opened a new page and started a new chapter and paragraph in its history, and that the Jim Crow and Richard Nixon days would never come back to haunt the nation again.
They were engaged in racial dog-whistling that would fail; because it would only plunge America in a darker era, whose consequences would only be disastrous, if it was allowed to materialize.
The African American community remained visceral, owing to Gov. Jan Brewer's attitude and her awkward gesturing at President Barack Obama. It has been misconstrued as racism at its worst.
America must be one nation, if it would be able to save a divided and dangerous world.
Even die-hard Republican Party individuals knew that President Obama was an astute gentleman, and he would not do anything to anger the governor for her to react indifferently, and therefore, what might have caused her to wag her finger was still not very clear.
She and the president have had their differences on immigration and border patrol; but that was as far as they (differences) went, until she made conflicting statements to media representatives that he was "thin-skinned,” and then telling other reporters, she “felt a little threatened, if you will, in the attitude that he had,”
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72485.html#ixzz1lbCgpkXM).
Her attitude has rightly angered many African Americans, as it has been considered a "schmuck" behavior, whose etymology meant "A foolish or contemptible person".
Nobody really knew the actual words that were used, but the governor's gesture smacked of some kind of personal confrontation with the president of the United States, and the question still remained, "should she have done that?"
The Rev. Jesse Jackson has made a sharp rebuke of the governor's posture, and so has Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, as being despicable.
As everyone else, they were horrified to see a woman, for whatever reason, showing dissent to the president in a public setting, as that would not have happened to any other president, but to the first African American one.
Their annoyance has stemmed from the fact that the governor and people like Newt Gingrich, who was running in the Republican Party nomination race, and Glenn Beck, were ready to throw in the "race" card. Thus, interjecting race into the campaign and taking advantage of it.
Meaning that racism was showing its ugly head in modern day American politics from the idiotic vituperation and stupid comments those people have been making, such as Obama being a "food stamp president", and that African American kids in the New York school system "burnish their work ethic by picking up mops."
Those were outrageous remarks, smelling of ignorance and racism, and they should not have come out of anybody, but a buffoon. They deserved the contempt of all decent Americans; as they were designed to divide the country, as Obama himself has said elsewhere.
Attorney General Eric Holder made a vitriol assessment recently, which hit the nail right on the head that he could be identified with Obama “due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.” (Politico.com, 02/06/12).
The world has postulated after Obama's election to the U.S. presidency that the nation was out of the woods, when it came to discrimination due to the color of a person's skin. America was being hailed throughout the world; except perhaps in the Arab sector, that North Africa would return to black people, if a powerful position as that of the U.S. President was given to a black person.
It would recall history as they, Arabs, were strangers in Africa, and they would be depicted as an "invented group".
Even that was for future generations to deal with. Nevertheless, today's America has been built with the blood, sweat and tears of Africans, who came here as slaves. Their history must never be forgotten or be relegated into the past, as CNN article having a subtitle as "3,200 slaves identified" from 1860 archives, was showing just this morning.
The president has shown no favoritism for any race, since he took office, knowing fully well that he has had the vote of all Americans in his election. One of his chief advisers, if not his main adviser, has been David Axelrod; and their relationship was as anti-septic as a clean rod.
Those attempting to introduce racism into the 2012 presidential campaign would be doing a grave disservice to the efforts of the 2008 election that brought respect to, and the recognition that, America has opened a new page and started a new chapter and paragraph in its history, and that the Jim Crow and Richard Nixon days would never come back to haunt the nation again.
They were engaged in racial dog-whistling that would fail; because it would only plunge America in a darker era, whose consequences would only be disastrous, if it was allowed to materialize.
The African American community remained visceral, owing to Gov. Jan Brewer's attitude and her awkward gesturing at President Barack Obama. It has been misconstrued as racism at its worst.
America must be one nation, if it would be able to save a divided and dangerous world.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
CONGRESS MUST ACT.
The payroll tax cut, which affects 160 million Americans, expires at the end of this month. It has to be dealt with by the United States Congress before taxes went up for all those workers, who were toiling day and night to make ends meet for themselves and their families.
It (legislation) was a bone of contention last Summer, until it was given an extension of two months from December 31st, 2011; and it would seem that in an election year, anything was going to be harshly treated for political gains or points between the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate Democratic leadership.
The news this morning shows exactly that; that the hot item is being tossed from the House back to the Senate and vice versa.
"Negotiations have just begun and congressional leaders are already getting snippy over extending the payroll tax cut." (Politico.com, 02/04/12).
Besides the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance benefits measure, which was attached to the payroll tax cut plan would be affected, and that would make matters worse for more people, who were still looking for work. They would be caught between finding jobs and dealing with the issue of getting paid, all at the same time.
The political football that went on in Congress all year round in 2011 would be continued, while "the poor and the needy" suffered.
The nation's economy has been improving steadily, showing that President Barack Obama's policies were making a great deal of progress. The unemployment rate has gone down to 8.3%, with 230,000 private sector employment being created just last month.
All that was good news for Congress to take notice of, and do its part to effectively impact the lives of the American people, instead of jostling with themselves and failing to have anything accomplished in Washington D.C.
That was why the last session was dubbed "the do nothing Congress", whose actions were based on political ideologies alone, on both sides of the isle; with Republicans and Democrats vying for points that would help them in gaining or retaining the White House, respectively.
There was always the last minute agreement that would be worked out between the two factions, which only brought the nation close to a crisis in each case; something not at all healthy for the well being of America as a whole.
In other words, there should always be the boiling point on issues facing Congress to come first before some compromise could be reached. Usually the compromise was only "half baked" on arrival, which was a method to keep any issue dragging on and on.
The extension of the payroll tax cut is needed right then and now, to save Americans from unnecessary, emotional anxiety that has been going on for far long.
Congress must act without any political "holdups".
It (legislation) was a bone of contention last Summer, until it was given an extension of two months from December 31st, 2011; and it would seem that in an election year, anything was going to be harshly treated for political gains or points between the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate Democratic leadership.
The news this morning shows exactly that; that the hot item is being tossed from the House back to the Senate and vice versa.
"Negotiations have just begun and congressional leaders are already getting snippy over extending the payroll tax cut." (Politico.com, 02/04/12).
Besides the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance benefits measure, which was attached to the payroll tax cut plan would be affected, and that would make matters worse for more people, who were still looking for work. They would be caught between finding jobs and dealing with the issue of getting paid, all at the same time.
The political football that went on in Congress all year round in 2011 would be continued, while "the poor and the needy" suffered.
The nation's economy has been improving steadily, showing that President Barack Obama's policies were making a great deal of progress. The unemployment rate has gone down to 8.3%, with 230,000 private sector employment being created just last month.
All that was good news for Congress to take notice of, and do its part to effectively impact the lives of the American people, instead of jostling with themselves and failing to have anything accomplished in Washington D.C.
That was why the last session was dubbed "the do nothing Congress", whose actions were based on political ideologies alone, on both sides of the isle; with Republicans and Democrats vying for points that would help them in gaining or retaining the White House, respectively.
There was always the last minute agreement that would be worked out between the two factions, which only brought the nation close to a crisis in each case; something not at all healthy for the well being of America as a whole.
In other words, there should always be the boiling point on issues facing Congress to come first before some compromise could be reached. Usually the compromise was only "half baked" on arrival, which was a method to keep any issue dragging on and on.
The extension of the payroll tax cut is needed right then and now, to save Americans from unnecessary, emotional anxiety that has been going on for far long.
Congress must act without any political "holdups".
Friday, February 3, 2012
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF COUNTING.
This blog wanted to start with the saying, "birds of the same feather flock together" or "two peas in a pod"; but it did not, solely because what transpired in Las Vegas yesterday was a mere charade designed to throw dust into the eyes of many people.
A muck up or a muddled up display of "solidarity"; nevertheless, the strange thing about it was that none of the participants looked happy or sincere. In other words, it was a set up. "It was staged for the purpose of making some one to look good" (A Quote from a response from an unknown person).
Yet, what would have caught many people's eye in the media today was the sub-heading, "Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy," which was not strange at all, because it showed that the president was a true Christian.
He, Obama, spoke of the "rich", and counting himself as one of them, who was "extraordinarily blessed," in the article that came under the sub-heading; and with him quoting, "....for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," showing that he read his bible frequently.
Given the setting of his speech, which was the White House, and at the National Prayer Breakfast, a solemn occasion on which religious leaders of many faiths met with the president to say prayers for the nation, he had felt more at home to be referring to himself as a Christian there than he would have been anywhere else.
He was demonstrating to the American people that he was intrinsically grounded in his beliefs and also the guidance that he derived from them (beliefs) to sustain himself in life.
Many would assume that the president was touting Christianity. No, not in the right sense of the word, but in the firmness in his mind that fairness was a substance that a great majority of people in the world wanted; for without it, there would always be conflict.
This same blog has said at one time that Obama had his roots in the Islamic religion and it would be almost impossible for him to break away from his father's faith; but it (blog) has now realized that it was wrong to have firmly judged the president on that score. It was unfair on him, to say the least.
Obama has been his own person, since probably going from New York City to Chicago, after his student days; and that he might have searched for his own total, spiritual conviction; and he finally found it.
He was an individual from his father, and to show the "new side" of his personality to himself, he could and would embrace a different faith; and so he did.
However, to be completely fair to him, he should do one important thing that would convince this blog that he has in all honesty changed. That would be asking his wife, The First Lady Michelle Obama, to stop or cease from walking on the president's right hand side.
In Western culture, the art of counting (and even in writing) was from the left to the right. That could indicate a place of preeminence, when it came to assessing people, that the one on the left side (and even on a television screen these days) came first in prominence.
In the Islamic world, where Arabic was the cultural and linguistic backbone of expression, the opposite was true. The counting started from the right to the left. The object on the right has the foremost position of importance.
This may only be a cultural nuance, but for Michelle to be walking on the president's left side to become noticeable, will be very essential, so that he will not be mistaken for someone, who is practicing another lifestyle or religion in private, from a counting perspective.
To this blog, President Barack Obama has proved his point. He is a converted Christian.
A muck up or a muddled up display of "solidarity"; nevertheless, the strange thing about it was that none of the participants looked happy or sincere. In other words, it was a set up. "It was staged for the purpose of making some one to look good" (A Quote from a response from an unknown person).
Yet, what would have caught many people's eye in the media today was the sub-heading, "Obama: Jesus would back my tax-the-rich policy," which was not strange at all, because it showed that the president was a true Christian.
He, Obama, spoke of the "rich", and counting himself as one of them, who was "extraordinarily blessed," in the article that came under the sub-heading; and with him quoting, "....for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," showing that he read his bible frequently.
Given the setting of his speech, which was the White House, and at the National Prayer Breakfast, a solemn occasion on which religious leaders of many faiths met with the president to say prayers for the nation, he had felt more at home to be referring to himself as a Christian there than he would have been anywhere else.
He was demonstrating to the American people that he was intrinsically grounded in his beliefs and also the guidance that he derived from them (beliefs) to sustain himself in life.
Many would assume that the president was touting Christianity. No, not in the right sense of the word, but in the firmness in his mind that fairness was a substance that a great majority of people in the world wanted; for without it, there would always be conflict.
This same blog has said at one time that Obama had his roots in the Islamic religion and it would be almost impossible for him to break away from his father's faith; but it (blog) has now realized that it was wrong to have firmly judged the president on that score. It was unfair on him, to say the least.
Obama has been his own person, since probably going from New York City to Chicago, after his student days; and that he might have searched for his own total, spiritual conviction; and he finally found it.
He was an individual from his father, and to show the "new side" of his personality to himself, he could and would embrace a different faith; and so he did.
However, to be completely fair to him, he should do one important thing that would convince this blog that he has in all honesty changed. That would be asking his wife, The First Lady Michelle Obama, to stop or cease from walking on the president's right hand side.
In Western culture, the art of counting (and even in writing) was from the left to the right. That could indicate a place of preeminence, when it came to assessing people, that the one on the left side (and even on a television screen these days) came first in prominence.
In the Islamic world, where Arabic was the cultural and linguistic backbone of expression, the opposite was true. The counting started from the right to the left. The object on the right has the foremost position of importance.
This may only be a cultural nuance, but for Michelle to be walking on the president's left side to become noticeable, will be very essential, so that he will not be mistaken for someone, who is practicing another lifestyle or religion in private, from a counting perspective.
To this blog, President Barack Obama has proved his point. He is a converted Christian.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
MITT ROMNEY & "THE POOR".
If there ever was the flukiest statement by a politician in the United States of America, it would be this:
"I'm not concerned about the very rich; they're fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90%, 95% of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation." Mitt Romney (CNN, 02/02/12).
He is the one that is a multi-millionaire and running in the Republican Party nomination race for the second time, with several PACs (Political Action Committees) pulling in big bucks for his campaign to beat his own party mates, Newt Gingrich, Santorum and Paul in that race.
Where does he think all that money to back him is coming from? It is from big banks, financial Houses on Wall Street, corporations, millionaires and wealthy individuals like himself. They are the people he talks to every waking hour of his life.
He does not even know "the 90%, 95% of Americans," that he is talking about; but many people will tell him that they are the men and women in the military, in border patrol, in law enforcement, in construction, in the medical field as nurses, in Education as teachers and instructors......; they are the middle class and working people.
They are the ones that will sign up for "the draft", the very minute it is reactivated to get the young and the able bodied to protect America; and none of these kinds of persons will come out of his family. No, not voluntarily, if one will care to mention.
He and his wealthy friends are only thinking about having a "good return" on their investments, and moving their money around for that purpose. People like them will be busy talking "business", each and every morning; the "poor" will be the last thing to cross their minds.
The much talked about subject of "outsourcing" to China and the Far East is being done by them, and that is what is causing the American economy to be depleted of the investment capital it needed to help it to grow. The high unemployment being a by-product of a weak economy, as it is being seen in the country today.
The "poor having a safety net" is part of a statement Romney has made a day or so ago, but it is not an impromptu thought or thinking; it is part of the philosophy that he is carrying in his gumption all the time; that all business regulations must be shoved aside, for the rich must have the freedom to become richer.
"The poor? Who are they?" he is always asking. Why? Only because he does not know any poor people. PERIOD.
Americans must be aware that in an election year, the practice of moving investment capital around will get worse, and it will be done deliberately to help the choice of the wealthy to challenge President Barack Obama.
The media insiders, political strategists and professional pundits are already predicting a more sluggish economy and a higher rate of unemployment for the U.S. in 2012 (the election year, remember?).
How will they know that? They have connections with top ranking investors and investment companies in the country, commonly known as the "movers and shakers" in the financial world.
Where does the ordinary man in the street fit into all this?
His job will be telling the truth about people like Romney, who are ready, able and willing to buy their way to the very top, just to maintain control over the middle class and the working people of America; and that is to seize power, by gaining access to the U.S. presidency and the White House.
In other words, when a push comes to a shove in the future, Romney and his kind will say to the poor, who unfortunately are many,
"Go away. We don't know you. This is a free country; so, go help yourselves or do whatever you have to do to fend for yourselves,"
You may probably be saying, "...that will be the day." However, think again; as it can happen.
"I'm not concerned about the very rich; they're fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90%, 95% of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation." Mitt Romney (CNN, 02/02/12).
He is the one that is a multi-millionaire and running in the Republican Party nomination race for the second time, with several PACs (Political Action Committees) pulling in big bucks for his campaign to beat his own party mates, Newt Gingrich, Santorum and Paul in that race.
Where does he think all that money to back him is coming from? It is from big banks, financial Houses on Wall Street, corporations, millionaires and wealthy individuals like himself. They are the people he talks to every waking hour of his life.
He does not even know "the 90%, 95% of Americans," that he is talking about; but many people will tell him that they are the men and women in the military, in border patrol, in law enforcement, in construction, in the medical field as nurses, in Education as teachers and instructors......; they are the middle class and working people.
They are the ones that will sign up for "the draft", the very minute it is reactivated to get the young and the able bodied to protect America; and none of these kinds of persons will come out of his family. No, not voluntarily, if one will care to mention.
He and his wealthy friends are only thinking about having a "good return" on their investments, and moving their money around for that purpose. People like them will be busy talking "business", each and every morning; the "poor" will be the last thing to cross their minds.
The much talked about subject of "outsourcing" to China and the Far East is being done by them, and that is what is causing the American economy to be depleted of the investment capital it needed to help it to grow. The high unemployment being a by-product of a weak economy, as it is being seen in the country today.
The "poor having a safety net" is part of a statement Romney has made a day or so ago, but it is not an impromptu thought or thinking; it is part of the philosophy that he is carrying in his gumption all the time; that all business regulations must be shoved aside, for the rich must have the freedom to become richer.
"The poor? Who are they?" he is always asking. Why? Only because he does not know any poor people. PERIOD.
Americans must be aware that in an election year, the practice of moving investment capital around will get worse, and it will be done deliberately to help the choice of the wealthy to challenge President Barack Obama.
The media insiders, political strategists and professional pundits are already predicting a more sluggish economy and a higher rate of unemployment for the U.S. in 2012 (the election year, remember?).
How will they know that? They have connections with top ranking investors and investment companies in the country, commonly known as the "movers and shakers" in the financial world.
Where does the ordinary man in the street fit into all this?
His job will be telling the truth about people like Romney, who are ready, able and willing to buy their way to the very top, just to maintain control over the middle class and the working people of America; and that is to seize power, by gaining access to the U.S. presidency and the White House.
In other words, when a push comes to a shove in the future, Romney and his kind will say to the poor, who unfortunately are many,
"Go away. We don't know you. This is a free country; so, go help yourselves or do whatever you have to do to fend for yourselves,"
You may probably be saying, "...that will be the day." However, think again; as it can happen.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
CAMPAIGN FUNDING.
Considering the huge amounts of money spent in the Florida primary, it would be an understatement to say that the 2012 general election would be fought with the wealthy on one side and the middle class and working people on the other.
There is so much money flying around to fund the PACs (Political Action Committees), who are backing the candidates with millions of dollars coming from banks, big companies, corporations and private individuals, some of whom are billionaires, and it is all being done without any real check.
The donations raised by the candidates in the Florida primary alone run into millions of dollars, which can make one to speculate that the presidential election will just be the same; the wealthy fighting it out to gain power, for the mere fact that they have the means to do so and others do not.
In today's Politico.com, one such (PAC) organization raised so much money, it would make one's head spin. It raised $51 million dollars last year, and it has "filed a report with the Federal Election Commission showing that it pulled in (another) $18 million"... and that more of it was on its way.
"....$33 million – went into a secret money group called Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS for short) that does not disclose its donors." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72272.html#ixzz1l8EVjq5T).
These groups are all over the place collecting money to fight their causes, and the average person working from pay check to pay check becomes helpless. He or she will be asked to vote in any and all the elections, and that will be as far as his or her performance goes.
The rest will be left to the politicians, who will do whatever they want in, for example, the United States Congress and elsewhere.
The PAC organization, "Crossroads", has said that it has just received "a whopping $7 million from Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons...," and there will be no surprise if he offers more.
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72272.html#ixzz1l8Hpa3id)
Showing that money is no object for some people, when it comes to campaigning for public office, while others are scrimping for pennies to buy bread, pay the rent, and are forced to run helter-skelter - from home to work, and vice versa - just to have enough to support their families.
The fact remained that not all the money flowing to those organizations was for organizing meetings and gatherings, and for paying to advertise their candidates in the media, which in itself cost millions.
Let us say that other expenses would be paid for, like employing personnel to manage and run those groups; and so, what would happen to the rest such money?
Could it be said that it (not could be, but) was used for the purpose of graft?
Could it also be said that the actions of the PACs signified the class warfare that some politicians have been talking about, and President Barack Obama was trying to stop?
Footnote: Wikipedia will give you the meaning of graft. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft_(politics)
There is so much money flying around to fund the PACs (Political Action Committees), who are backing the candidates with millions of dollars coming from banks, big companies, corporations and private individuals, some of whom are billionaires, and it is all being done without any real check.
The donations raised by the candidates in the Florida primary alone run into millions of dollars, which can make one to speculate that the presidential election will just be the same; the wealthy fighting it out to gain power, for the mere fact that they have the means to do so and others do not.
In today's Politico.com, one such (PAC) organization raised so much money, it would make one's head spin. It raised $51 million dollars last year, and it has "filed a report with the Federal Election Commission showing that it pulled in (another) $18 million"... and that more of it was on its way.
"....$33 million – went into a secret money group called Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS for short) that does not disclose its donors." (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72272.html#ixzz1l8EVjq5T).
These groups are all over the place collecting money to fight their causes, and the average person working from pay check to pay check becomes helpless. He or she will be asked to vote in any and all the elections, and that will be as far as his or her performance goes.
The rest will be left to the politicians, who will do whatever they want in, for example, the United States Congress and elsewhere.
The PAC organization, "Crossroads", has said that it has just received "a whopping $7 million from Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons...," and there will be no surprise if he offers more.
(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72272.html#ixzz1l8Hpa3id)
Showing that money is no object for some people, when it comes to campaigning for public office, while others are scrimping for pennies to buy bread, pay the rent, and are forced to run helter-skelter - from home to work, and vice versa - just to have enough to support their families.
The fact remained that not all the money flowing to those organizations was for organizing meetings and gatherings, and for paying to advertise their candidates in the media, which in itself cost millions.
Let us say that other expenses would be paid for, like employing personnel to manage and run those groups; and so, what would happen to the rest such money?
Could it be said that it (not could be, but) was used for the purpose of graft?
Could it also be said that the actions of the PACs signified the class warfare that some politicians have been talking about, and President Barack Obama was trying to stop?
Footnote: Wikipedia will give you the meaning of graft. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft_(politics)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)