Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label president obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

President Obama's Executive Order... Unveiled.

www.davegranlund.com

I have been eagerly waiting for the gun control new laws that were to be unveiled today by President Obama, after all, they promised it was going to be “the most aggressive and expansive national gun-control agenda in generations."
I was moved by Vice President Joe Biden’s speech, it was very touching. I was also extremely excited to hear the President mention putting a limit of 10 bullets per magazine and banning assault weapons. I was excited to hear that there will be universal background checks and he did mention health somewhere in the equation.
Then I waited and waited to hear all the 23 points that I knew he was signing today… nothing.
I went searching at the White House website and again, nothing. It was on Facebook that someone shared with me the 23 points as published on TPM and my heart sank to the basement. These are the 23 points contained in the Executive Order, you can click Observation to read my opinion:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. Observation
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. Observation
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.  Observation
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.  Observation
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.  Observation
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.  Observation
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.  Observation
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).  Observation
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.  Observation
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.  Observation
11. Nominate an ATF director.  Observation
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.  Observation
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.  Observation
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.  Observation
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.  Observation
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.  Observation
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.  Observation
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.  Observation
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.  Observation
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.  Observation
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.  Observation
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.  Observation
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.  Observation


My question is… Why the need of an Executive Order and the fanfare for the majority of these points? As I see it, most didn’t need an EO. There is no mention about what should be removed from the market; there is no mention about banning, limiting, insurance or testing. Testing should be a must, even police officers must take a psychological test, why not an individual, untrained and armed not be required to pass a psychological test? And why not make mandatory to have liability insurance when car owners are forced to have one?
President Obama is leaving the legalities to Congress which means that nothing will be done. There is no way Republicans in Congress will ban any guns or set a limit on the number of bullets a magazine can hold or dare to do anything that will upset the NRA.
So stay tuned, don’t miss the next massacre coming to a town near you!

Sunday, January 13, 2013

The Republican the GOP Doesn't Like

"To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic."~ Chuck Hagel
"I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."    ~ Chuck Hagel

Chuck Hagel, as all of us know, has been nominated by President Obama to be our next Secretary of Defense. This nomination has created turmoil on both sides of the isle and for different reasons. Democrats are aerated because a Democrat wasn’t nominated to hold that position, but truth be told… which of the two Parties is predominantly more aggressive? I think you’ll agree with me that Democrats are more the “peace and love” bunch in Washington where Republicans are more the war mongering type. I know I am stereotyping, and there are always exceptions to the rule, but it is my opinion that to lead an army you have to have a soldier’s mentality.

Mr. Hagel served in the Vietnam War as a Sergeant along with his brother and received several medals for his valor; he was awarded two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, the Army Commendation Medal and the Combat Infantryman Badge. If someone knows what it entails to be in a war, that’s Chuck Hagel.
I must admit that I wasn’t pleased when the rumors began that President Obama was going to appoint him to be the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Hagel is extremely controversial and outspoken; he made comments and voted against homosexuals while he was Senator and he has made several questionable comments about Israel and the Palestine conflict. However, I rather have a person that speaks his mind without concern about what is politically correct than a hypocrite that will say one thing and do another when away from the public eye. That is not the case with Mr. Hagel, he will tell it as he sees it. Ultimately, all the decisions about civil rights and the relationship between The United States and Israel, how to approach the Palestine or any other global conflict lies with the President, not the Secretary of Defense.
But if we are honest, the positions he has taken throughout his political career are for the most part commendable. He is not like the Republicans we have become accustomed to, those that will vote against their principle just to stick with their Party. Not Mr. Hagel. He publicly criticized the Bush Administration when he said that the administration was “the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus—almost every area" of any presidency in the last forty years."
A lot has been said about Mr. Hagel being Anti-Semite. For what I have read, Mr. Hagel wants for Israel and the Islamic nations to have more of a diplomatic approach to resolve their conflict instead of a ballistic one. He is also against the United States to offer military support to Israel regardless of the situation without first demanding a peaceful resolution. The following is a direct quote from Wikipedia: “In July 2006, Hagel criticized the Bush administration on its handling of the Israel-Lebanon issue, saying "The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop." He also said "Our relationship with Israel is special and historic... But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.”" It is for this type of comments that he is considered Anti-Semite, I don’t see it that way, I see it as a man that has seen too many unnecessary deaths because of wars and prefers to resolve differences in a more civilized manner, whenever possible.

   

Only time will tell if the President’s decision to nominate Mr. Hagel was a good decision. I don’t agree with many of Mr. Hagel’s points of views, but I do like a man that speaks his mind, that says that which he believes to be his fundamental principles for what he thinks it’s the good of the country. It’s refreshing to see a Republican step outside the box where they seem to be stuck in and since the majority of Republicans are desperately trying to trash the name of Mr. Hagel, that is enough for me to endorse him!

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall... Street

Friday, July 13 the Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, took to the airwaves in a futile attempt to “get the records straight” demanding an apology from President Obama for publicly unmasking Romney for his self-claim assertions that he is a “job creator.” Romney is demanding an apology from President Obama for saying the truth, regardless that so far he has repeated lies after lies about President Obama and we are yet to see, read or hear an apology from him. He believes he is too grand to provide an apology.

Romney is claiming that he left, and this he has repeated incessantly, on February 1999. He claims that is the year he left Bain Capital to be in charge of the Utah Olympics. While it is true that he was in charge of the Olympics, what is not true is that he left the company for good and made no decisions about the company after that date. Several documents have surfaced that proves otherwise and list him as CEO, President and Managing Director of Bain Capital during 2000 and 2001. Mitt Romney have said that while he was in Utah overseeing the Olympics he had to travel to attend board meetings and while this is normal, after all he was the owner of that company, what it is not normal is for him to think that anyone is going to believe that as such, he had no saying on the decisions or the course the company was going to take. That it’s inconceivable and if true, a greatly irresponsible behavior towards his investments and that of the investors that placed their trust on Mitt Romney as the owner of that company. If true, is that the kind of President America needs? A President that will not lead but blindly delegate and that will assume no responsibility if anything goes wrong? I don’t think so, we had a president like that before: Ronald Reagan, but at least when Reagan pulled that one off he had Alzheimer.


I honestly believe that his refusal to show his tax returns from 2000 and 2001 is because we will see that he listed Bain Capital as his employer. Nothing else remains to be known but that fact, we all now he off-shores his money, that he has Swiss accounts and a stash of money hidden in the Cayman Islands. We all know he outsources jobs and encourage other American companies to do the same. All there is left for us to know and for him to hide is that he lied about Bain Capital and the his Tax Returns will provide the irrefutable proof that he has not been truthful and expose him as the liar he truly is.



From 1999 to 2002, Bain Capital bought, drove to the ground and destroyed many companies.  During that time thousand of workers were laid-off and hundreds of jobs were outsourced to China and India while making millions of dollars in the process. Business is business and we can’t criticize him for that. However, Mitt Romney should take responsibility for being a great contributor to the demise of the economy, for being a job creator overseas but definitively not in America. He made his bed, let him lay on it instead of desperately trying to disengage from that particular period. Romney's involvement with Bain during that period will debunk his rhetoric as “a job creator.” He is no “job creator” at least not in America; here he is a job destroyer.

 

For those that still believe that Mitt Romney is a good candidate, we just have to evaluate where most of his investments are, according to his Public FinancialDisclosure Report, signed in 2011, where we can see that he has several million dollars invested in Goldman Sachs and Bank of America among others. We can conclude that, without a doubt, Mitt Romney will remove all regulations from the banking industry. Those regulations on Wall Street are not helping him make more money and that is all he truly cares about. Deregulating Wall Street will serve him well as he truly is a Wall Street guy not because he is rich, but because he is a big component of Wall Street and its collapse.

I can’t comprehend how regular folks out there can back this guy up… a man that all of his life has worked at destroying this country not giving a damn to move it forward and caring only on how much more money he can make. I wonder what deals will he make and what treaties will he sign with China that will allow him to increase his wealth even more at the expense of the American people and the country.




Sources:  

Mother Jones - The Mystery of Romney's Exit from Bain

Mother Jones - Stericycle 13D 1999

The Washington Post - Cash, Advice on Tap at Romney's Old Firm

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

msnbc news

abc News

Monday, July 9, 2012

When Youth Fades Away

Medicare is the culprit of all evil for every Republican in Congress. They blame public programs such as Medicare for the economic crisis and the increases in our national budget. The numerous wars, the over expending in weapons which never seems to be enough, their salaries and lavish expenditures, the unregulated banking industry and of course over a decade of tax cuts to the very wealthy have not contributed at all to the current economic crisis, only Medicare and public programs for the poor and the elderly need to be “reformed” because they are the ones depleting our funds.  Really?

It is funny that all three branches enjoy the benefits of  Medicare  but Republicans are not willing to part with it, all these benefits are a necessity for them and a parasitic luxury for the rest of America.

On his website, Romney says that President Obama has “attacked” every proposal suggested by Republicans. I think our President has defended rather than attack, the rights of the American citizens. What the Republicans have been proposing [and this is nothing new] is to privatize Medicare. The government will determine how much money a senior will receive to “help” them pay their insurance premiums. Basically, what that means is that Medicare will be eliminated and seniors will have to acquire private insurance. Of course, the consumer will choose the insurance they can afford, if they are to choose a more expensive option they will pay for the difference themselves. The problem with this, among many other things, is that those seniors that must opt for the more expensive option due to certain medical needs will have to pay out of pocket for it. Once again, only the wealthy retirees will be able to enjoy good health care when they reach their golden years, the poor seniors will have to shop around, be inundated with verbiage they don’t understand and where only the premium cost will be important, not their health since they won't be able to afford it.

According to Mitt Romney, the amount that will be provided to seniors to cover their premiums will be a fixed amount. I wonder if the “fixed” amount will take into consideration ailments that affect certain seniors but not all seniors. For example, will it be more for seniors that need an organ transplant or have gone through a transplant that requires follow ups with specialists and expensive medications for life? Will it be more for seniors with BP or diabetes? Will any of this matter when assessing the “fixed” amount?  We will not find the answers to these questions on Mitt Romney's site and in the usual Romneyism that characterize him, he is devious enough not to speak clearly or stand firmly on what he proposes - he knows that if we know the truth he doesn't stand a chance of ever being elected.

Romney, who “hates” government interference in private companies or on how they run their businesses, is going to demand that all insurance companies offer a comparable plan to today’s Medicare. Yeah, right!

Romney justifies the “fixed support” amount provided by the government as a tool because according to him it will empower seniors with the choice of purchasing less expensive plans and use the leftover to pay for  “other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles.” So, on top of losing the security of Medicare, now the elderly who are almost at poverty line levels must pay for co-payments and deductibles set by private insurance companies. The party that cried that “Obamacare” had death panels doesn’t need “death panels”… They know that by privatizing Medicare most of our poor seniors will die, if not by choosing the worse but cheapest plan then by starvation. It is sad when a person that has worked all of their lives have to choose between medication and food since their funds won’t allow them to afford both.

Mitt explains that the government will still provide traditional Medicare but since this coverage will cost more to the government, seniors that wish to keep that plan will have to pay even higher premiums than those selecting private insurance.

In every civilized society in the world, seniors are viewed as a treasure to cherish. An endless source of wisdom and who most of the time binds a family together. Not in the United States, here seniors are seen as a burden, useless and who many of them die in a nursing home all alone because their children are too busy to be bothered with taking care of them. The Republicans are a perfect example of these views; they believe that seniors are a burden to society and especially to the government. A government that for decades demanded and took without hesitation the taxes these citizens contributed with, a government that had no problem asking them to go to war to “defend” our country in faraway lands that never posed a physical thread to us, such as Vietnam. A government that when have asked, these seniors responded by saying “Present!” but now, at the sunset of their lives, they can no longer say “Present!” so they are a bothersome group that Republicans cannot wait to get rid of, unless they are wealthy, of course. And we all know that the wealthier these seniors are, the most likely that they never said “Present!”

The Romney/Ryan plan claims [to read a previous post explaining in detail what the Ryan plan entails and with a link to the actual plan, click here] that will give a “more generous support” to lower income seniors and wealthier seniors will receive less. Why not remove wealthy seniors altogether? Wealthy seniors can afford to pay for full premium coverage without government help; they don’t need that “support” check. But no, the thought of not helping the wealthy it's unthinkable for the GOP. How can they tell a wealthy person that the government will not help them because they don’t need it but that they are going to help the poor instead? That will be outrageous, a sacrilege! But they can tell a poor senior “sorry, this is all we can help you with… not enough? Do all of us a favor and die quickly!

Once more, Romney is counting on the “good heart” of insurance companies. We must remember that he has promised to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office, among about a thousand other things he promised to take care on his very first day in office. Thanks to Obamacare, insurance companies can't raise their premiums or cancel your policy for a pre-existing condition, they can't drop you if you get sick and insurance companies must expend at least 80% of their profits on their policy-holders' medical expenses. If Romney wins (may the Spaghetti Flying Monster have mercy on us!) and repeals Obamacare, those provisions will also be repealed. We all know that insurance companies have never lowered their premiums no matter how many policy holders they have, the rich just seem to not have enough money and the more they have, the more they want.  We all know the true "heart" of insurance companies and it is not a pretty one.

We are reaching the boiling point, where the 1% will be the only ones entitled to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” while the rest of the 99%, will have no Life worth living, no Liberty since we will be the peons of the 1% and not entitled to the pursuit of happiness… we will have not the money nor the health to pursuit it.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Mitt Romney Defends Vaginas if they're Made in China...

With the elections fast approaching and beginning to be assaulted by an endless amount of propaganda from the right, I gathered enough courage and checked Mitt Romney’s website.  Needless to say that I couldn’t care less about what is in his page so I went directly to what interested me:  his proposed plans.  There are so many issues on his page (don’t confuse it with plans, understand the difference) that I will tackle one issue at a time.

One issue on his page is very interesting, it’s about China.  It begins by claiming that China has experienced a dramatic growth during the last 30 years surpassing Japan to become the world’s second largest economy after ours and how fearful we must be of their capabilities.

Romney sees China as a military threat and even when he tries to soften his opinion, it is clear that he fears China – and perhaps we should – but so far China has not interfered with us.  China has, however, intervened in other countries affairs and even has participated in ballistic actions… just like us.  Mitt Romney believes that there is a high possibility that there could be “the potential for conflict with an authoritarian China” and we must discourage China from attempting to intimidate or dominate “neighboring states” (states?).  That job belongs to the United States apparently, we are the only ones that can intimidate or dominate countries not neighboring us but countries on the other side of the world, such as China.

Mitt Romney claims that China has accelerated its military.  As long as I can remember China has had a strong military if only by the sheer numbers of their militant force; it wasn’t by chance or luck that the Soviet Union never successfully invaded China.  It is a shame and embarrassment that Mitt Romney is not aware of this fact.  Regardless, to "protect" China’s neighbors, Mitt Romney proposes expanding our naval presence in the Pacific and to create a strong military presence in the region.  While we are there, we should sell armaments to the neighboring countries and train militarily them.  Mitt Romney claims that the over expansion of our military in the region, plus equipping and training China’s neighbors will not be perceived by China as an invitation to conflict… How stupid does Mitt Romney thinks China is?  Does he really believes that if we do this we will not provoke China?  If he truly believes this, he is dumber than I thought.

Further on the same issue, Romney wants to pursue a “deeper economic cooperation” with China’s neighboring countries and like-minded nations through the formation of a “Reagan Economic Zone.”  As it is already customary with Romney, he names a very catchy “reform or plan” but fails to provide the specifics as to what the plan or reform entails.  What the heck is a “Reagan Economic Zone” anyway?  Does he realize that, even by his own accord (“after 30 years of growth”) China was capable to grow as it has because of Ronald Reagan’s reforms?  Are we now pursuing to do the same with other countries in Asia?  Is Romney selling us to the Far East?  I think he might be considering it after all, that is what he does best:  sell.

The part I found hysterical is his opinion about defending the Chinese people’s Human Rights.  Mitt Romney says that it is obvious that any changes that occur in China it must be from within, however we, the United States of America, play an important role in encouraging the “evolution” of China.  I think he meant to say “revolution” but since he has always been a coward he’s probably afraid that China might read it, so he disguised it as “evolution.”

Mitt Romney closes the China Issue with what I think is a joke and a good one too:

A Romney administration will vigorously support and engage civil society groups within China that are promoting democratic reform, anti-corruption efforts, religious freedom, AND WOMEN’S AND MINORITY RIGHTS.  It will look to provide these groups and the Chinese people with greater access to information and communication through a stronger Internet freedom initiative.  Mitt Romney will seek to engage China, but will always stand up for those fighting for the freedoms we enjoy.

Now, tell me that’s not hilarious!

First of all, we cannot dictate how China supplies its citizens with Internet.  We cannot control what filters China applies to the Internet network within their borders.  That is an outright lie and Mitt Romney knows it.  Second, how dare he talk about anti-corruption and women’s rights?  How can he say this with a straight face when our rights have basically disappeared thanks to “Citizen’s United” and the Koch brothers?  Where the Republican Party, through the bills they have passed or are trying to pass, is constantly screwing every single American woman by inserting a new bill into their vaginas on a daily basis?  Where are the rights of the Women in THIS COUNTRY, Romney?  I guess the vaginas from another country deserve more freedom and have more rights that the ones in America…. Shit, for Romney the seal “Made in China” has more value that the one “Made in the USA.” 

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Fly Newt to the Moon


Wednesday, May 2 finally marked the end of Newt Gingrich as a Republican candidate in the 2012 elections. As it is customary with him, the speech announcing that he was suspending his campaign revolved entirely around him, enhancing his "contributions" to the Republican Party where according to his recollection he is the most capable. His speech was full of false statements and presumptions with a hefty dose of disrespectful comments towards the President of the United States.

He began his speech making a recount of his political life, since high school and basically taking credit for almost all the transformation of the GOP. In that regard, he was right, but of course he left out that he is the one that brought hate to the party and single-handedly transformed it into the irrational and extremist party we know today.

(07:40) Helping Reagan in the eight years he was president with Bob Walker and others founding the Conservative Opportunity Society.
Gingrich makes reference that this society developed “a generation of solutions.” What he fails to mention is that the idea for this society was his alone as well as the “solutions,” which basically consisted of attacking the Democrats. The tactics the Republicans were using under the direction of Newt Gingrich, with Newt being the loudest representative of this unethical tactic, which used any means possible, whether they were true or not was irrelevant, what mattered most was destroying the Democratic Party. It is ironic that Newt Gingrich accused the Democrats of corruption… this coming from a guy who was forced to resign due to his improper, unethical and abusive behavior. Nothing has ever stopped this man from being what he is: a narcissist, egocentric son of a bitch that like a pit-bull trained to fight will lock his jaws on the his opponents' neck. How he accomplishes it is unimportant to him, what matters is annihilating them with whatever means necessary. A man that knows not the meaning of marriage, of loyalty and faithfulness, of being there in the good times and the bad times, had the audacity to initiate a witch hunt against Clinton for his extra-marital affairs when he couldn’t keep his own pants up.

(08:39)
We were able to work with President Clinton on four consecutive balanced budgets for the only time in our lifetime and we did it in a bipartisan manner because we represented the will of the American people not the will of Washington, DC.
Newt claims that during the Clinton Administration, there was a balanced budget and it was all due to the Republicans in Congress, particularly himself. This is an utter lie, sorry, there is no other way to describe it. The Republicans in Congress during Clinton’s first budget proposal all voted “Nay” and Newt was asked for his resignation by his own party the following year, so in essence Newt had nothing to do with balancing the budget.

(08:53) From 2001 to 2006 I worked as a volunteer on National Security and Health Issues with the Bush Administration.
The National Security and Health Strategy that Newt is so proud of having contribute with the Bush Administration was basically a document granting the United States the right to invade a country if this country was deemed to be under a tyrant ruler. It names a list of countries where democracy – as viewed by us – is not part of their system. The Health “issues” were not particularly impressive and the only thing that I can give Bush credit for was funding scientists to find a cure for HIV.

(09:35) ...she’s [Callista] entered an author face in trying to lead and educate, starting with Sweet Land of Liberty, which Ellis the Elephant introduces 4 and 8 year-olds to American History in an effort to fill the vacuum left by all these very modern educators.
This statement is offensive to all the teachers that are working hard at educating our children, who are underpaid, work long and exhausting hours and who buy school supplies to use in their classrooms out of their own pockets. This so-called book is a distorted view of American History. Not surprisingly, an elephant named Ellis is the ‘narrator’ of this farce and I say not surprisingly because the only connection of an elephant with American History, her fauna or anything else is with the Republican Party. There are many animals indigenous to America, which do not represent any political party that could have been used; instead Mrs. Gingrich #3 chose an elephant, coincidence? I think not. I went through the trouble of purchasing this book to see for myself their interpretation of American History and what was the message that they are indoctrinating our children with. I found that the pilgrims were brave and that with the help of God they survived and celebrated Thanksgiving. No mention of the God that truly helped them and which they later betrayed: the American Indian. No, other than a drawing there is absolutely no mention of the people from whom this land was stolen from. A few paragraphs later, she moves on to the Declaration of Independence and once more she managed to insert the word God by claiming that our forefathers said, “we have rights from God that can’t be taken away.” Further she mentions the American cowboy, going west in covered wagons, of their courage, their pioneering... again, no mention of the American Indian. According to this garbage, this land was empty and for the taking for those “great and courageous pilgrims and cowboys.” And to think that for this piece of shit I wasted $10.00!

Newt asserts that both he and Callista are committed to American History, if an example of their commitment is Callista’s interpretation of it, then what they are committed to is re-writing the American History where the heroes of the story, the “good guys” were the white settlers that came to this land and, while stealing, raping and murdering the natives had the audacity of calling the victims “savages.”

(10:52) In addition, we’ll spend a great deal of time on religious liberty.” The Gingrichs are also committed to tackle what is so very important to them, religious liberty. This religious liberty issue is nothing more than their liberty to impose on the rest of America their religious beliefs. Forcing upon all of us their austerity and pushing God down the throat of everyone, including those of us that are either Agnostic or Atheist. They want to bring prayer back to schools and governmental institutions. The only “liberty” that matters to them is theirs; the rest of us can literally go to hell. This "religious liberty" is the same that wants to control every uterus in America making contraceptives inaccessible and abortions against the law. I’m telling you, the word liberty serves just as decoration, since their intentions don’t have a shred of liberty in it.

(12:00)In addition we’re going to go to College Campuses and talk about personal Social Security Savings Accounts for Robert and Maggie’s generation...
They are on a crusade to brainwash our youth by promoting among them the privatization of Social Security.

(13:04)Well Newt goes on - there is no reason you should give to people ninety-nine weeks for doing nothing and this is an important national debate about a country which was founded in 1607 by Captain John Smith saying to aristocrats, not the poor, to aristocrats citing St. Paul “If you don’t work, you won’t eat.”.
To begin with, every single worker in this country contributes to the unemployment insurance as well as the employer, that money even though it is held in an account by the U.S. Treasury does not belong to the government. Secondly, at a time where the new "people" on the block have shipped our jobs overseas or simply are not hiring to instill in people the idea that it is President Obama’s fault that there are no jobs; to tell these unemployed and desperate people that they are being given money for doing nothing is an insult. Further, I know that Newt is constantly claiming that he wants to romanticize American History, but saying that Captain John Smith said to aristocrats – not the poor – that if they didn’t work they would not eat is misleading. First, even thought I know that the descendants of the pilgrims that arrived in the Mayflower think they were blue blood, they were not. The pilgrims were the unwanted people in England at the time, the troublemakers that were facing prosecution because of their religious views and incorrigible behavior, the Separatists and the Puritans. England basically shipped them to come to the New World and that way getting rid of them. They were not “aristocrats.” However, I do agree that free training in new fields should be offered to the unemployed, but their earned unemployment check should not be withheld pending this training, it should be voluntarily not mandatory. What about if the unemployed is a rocket scientist that NASA laid off? Should he need to be trained into a technical job, like a job in an oil field, in order for him to receive his unemployment check? Ridiculous!

Newt, of course, will devout some time to do what every other Republican is doing: (14:10) repeal Obamacare. That is nothing new; it is in the Republican rhetoric manual, their new political DNA.

Having the personality of a raging elephant, Newt couldn’t resist to insult President Obama and his administration when he said: (14:31)I will focus on the National Security’s three zones: Radical Islamist who we still don’t have a grand strategy, it was nice that our President broadcasted from Afghanistan, the center for Al Qaeda today is Yemen, I’m sure the White House hasn’t gotten that briefing yet, but they will, eventually. The fact that we assume our opponents are as stupid as our bureaucracy is very dangerous and I think you would recognize we do not have a grand strategy in this zone.
He is so arrogant that he truly believes that we are all idiots, and that we don't know that the reason why President Obama broadcasted from Afghanistan was to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden. Actually, Newt was very careful not to mention bin Laden at all because this will give credit to our President; rather he ridiculed the Administration for not knowing where the center of Al Qaeda is, supposedly Newt, who has no security clearance, is better informed than the President of the United States, and only he has a strategy, no one else… and to think there are idiots out there that believe what this man tells them it’s unimaginable, but it is obviously that he does have followers.

(16:49) …I happen to think that there is a better future than methamphetamine and cocaine and I am going to argue for a romantic American future of doing things that matter that gets to the human spirit.
I can only respond to his stupid sentence with an equally stupid comment: Wow! Apparently the rest of America believes that a better future entails the use of methamphetamine and cocaine, for all of us to be high as a kite! I think he is confusing Democrats with Paulists, who by the way is a Republican, what a moron!

(17:29)...we do need to have a national discussion on how to get Congress to be effective. Congress has decayed dramatically in the last twenty years; the Senate in particular has become a stunningly dysfunctional institution.
But of course that is the Senate in particular the one that has become dysfunctional! The Senate holds a majority of Democrats. Forget that the obstructions have come from the Republicans in the House and the Senate that refuse to collaborate with the Democrats. No, they [GOP] are doing their job, bringing Congress down in order to discredit the system, to make Americans disenchanted with it. That is the same strategy Newt used back in the 90s when he destroyed the reputation of Congress by attacking every Democrat in the House and the Senate. He succeeded back then and that was the only reason why Republicans held a majority for the first time in decades in the 90s; the same tactic they used and why we lost the majority during the 2010 elections and the same tactics they are using during the current elections. Republicans are the main reason why politics in this country became a dirty word.

Newt continued to what I think is a very dangerous and completely un-American statement: (18:05)That is why, Callista and me, campaign for a republican president, a republican house, a republican senate, republican governors, republican state legislators, you have to recognize America is a complex mosaic of sub-government, the presidency matters, but so do all the other offices of sub-government.”
In other words, he envisions a one party system, a system that is the basis for a dictatorship. This is very dangerous indeed, if we remove the multiparty system that we enjoy in this country, the basis of government foreseen by the founding fathers will be ancient history.

Newt, however, brought to light what I always tell those that are not sure if they should or should not vote for President Obama in the upcoming elections: (18:59) The Supreme Court Judges. Newt did too. He mentioned that if only there is one reason to vote for Mitt Romney it should be because of the kind of Judges he would appoint. That is the same argument I present to the undecided. We already have too many conservative justices that are appointed for life, who have been appointed by Republicans and who have inflicted enough damage to the American people. How? All I have to say to you is, how do you like the personhood of corporations? You don’t like it? Thank your Republican Supreme Court Justices!

The attacks continued but what I think is worth mentioning from the rest of his speech are two things: First, his support for (19:26) Paul Ryan’s proposal and second, his support for (20:48) Scott Walker. Paul Ryan's “Path to Prosperity” is an attempt to eliminate all safety nets from the poor, the elderly, and the needy in favor of those that are wealthy and corporations; Scott Walker has ignored the will of his constituents imposing a kind of dictatorship in Wisconsin, which has propelled the citizens of Wisconsin to demand a recall.

Finally, Newt Gingrich refers to Mitt Romney, most of the time, as Governor Romney while, in contrast he refers to the President of this country as Obama, all the time except for once and that once I really think it was a slip of the tongue. That is completely disrespectful. That is a manipulation to place in people's minds the insignificance of President Obama and to escalate the status of Mitt Romney. I shouldn't be surprised; nothing straightforward, respectful or dignified can ever be expected from this frustrated loser.

Newt’s dream is the colonization of the moon. I propose that we collect enough funds to help him get there… Let’s buy him a one-way ticket to the moon; we could do very well without him on this planet! 

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Working for the Jobless?

I am so glad that Congress came to its senses and approved extending the payroll tax measure. After three years of Democrats having to virtually fight for any measure to be approved by the GOP aka the Party of No, this time around there was no big fight to approve this measure. Being on an election year and with the Congress approval rate at its lowest (10% approval rate according to Gallup as of February 8th, 2012) is no wonder Congress and specially the Republican Party have decided to be benevolent and finally work, literally work, instead of simply occupy a chair and vote against everything suggested by the opposing party.

Now here’s the punch line… After openly and carelessly opposing anything that would benefit the middle class and the unemployed, at times even mocking the unemployed, John Boehner [R] has the audacity of blaming the Democrats for playing political games, in a statement published by the Associated Press, Boehner said “We are not going to allow the Democrats to continue to play political games and raise taxes on working Americans. We made the decision to bring them to the table so that the games would stop and we would get this work done.” First of all, I think that in negotiations everyone has to come to the table, not “bring them” or did Boehner personally grabbed the hand of each Democrat Congressperson and pull them to the table? No. Coming to the table, Republicans, Democrats and Independents, is what Congress should do to negotiate new bills and measures, the problem is… Republicans haven’t really negotiated anything in a long time, unless holding things hostage can be called negotiating, so I guess they’ve forgotten how Congress is supposed to work. Second, after 3 years of constantly blocking every measure, of constantly discarding benefits for the poor and middle class and giving priority to the measures that would only benefit the very wealthy and multinational corporations, does the GOP really think people will change their minds about the awful job Congress has been doing since President Obama took office? Does the GOP really think that Americans are so stupid?

Now, they want to take the ‘glory’ for simply doing their job, after three years of playing golf paid for with our taxes; after countless days of vacations and holidays, and after three years of perceiving a hefty salary for not working while the average unemployed American has to survive on $300 a week! Now they are puffing and huffing that they’ve worked for the American people, give me a break!

We must bear in mind that they managed to inflict some damage to the unemployed – they would not be Republicans if they didn’t do that – but they are not eager to let us know what they got away with “for the good of the American citizen.” Thanks to the Republicans in Congress, those unemployed will see the a reduction in the numbers of weeks for which they can claim unemployment benefits, from 99 weeks down to 73, and we can truly thank the Democrats who fought to defend the unemployed during this economic crises, Republicans wanted to bring it down to only 59 weeks!

Republicans brought a lot of nonsense to the negotiation table that thankfully was rejected by the Democrats. Among the things the Republicans wanted was that for a person to obtain their unemployment benefits, they had to obtain a high school equivalency degree or GED. Where do they come up with these absurd ideas? Do they talk among themselves and, as if a joke, choose the wildest and craziest idea among them to bring to the table perhaps in an effort to shock the Democrats? Now, please, can anyone tell me why, if I worked and paid into my unemployment insurance and as well as my employer and I get laid off, would I have to get any degree to receive what is rightfully mine? But of course, the GOP is constantly trying to ‘work for the American people,’ they just don’t say that the American people they work for must, in order for the Republicans in Congress to help them, have a bank account exceeding a million dollars – otherwise, you don’t qualify for them to keep your interests in mind.