It is not that people are attracted to President Barack Obama for his charisma, his policies are beginning to show signs of being effective, as the unemployment rating has dropped to 8.5% this month.
200,000 individuals were hired in the private sector, indicating that the slump in job hiring was abating to the point that, if the employment rate continued to grow quickly in the span of time between now and election day in November, 2012, his chances for a second term reelection could be assured; for he has been able to energize the economy and bring down the unemployment figures.
His political rivals in the Republican Party's nomination race have been arguing among themselves in the past two days, in debates that were as uneventful as drinking a cup of coacoa in West Africa, where its (coacoa's) fruit was produced.
They would allude to his economic policies, but they would have contradictory comments to make about them.
Romney would say that governments did not create jobs, but private concerns, individuals or companies, did; or that the president was not knowledgeable of how the economy runs; yet he (Obama) was doing fine; while Perry would opine that his own record as governor of Texas showed his ability to create jobs. He would be inclined to reduce unemployment in creating jobs by the load, if he was elected.
So, which was which? Governments created jobs or not?
Look, all those politicians wanted to do was to scar the coastline of the U.S. with oil rigs all over the place and messing up the sublime shores as they were now. The environment would be damaged, as oil spills and accidents would become rampant, just as many scientific studies have indicated or even predicted.
Obama's foreign policy was on the rise and making friends for the United States, with Burma being the latest. The economic sanctions that he initiated through a U.N. resolution against Iran was biting so much so that Iran has become catatonic, for its silly effusion that it would close the Strait of Hormuz; and it, Iran, was gradually becoming isolated by many nations around the globe.
Except, perhaps, for Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan leader, was himself paranoid and needed the company of a politically and economically besmeared Iran; otherwise, that country (Iran) has nowhere else to go for sheer comfort.
New Hampshire is a great state and the people are hospitable, but they are hearing the same speeches from the remainder of the Republican field all over again, that the candidates can do better. Yet, how they (candidates) will do so is not clear.
No one is embellishing Obama's achievements, or trying to make him what he is not; however, if the trend shows that he is doing well by getting the slow economy back on track, and being able to reducing unemployment, in spite of the stark opposition by a U.S. Congress that will say "NO" to everything he is doing, then he must be commended for moving the country in the right direction.
If so, then that must be made pretty clear to the American people, especially by the media.
Santorum, the Republican presidential candidate is insisting that there is no class barrier in the U.S., and that Obama's assertion of helping the "middle class" is dividing the country. It is designed to start a class warfare.
Yet, at the back of his mind, he knows for sure that there are those who are wealthy and those who are considered to be working to feed their families. He is also aware that times are hard for the people in that group.
In Obama's view, the wealthy people must not have all the power, economically or in any other way; and that the rights of the ordinary citizen must be protected from laws that are unfair in society, particularly when they affected the working people of America.
Not many people want their tax dollars to be used to fund abortions, or laws for people with different sexual orientation to be recognized. What the majority are interested in is a just and equitable society; one in which no one is above the Constitutional laws of the country.
If that is the country Obama and the Democrats are attempting to build, why must anyone stop them? His critics say that he is a socialists. Well, can we all be conservatives?
There is freedom of choice in America, and that is why many people want to live here and call themselves Americans.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
IRAN; A MERE NUISANCE.
The rescuing by United States sailors of the crew of an Iranian fishing vessel makes a benign observation of a malignant situation easy.
In that, Iran's objective to dominate the Persian Gulf defies common sense, as it cannot deal with an issue that involves its own citizens, and it takes Americans to free a registered Iranian fishing vessel and its crew at sea.
Only early this week, the Iranian threat to U.S. Aircraft carriers not plying the Gulf was an act of war by Iran, which should know that such warning was contrary to all International Maritime Laws, and that it could have taken the captain of the USS John C. Stennis, as a precautionary measure, to sink the Iranian frigate from where the warning came.
The U.S. fleet was there for a good reason to ensure the free passage of ships mainly carrying oil in the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of sea, that Iran wanted to close.
The "closure" was the second act of war by Iran; but it (Iran) has put that off for the obvious fact that it would be forced to deal with the consequences, even if it only attempted to follow up with closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Piracy has become a daily occurrence in that part of the world by Somalian citizens, whose country has no laws of any kind, and so conditions there have become extremely difficult, they would take to the high seas and would detain other nationalities for money.
That should be what the Iranian Army and Navy were to be doing something about, to make the area safe for all ships and ordinary people doing business there.
However, instead of being a law abiding country, Iran was breaking International law, and provoking the U.S. to take drastic action in response to the threats from Tehran.
"The Pentagon today answered an Iranian warning to keep U.S. aircraft carriers out of the Persian Gulf by declaring that American warships will continue regularly scheduled deployments to the strategic waterway," The statement has added that, "a constant state of high vigilance," was needed there "to ensure the flow of sea commerce." (Richmond Times-Dispatch 01/07/12).
Iran was playing with fire that could engulf the region and affect the rest of the world. By indulging in such a dangerous confrontation with a super power, as the U.S., it was putting its citizens at an unnecessary risk.
It would be fair for the U.N. to release the strictest warning through the Security Council to Iran, to immediately stop its activities of war exercises that were nothing, but mere saber rattling, which did not have any effect on the U.S. presence in the area; and that Iran was just being a nuisance, by putting up a meaningless "stupid show of strength" and thus disturbing world peace.
Iran must take heed.
In that, Iran's objective to dominate the Persian Gulf defies common sense, as it cannot deal with an issue that involves its own citizens, and it takes Americans to free a registered Iranian fishing vessel and its crew at sea.
Only early this week, the Iranian threat to U.S. Aircraft carriers not plying the Gulf was an act of war by Iran, which should know that such warning was contrary to all International Maritime Laws, and that it could have taken the captain of the USS John C. Stennis, as a precautionary measure, to sink the Iranian frigate from where the warning came.
The U.S. fleet was there for a good reason to ensure the free passage of ships mainly carrying oil in the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow stretch of sea, that Iran wanted to close.
The "closure" was the second act of war by Iran; but it (Iran) has put that off for the obvious fact that it would be forced to deal with the consequences, even if it only attempted to follow up with closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Piracy has become a daily occurrence in that part of the world by Somalian citizens, whose country has no laws of any kind, and so conditions there have become extremely difficult, they would take to the high seas and would detain other nationalities for money.
That should be what the Iranian Army and Navy were to be doing something about, to make the area safe for all ships and ordinary people doing business there.
However, instead of being a law abiding country, Iran was breaking International law, and provoking the U.S. to take drastic action in response to the threats from Tehran.
"The Pentagon today answered an Iranian warning to keep U.S. aircraft carriers out of the Persian Gulf by declaring that American warships will continue regularly scheduled deployments to the strategic waterway," The statement has added that, "a constant state of high vigilance," was needed there "to ensure the flow of sea commerce." (Richmond Times-Dispatch 01/07/12).
Iran was playing with fire that could engulf the region and affect the rest of the world. By indulging in such a dangerous confrontation with a super power, as the U.S., it was putting its citizens at an unnecessary risk.
It would be fair for the U.N. to release the strictest warning through the Security Council to Iran, to immediately stop its activities of war exercises that were nothing, but mere saber rattling, which did not have any effect on the U.S. presence in the area; and that Iran was just being a nuisance, by putting up a meaningless "stupid show of strength" and thus disturbing world peace.
Iran must take heed.
Friday, January 6, 2012
HAYDEN ON OBAMA.
What caught many political minded Americans attention this week was not mostly the Iowa caucuses voting, which was obvious to be leading in the news headlines, but a scathing article by a former CIA director for President George W. Bush, Michael V. Hayden, on troops withdrawal from Iraq.
From his professional position as head of the United States Intelligence at one time, his experience and a wonderful career of serving his country in the post 9/11 years, nobody could downgrade his views on the troops withdrawal taking place in Iraq last month.
His remarks were too tangent and realistic than idealistic, that America has taken upon itself to leave troops in several volatile spots around the world, and that was a good record. It was a trend that has helped the rest of the world to observe peace and stability in more ways than one.
It was every person's wish that America could go on and do the same everywhere, but that was impossible. It has been done in Korea, in Japan and in Europe; but all that has caused the country a great deal of inconvenience and at an enormous expense.
One would be paraphrasing Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate in the Republican Party nomination race, by saying that, "Policing the world is not America's job," as well as "Nation building should not be part of U.S. foreign policy"; and that peace keeping should be left to the United Nations to deal with. In that sense, the U.S. could always make a contribution.
With regard to Iraq, President Barack Obama, besides his promise to end the war there in his 2008 campaign speeches, has found himself "between the devil and the deep blue sea", as he was facing a huge national debt of over $14 trillion dollars. In addition to that, fighting two wars with that backdrop was nothing, but preposterous, as continuing them (wars) was only making the home economy to suffer.
The president has made it abundantly clear that Iraq has been equipped with the basic political tenets of Democracy, and it was the responsibility of its people to build on them (tenets) to achieve equality among all its sectarian factions.
Mr. Hayden was not being critical of President Obama per se in his article, that troops have to be left in Iraq on a permanent basis, as some critics were advocating. He was directing his observations at the timing of the event of U.S. troops being withdrawn from that country. Even that was a moot point, as it had its pros and cons, and no one could predict the proper time frame in which to end the Iraq war.
Yet, the man in the street has also realized that some of the Iraqis themselves were foaming around the mouth and saying that the U.S. has overstayed its presence, and that they (Iraqis) were ready to run their own affairs. The Obama administration has had talks with the Al-Maliki government for a fraction of American troops staying behind; however, in the long run, that government had the final say, and so the idea did not come to fruition, when it said "No". In view of that, what should the president do?
Mr. Hayden has been loyal to his country throughout his career; but what he could not do was to force his country's hand to do the impossible.
He, Hayden, has also weighed in on Iran and Al Qaeda, but those entities would be causing trouble, no matter what any one person did, even though that person might be the most powerful individual in the world, the president of the United States.
P.S. Obama has his eyes on those two entities, and he was bound to nail them, one way or another.
From his professional position as head of the United States Intelligence at one time, his experience and a wonderful career of serving his country in the post 9/11 years, nobody could downgrade his views on the troops withdrawal taking place in Iraq last month.
His remarks were too tangent and realistic than idealistic, that America has taken upon itself to leave troops in several volatile spots around the world, and that was a good record. It was a trend that has helped the rest of the world to observe peace and stability in more ways than one.
It was every person's wish that America could go on and do the same everywhere, but that was impossible. It has been done in Korea, in Japan and in Europe; but all that has caused the country a great deal of inconvenience and at an enormous expense.
One would be paraphrasing Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate in the Republican Party nomination race, by saying that, "Policing the world is not America's job," as well as "Nation building should not be part of U.S. foreign policy"; and that peace keeping should be left to the United Nations to deal with. In that sense, the U.S. could always make a contribution.
With regard to Iraq, President Barack Obama, besides his promise to end the war there in his 2008 campaign speeches, has found himself "between the devil and the deep blue sea", as he was facing a huge national debt of over $14 trillion dollars. In addition to that, fighting two wars with that backdrop was nothing, but preposterous, as continuing them (wars) was only making the home economy to suffer.
The president has made it abundantly clear that Iraq has been equipped with the basic political tenets of Democracy, and it was the responsibility of its people to build on them (tenets) to achieve equality among all its sectarian factions.
Mr. Hayden was not being critical of President Obama per se in his article, that troops have to be left in Iraq on a permanent basis, as some critics were advocating. He was directing his observations at the timing of the event of U.S. troops being withdrawn from that country. Even that was a moot point, as it had its pros and cons, and no one could predict the proper time frame in which to end the Iraq war.
Yet, the man in the street has also realized that some of the Iraqis themselves were foaming around the mouth and saying that the U.S. has overstayed its presence, and that they (Iraqis) were ready to run their own affairs. The Obama administration has had talks with the Al-Maliki government for a fraction of American troops staying behind; however, in the long run, that government had the final say, and so the idea did not come to fruition, when it said "No". In view of that, what should the president do?
Mr. Hayden has been loyal to his country throughout his career; but what he could not do was to force his country's hand to do the impossible.
He, Hayden, has also weighed in on Iran and Al Qaeda, but those entities would be causing trouble, no matter what any one person did, even though that person might be the most powerful individual in the world, the president of the United States.
P.S. Obama has his eyes on those two entities, and he was bound to nail them, one way or another.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
OBAMA versus ROMNEY.
Mitt Romney's win in the Iowa caucuses is a splendid thing for Republicans, who are interested in putting a man with Wall Street mentality in the White House.
Most people know his main agenda in advance, as he has portrayed himself as one championing the cause of capitalism on the campaign trail. His operatives have managed to get him to focus on "the upper echelon of society", meaning the rich, whose political contributions and support would keep their candidate moving forward.
The other candidates in the race for the Republican Party nomination have not been as eager or generous in devoting their time on those ready to bankroll their efforts as Romney was doing, but they all carried the notion that, if they were to be winning the nomination, they should do nothing to offend the extreme rightwing of the party, where the power brokers were predominantly stationed.
They have the funds ready to unseat President Barack Obama; but that should not be surprising at all, because that was what parties were for, to remove someone on the opposite side of the aisle and to replace him or her with one of their own.
However, in the present political environment, with tax increases being the focal point in many of the arguments coming from the Democratic side, that the high earning individuals and big corporations must be made to pay "their fair share in taxes,", and that has infuriated the private sector of society more than anything else.
Tax increase was an anathema to business, as the Republicans have always maintained; yet, to top that off with regulations that restricted the business world from making the extraordinary profits at year's end was going too far.
That was exactly what the Obama administration has been doing, but with a very good and practical intention, that salaries and wages should also rise at the same rate as corporate profits, whose dividends went to fill the bank accounts of the wealthy.
If the United States economy should start to grow, there should be parity between wages of workers and the revenues of those, who could afford to invest in the businesses that the working people were laboring for. Share, and share alike.
Such parity would only ensure a strong middle class, whose skills and know-how the nation has counted on since the end of WW1, and has continued through to the 1980s.
President Jimmy Carter wanted to bring it back, but he was saddled with the embassy seizure in Iraq; then came President Ronald Reagan, and the freedom to capitalize more on investment portfolios became rampant.
The Obama administration's effort to initiate a similar policy, by the introduction of Wall Street reforms, has antagonized the private sector even more so than anything before. They have accused Obama of starting a "class warfare", and that was harmful to the different world in which the wealthy lived. He was "anti-business", and on, and on.
"CNBC's Jim Cramer reported Friday morning on Squawk on the Street that he's hearing from business leaders off-camera that Obama is hated by business leaders. The ..." (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jim-cramer-president-obama-is-%E2%80%98hated-like-jimmy-carter-by-business-leaders/).
The Wall Street atmosphere was, and still is, what was being represented by most of the Republican candidates on the campaign trail, especially, Ron Paul; but who they thought was not electable, due to his extremism. However, who did you think would be more suitable for those, who were aiming at getting rid of Obama?
Yes, Romney.
American voters should realize that, if there would be a class warfare, it would be Romney dismantling the business regulations that have been put in place by Obama, to bring parity in the workplace and to move the middle class forward, in terms of income.
The middle class has been the real people building America, and has made its economy to become strong; and no other section of society could match that claim.
Most people know his main agenda in advance, as he has portrayed himself as one championing the cause of capitalism on the campaign trail. His operatives have managed to get him to focus on "the upper echelon of society", meaning the rich, whose political contributions and support would keep their candidate moving forward.
The other candidates in the race for the Republican Party nomination have not been as eager or generous in devoting their time on those ready to bankroll their efforts as Romney was doing, but they all carried the notion that, if they were to be winning the nomination, they should do nothing to offend the extreme rightwing of the party, where the power brokers were predominantly stationed.
They have the funds ready to unseat President Barack Obama; but that should not be surprising at all, because that was what parties were for, to remove someone on the opposite side of the aisle and to replace him or her with one of their own.
However, in the present political environment, with tax increases being the focal point in many of the arguments coming from the Democratic side, that the high earning individuals and big corporations must be made to pay "their fair share in taxes,", and that has infuriated the private sector of society more than anything else.
Tax increase was an anathema to business, as the Republicans have always maintained; yet, to top that off with regulations that restricted the business world from making the extraordinary profits at year's end was going too far.
That was exactly what the Obama administration has been doing, but with a very good and practical intention, that salaries and wages should also rise at the same rate as corporate profits, whose dividends went to fill the bank accounts of the wealthy.
If the United States economy should start to grow, there should be parity between wages of workers and the revenues of those, who could afford to invest in the businesses that the working people were laboring for. Share, and share alike.
Such parity would only ensure a strong middle class, whose skills and know-how the nation has counted on since the end of WW1, and has continued through to the 1980s.
President Jimmy Carter wanted to bring it back, but he was saddled with the embassy seizure in Iraq; then came President Ronald Reagan, and the freedom to capitalize more on investment portfolios became rampant.
The Obama administration's effort to initiate a similar policy, by the introduction of Wall Street reforms, has antagonized the private sector even more so than anything before. They have accused Obama of starting a "class warfare", and that was harmful to the different world in which the wealthy lived. He was "anti-business", and on, and on.
"CNBC's Jim Cramer reported Friday morning on Squawk on the Street that he's hearing from business leaders off-camera that Obama is hated by business leaders. The ..." (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jim-cramer-president-obama-is-%E2%80%98hated-like-jimmy-carter-by-business-leaders/).
The Wall Street atmosphere was, and still is, what was being represented by most of the Republican candidates on the campaign trail, especially, Ron Paul; but who they thought was not electable, due to his extremism. However, who did you think would be more suitable for those, who were aiming at getting rid of Obama?
Yes, Romney.
American voters should realize that, if there would be a class warfare, it would be Romney dismantling the business regulations that have been put in place by Obama, to bring parity in the workplace and to move the middle class forward, in terms of income.
The middle class has been the real people building America, and has made its economy to become strong; and no other section of society could match that claim.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
AMERICA'S FRIENDSHIP & ALLIANCES.
The Iowa caucuses voting has come and gone, at least for another four years, when it will be "deja vu" all over again. It will be quiet there for now, as the Republican Party candidates move on to New Hampshire, South Carolina and other places to continue with their campaigns to choose a nominee.
The Obama campaign operatives will be honing their strategies to meet the person, who will become the Republicans' favorite choice.
They will be ready, if they are not already, to engage President Barack Obama's opponent with the rigidity and seriousness that the 2012 general election will demand, for it will be one that will dictate the future direction America will be heading.
Voters will also be on their toes to evaluate and decide, who will be more prepared to lead the United States into the future. They have been bombarded with ads of promises in Iowa and across the country by the Republican candidates; therefore they must be given the right to make up their own minds, as to whom they will prefer to be their leader.
However, the outside world has never thrived on promises; and only appropriate action has always been the objective of nations, who have envisaged peace for themselves and with others.
The prospects at present do not equate to a peaceful world, with economic upheavals engulfing Europe, and as Iran is brazenly showing signs that its policies are teetering on starting a conflagration that will affect, not just the Middle East, but also the rest of the world, a tested leadership will be more attractive than any other.
From what the Republican candidates have been say, except Ron Paul, who will choose isolationism, they will indulge in policies that will fully engage the U.S. in world affairs; but whether those policies will be belligerent in nature or not, they will not say.
America needs to be cautious in its foreign policy as a whole, to not get into disputes that do not pose any threat to its interests. The act of "policing" the world is getting to be more impossible now than ever, as it has shown to drain resources that will be needed to improve the economy at home.
The protective wars, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, will have to be fought, as Al Qaeda and other such organizations have covert plans that must be dismantled before they take effect.
That the intelligence community will have its hands full, even if America is not fighting in a physical war; and as the best defense is thwarting what the enemy has in mind, any piece of information, however little, that will be useful for its National Security must never be ignored.
The nation must therefore be vigilant; but with that must be a kind of leadership that will cater to peace more than conflict.
Obama has demonstrated that attitude during his tenure of office, and there is no indication that he will deviate from it; and so, that must give the assurance that he will go along with other similar minded leaders to achieve global peace.
The contrast will then be what his opponent in the next general election will espouse, in terms of how domestic and foreign matters will be handled. Will he or she have the same ideas as Obama to confront the nation's problems? Is the world going to look on the U.S. as a friendly nation?
Nobody can predict what the other person will do; and that makes it easy for many to say that changing horses in midstream, come this November, will be inadvisable.
That will not favor one person against another, or a Democrat against a Republican. It will only show that to have America's best interest at heart must be the direction that a person must pursue; one that has been shown to be practical, or one that is just a blueprint assessment of what Obama's opponent can do to keep America safe, and be able to maintain the friendship of other nations, as well as an alliance such as NATO, to remain in place.
He or she must be able to do all that at the same time; and that is a huge responsibility, and therefore, America must only vote for the person, who can carry it.
The Obama campaign operatives will be honing their strategies to meet the person, who will become the Republicans' favorite choice.
They will be ready, if they are not already, to engage President Barack Obama's opponent with the rigidity and seriousness that the 2012 general election will demand, for it will be one that will dictate the future direction America will be heading.
Voters will also be on their toes to evaluate and decide, who will be more prepared to lead the United States into the future. They have been bombarded with ads of promises in Iowa and across the country by the Republican candidates; therefore they must be given the right to make up their own minds, as to whom they will prefer to be their leader.
However, the outside world has never thrived on promises; and only appropriate action has always been the objective of nations, who have envisaged peace for themselves and with others.
The prospects at present do not equate to a peaceful world, with economic upheavals engulfing Europe, and as Iran is brazenly showing signs that its policies are teetering on starting a conflagration that will affect, not just the Middle East, but also the rest of the world, a tested leadership will be more attractive than any other.
From what the Republican candidates have been say, except Ron Paul, who will choose isolationism, they will indulge in policies that will fully engage the U.S. in world affairs; but whether those policies will be belligerent in nature or not, they will not say.
America needs to be cautious in its foreign policy as a whole, to not get into disputes that do not pose any threat to its interests. The act of "policing" the world is getting to be more impossible now than ever, as it has shown to drain resources that will be needed to improve the economy at home.
The protective wars, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, will have to be fought, as Al Qaeda and other such organizations have covert plans that must be dismantled before they take effect.
That the intelligence community will have its hands full, even if America is not fighting in a physical war; and as the best defense is thwarting what the enemy has in mind, any piece of information, however little, that will be useful for its National Security must never be ignored.
The nation must therefore be vigilant; but with that must be a kind of leadership that will cater to peace more than conflict.
Obama has demonstrated that attitude during his tenure of office, and there is no indication that he will deviate from it; and so, that must give the assurance that he will go along with other similar minded leaders to achieve global peace.
The contrast will then be what his opponent in the next general election will espouse, in terms of how domestic and foreign matters will be handled. Will he or she have the same ideas as Obama to confront the nation's problems? Is the world going to look on the U.S. as a friendly nation?
Nobody can predict what the other person will do; and that makes it easy for many to say that changing horses in midstream, come this November, will be inadvisable.
That will not favor one person against another, or a Democrat against a Republican. It will only show that to have America's best interest at heart must be the direction that a person must pursue; one that has been shown to be practical, or one that is just a blueprint assessment of what Obama's opponent can do to keep America safe, and be able to maintain the friendship of other nations, as well as an alliance such as NATO, to remain in place.
He or she must be able to do all that at the same time; and that is a huge responsibility, and therefore, America must only vote for the person, who can carry it.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
IOWANS' RESPONSIBILITY.
Truly, Iowans have the opportunity this morning to show the people in this country that they are dedicated to the well being of the United States, and more so than anything that they cherish most in their lives.
They are voting in the caucuses not just for themselves, but for the rest of the people that inhabit America.
It (America) has been kind to us all, as it has been a country that opens its doors to all kinds of nationalities and to give them the same chances to succeed in life, without any type of discrimination ( and for a time, that is what many have to think).
However, let us take it on the surface that it is "the land of equal opportunity" and so go with the flow; and that Iowans are to protect that quality today, with no reservations of any kind.
It must be obvious that the state's economy has been booming in these past few weeks, as hotels and restaurants are bursting at the seams with customers and patrons from the Republican Party crowd.
The candidates of the party vying to win the nomination, and each to represent himself or herself as the one to challenge President Barack Obama, have had their say. They have used their time to chastise each other, for crying out loud, and of course, condemn the Obama administration in toto.
However, what Iowans must refrain from is being one sided and to say that the Republicans have come to spend millions of dollars in the state, and has made things good for businesses there, and so, that has to be the only reason upon which to cast their vote.
The candidates' speeches and promises are not reliable either, because they are biased, and we are all aware of that.
What they should concentrate on should be the state of the nation, and where or which direction America should go in the future; and that was whether to have capitalism in its extreme, and therefore a small sample of men and women in the country, to dominate the political atmosphere, as times gone by, or to start rejuvenating a middle class that has produced streams of workers to build the strong economy that has always been the mainstay of American life.
Are they (Iowans) going let that dream die, although they know that a change must come to make the nation even more stronger than ever before, as the future demands that.
That is what is at stake here; the status quo, with reactionary politicians making all sorts of promises to protect it, or one that will promote equality and goodwill among all citizens, and open doors for everyone, irrespective of social background, race or creed.
The latter must be what a great majority of Americans will settle for, to bring a balance into a society in which the veteran, the laborer, the lawyer, the advertising magnate; in fact, the rich and the poor, all must count as being the same.
The media will be our witness, that the whole world has been through a very dramatic stage these past three years, and without a strong and smart leadership, which is what people want to take away from the first African American president, the country will have been in a complete state of disarray.
With a bad economy and high unemployment, plus two wars in far away countries, Obama has managed them very well. His next step is to bring about a productive middle class that will be an example for the rest of the world to follow.
With a vital middle class, the country will do well, as standards of living will improve for everyone. The nation will then be ready to face the challenges of the future.
That is what Iowans must cast their vote for; and nothing short of that will be a waste of precious time.
Their choice must not mute the fears and hopes of Americans, who have dedicated their lives to serve their fellow Americans; our men and women in uniform.
That must be Iowans' responsibility today.
They are voting in the caucuses not just for themselves, but for the rest of the people that inhabit America.
It (America) has been kind to us all, as it has been a country that opens its doors to all kinds of nationalities and to give them the same chances to succeed in life, without any type of discrimination ( and for a time, that is what many have to think).
However, let us take it on the surface that it is "the land of equal opportunity" and so go with the flow; and that Iowans are to protect that quality today, with no reservations of any kind.
It must be obvious that the state's economy has been booming in these past few weeks, as hotels and restaurants are bursting at the seams with customers and patrons from the Republican Party crowd.
The candidates of the party vying to win the nomination, and each to represent himself or herself as the one to challenge President Barack Obama, have had their say. They have used their time to chastise each other, for crying out loud, and of course, condemn the Obama administration in toto.
However, what Iowans must refrain from is being one sided and to say that the Republicans have come to spend millions of dollars in the state, and has made things good for businesses there, and so, that has to be the only reason upon which to cast their vote.
The candidates' speeches and promises are not reliable either, because they are biased, and we are all aware of that.
What they should concentrate on should be the state of the nation, and where or which direction America should go in the future; and that was whether to have capitalism in its extreme, and therefore a small sample of men and women in the country, to dominate the political atmosphere, as times gone by, or to start rejuvenating a middle class that has produced streams of workers to build the strong economy that has always been the mainstay of American life.
Are they (Iowans) going let that dream die, although they know that a change must come to make the nation even more stronger than ever before, as the future demands that.
That is what is at stake here; the status quo, with reactionary politicians making all sorts of promises to protect it, or one that will promote equality and goodwill among all citizens, and open doors for everyone, irrespective of social background, race or creed.
The latter must be what a great majority of Americans will settle for, to bring a balance into a society in which the veteran, the laborer, the lawyer, the advertising magnate; in fact, the rich and the poor, all must count as being the same.
The media will be our witness, that the whole world has been through a very dramatic stage these past three years, and without a strong and smart leadership, which is what people want to take away from the first African American president, the country will have been in a complete state of disarray.
With a bad economy and high unemployment, plus two wars in far away countries, Obama has managed them very well. His next step is to bring about a productive middle class that will be an example for the rest of the world to follow.
With a vital middle class, the country will do well, as standards of living will improve for everyone. The nation will then be ready to face the challenges of the future.
That is what Iowans must cast their vote for; and nothing short of that will be a waste of precious time.
Their choice must not mute the fears and hopes of Americans, who have dedicated their lives to serve their fellow Americans; our men and women in uniform.
That must be Iowans' responsibility today.
Monday, January 2, 2012
PROMISES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
The Republican Party nomination race in Iowa will come to a close, at least, in that State, after Jan. 3rd, 2012 for another four years.
That page will be condensed into just pieces of reports in the newspapers or a short documentary movie on national television, as journalists and their crew of photographers will pack up and move on to another State to follow the candidates the same way that they are doing now.
The change will be just the venue or town, but the reports will still look like those of the previous week. The candidates will be the same, and although, one or two may decide to drop out due to circumstances beyond their control, making the field to become a little bit or slightly sparse, and the rest of them will be repeating their "mantras" for their listeners to get used to them.
In other words, the messages of the candidates will be the same, of what they are going to do, if the crowds will be kind enough to elect them, or one of them as president of the United States.
During the debates, the grilling of each other, and the questions from the moderators will help them to catch fire and show that they will be strong leaders in protecting Americans and their way of life.
In fact that is what is at stake, when it come to the bottom of the barrel, for people to be confident of how the country will be managed; meaning the state of the economy to be strong, National Security and defense are in great shape, with the military being first class and well equipped, healthcare having low costs, with high job creation numbers and minimal unemployment rate tagging along; and thus making the standard of living more prosperous and viable for all Americans than in previous years.
The promises will keep coming, and the one that will sound more convincing that he or she will be able to do a better job, will be chosen to challenge the present occupant of the White House.
Whatever plans they may have will be counted as just promises; but do these candidates realize that, when they make them?
Most of them support them (promises) with their personal records or what they have done with their lives, as well as the backgrounds that they have, for people to evaluate them on. It then comes to the point that, trusting them is the only thing that they (people) have left in their emotional arsenal to fight back.
They, candidates, will then pass the severe tests of going through election campaigns, in which these promises are spelled out in detail. Some of these campaigns will end in triumph and others will fail to reach their goals. The triumphant person will then be the choice.
However, in the long run, are not citizens taking a big fat risk in putting their lives in the hands of sometimes total strangers, who are counting their chickens before they are hatched? That may be tawdry to be asking; but think about that.
In fact, that has been the nature of Democracy; and that is, to leave one person, in terms of being president, (or a group of people, in terms of having a Congress or Parliament), to run the affairs of a country.
That is the process of Democracy, the microcosm of which is going on in Iowa today; and that will follow throughout in the primaries of the Republican Party in the coming days toward the 2012 presidential election.
Will that result in the party finding someone, who will earn the complete confidence of its members? Of course. What then will be going through that person's mind, to be chosen to confront another person, who has so much experience, and coupled with that, the achievement of making the country safe for the last three years, in the present volatile world?
Nevertheless, those may be a rhetorical questions; but let us for a moment look at it this way, that Al Qaeda is on the run, Iran is being perturbed and may refrain from pursuing its ambition of obtaining a nuclear weapon, because the U.S. sanctions are biting. America is making friends through its troops withdrawal from Iraq, and the scaling down of hostilities on both sides in Afghanistan tends to be a pretty fantastic idea. The country's economy has begun to show signs of improvement and even growth, and unemployment figures are dwindling; as well as an additional thirty million people having healthcare insurance coverage. This, my friend, by every standard is a good record; don't you agree?
There might be some setbacks to warrant a backlash or two; like border patrol and immigration reform. Yes; however, no one is perfect.
Once again, come to think of it, what other question comes to mind is, is the country ready to exchange realities in life for mere promises? Besides, changing horses in midstream is inadvisable.
That page will be condensed into just pieces of reports in the newspapers or a short documentary movie on national television, as journalists and their crew of photographers will pack up and move on to another State to follow the candidates the same way that they are doing now.
The change will be just the venue or town, but the reports will still look like those of the previous week. The candidates will be the same, and although, one or two may decide to drop out due to circumstances beyond their control, making the field to become a little bit or slightly sparse, and the rest of them will be repeating their "mantras" for their listeners to get used to them.
In other words, the messages of the candidates will be the same, of what they are going to do, if the crowds will be kind enough to elect them, or one of them as president of the United States.
During the debates, the grilling of each other, and the questions from the moderators will help them to catch fire and show that they will be strong leaders in protecting Americans and their way of life.
In fact that is what is at stake, when it come to the bottom of the barrel, for people to be confident of how the country will be managed; meaning the state of the economy to be strong, National Security and defense are in great shape, with the military being first class and well equipped, healthcare having low costs, with high job creation numbers and minimal unemployment rate tagging along; and thus making the standard of living more prosperous and viable for all Americans than in previous years.
The promises will keep coming, and the one that will sound more convincing that he or she will be able to do a better job, will be chosen to challenge the present occupant of the White House.
Whatever plans they may have will be counted as just promises; but do these candidates realize that, when they make them?
Most of them support them (promises) with their personal records or what they have done with their lives, as well as the backgrounds that they have, for people to evaluate them on. It then comes to the point that, trusting them is the only thing that they (people) have left in their emotional arsenal to fight back.
They, candidates, will then pass the severe tests of going through election campaigns, in which these promises are spelled out in detail. Some of these campaigns will end in triumph and others will fail to reach their goals. The triumphant person will then be the choice.
However, in the long run, are not citizens taking a big fat risk in putting their lives in the hands of sometimes total strangers, who are counting their chickens before they are hatched? That may be tawdry to be asking; but think about that.
In fact, that has been the nature of Democracy; and that is, to leave one person, in terms of being president, (or a group of people, in terms of having a Congress or Parliament), to run the affairs of a country.
That is the process of Democracy, the microcosm of which is going on in Iowa today; and that will follow throughout in the primaries of the Republican Party in the coming days toward the 2012 presidential election.
Will that result in the party finding someone, who will earn the complete confidence of its members? Of course. What then will be going through that person's mind, to be chosen to confront another person, who has so much experience, and coupled with that, the achievement of making the country safe for the last three years, in the present volatile world?
Nevertheless, those may be a rhetorical questions; but let us for a moment look at it this way, that Al Qaeda is on the run, Iran is being perturbed and may refrain from pursuing its ambition of obtaining a nuclear weapon, because the U.S. sanctions are biting. America is making friends through its troops withdrawal from Iraq, and the scaling down of hostilities on both sides in Afghanistan tends to be a pretty fantastic idea. The country's economy has begun to show signs of improvement and even growth, and unemployment figures are dwindling; as well as an additional thirty million people having healthcare insurance coverage. This, my friend, by every standard is a good record; don't you agree?
There might be some setbacks to warrant a backlash or two; like border patrol and immigration reform. Yes; however, no one is perfect.
Once again, come to think of it, what other question comes to mind is, is the country ready to exchange realities in life for mere promises? Besides, changing horses in midstream is inadvisable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)