It does not seem that the protests in Egypt will go away anytime soon. Of the many North African and Middle Eastern nations protesting for the removal of their dictatorial leaders, Egypt seems to be the most tense. While protesters are calling for a million people to take to the streets demanding President Mubarak's removal, thus far, it seems that little is deterring him.
Last week, as the protesters grew into large crowds onto the streets on Cairo, President Mubarak removed his entire cabinet, hoping to calm down the tone, but it did nothing. Instead members of Egypt's own police force, actually sided with the protesters and its army actually called the protests 'legitimate'. That's saying quite a bit for a country that represses freedom of expression.
Now it is very likely that Mubarak may eventually resign, as the pressure is mounting and today he did call for a new government and even shoved the Interior Minister aside, which is the head of the nation's security forces that has been battling the upheaval since it began.
But there is still some strange contradictions going on here in the United States and the response to Egypt's protest movement. Vice President Joe Biden stated that President Mubarak was not a dictator and should not step down, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC's Sunday morning news show This Week with Christiane Amanpour stating that there "needs to be reform". Meanwhile, President Obama called for the same reform and that "the United States is committed to working with the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people, from all quarters to achieve it, and around the world governments have an obligation to respond to their citizens..."
Oh is that right? The Federal Government gave no response to the American people when they called for an end of corruption under President Bush and now under your tenure Mr. President, but I digress...
The single most important factor that this Administration is failing to consider is that if and when President Mubarak is removed, regardless of his authoritarian rule in Egypt, this means there could be a very good possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood could take control, thus causing the Middle Eastern region to become destabilized.
Egypt as one of the United States' closest allies in that region of the world, has helped us protect Israel and against al-Qaeda terrorists. The last thing we need right now is for Egypt to collapse and bring that portion of the world one step closer to taking Israel out.
There is great admiration from the protesters in Egypt who want a freer society without an authoritarian rule, as it struggles with poverty, inflation, unemployment and shortages. However, could the Middle East be any better if Mubarak steps aside?
Regardless of the looting, destruction and death that has occurred throughout Egypt in the last week, the protesters are vowing to not stop, until Mubarak is out.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Protests in Middle East not a good thing?
There is heavy concern right now with relation to the continued protests in North Africa and the Middle East. As everyone is no doubt already aware, there has been political unrest in a growing list of countries including Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen and most recently inspiring riots against Hosni Mubarak's authoritarian regime in Egypt.
Thus far, the protests from these nations' people are meant to call for an end of the wrath of dictatorship from their leaders, and establish more solvent countries without the crisis of inflation, shortages, poverty and high unemployment.
Many economists did not expect Egypt to revolt against its own government. Well, that obviously was not the case. As of today, the riots in Egypt have become so bad, that members of the country's own police force decided to join the people and for the first time in history, an entire country shut down its internet access to try and isolate its people from the outside. Also today, President Mubarak agreed to fire his entire cabinet, but still refused to step aside.
President Obama has been cheering on the riots, but asking for a more civil and non-violent approach and also called for President Mubarak to engage in this more civil tone with Egypt's people, or the United States will cut off aid to the country.
Now the first argument to this of course is going to be that the United States should just mind its own business. Well, despite the fact that the people in these countries want new government and leadership, there is also something else which might determine that the escalating tension in the Middle East is not a good thing.
As WikiLeaks uncovered the secret cables concerning our beloved Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the knowledge she hid from the American people over Saudi Arabia's involvement in financing terrorism, they have also uncovered documentation of Ms. Clinton's pressure on Middle Eastern nations in particular to push for government reform. One of those nations was Egypt.
So now, the Middle East is in a position of reform, by the riots we've seen from their people. But what kind of reform is it leading to?
Egypt is one of the United States' most trusted allies in the Middle East and they're one of very few countries that has peace with Israel. If Egypt's government entirely collapses, which apparently it is as we speak, this means Sharia Law could be imposed, which is dominated by Muslims. Is it just a surprise that radical Muslims want to whip out Israel?
We should all see the common trend here and it looks rather frightening. Meanwhile, Lebanon's entire government has collapsed and they're trying to shove Hezbollah leaders down that country's throat, who by the way, also want to destroy Israel.
The protests that started in Yemen? They have not been entirely successful on riding al-Qaeda out of their country.
Iran? A clown like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just waiting in the wings with his nuclear plans. He's already an ally of Hezbollah, and the destabilization in Egypt is the last 'piece of the puzzle' to finally get Israel off the face of the Earth.
Yet, we hear virtually nothing from our leaders in Washington about these common factors, nor the fact that right now we are on the brink of beginning to witness a full scale war in the Middle East.
Like everyone else that HAS seen this trend, I hope I'm wrong.
Thus far, the protests from these nations' people are meant to call for an end of the wrath of dictatorship from their leaders, and establish more solvent countries without the crisis of inflation, shortages, poverty and high unemployment.
Many economists did not expect Egypt to revolt against its own government. Well, that obviously was not the case. As of today, the riots in Egypt have become so bad, that members of the country's own police force decided to join the people and for the first time in history, an entire country shut down its internet access to try and isolate its people from the outside. Also today, President Mubarak agreed to fire his entire cabinet, but still refused to step aside.
President Obama has been cheering on the riots, but asking for a more civil and non-violent approach and also called for President Mubarak to engage in this more civil tone with Egypt's people, or the United States will cut off aid to the country.
Now the first argument to this of course is going to be that the United States should just mind its own business. Well, despite the fact that the people in these countries want new government and leadership, there is also something else which might determine that the escalating tension in the Middle East is not a good thing.
As WikiLeaks uncovered the secret cables concerning our beloved Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the knowledge she hid from the American people over Saudi Arabia's involvement in financing terrorism, they have also uncovered documentation of Ms. Clinton's pressure on Middle Eastern nations in particular to push for government reform. One of those nations was Egypt.
So now, the Middle East is in a position of reform, by the riots we've seen from their people. But what kind of reform is it leading to?
Egypt is one of the United States' most trusted allies in the Middle East and they're one of very few countries that has peace with Israel. If Egypt's government entirely collapses, which apparently it is as we speak, this means Sharia Law could be imposed, which is dominated by Muslims. Is it just a surprise that radical Muslims want to whip out Israel?
We should all see the common trend here and it looks rather frightening. Meanwhile, Lebanon's entire government has collapsed and they're trying to shove Hezbollah leaders down that country's throat, who by the way, also want to destroy Israel.
The protests that started in Yemen? They have not been entirely successful on riding al-Qaeda out of their country.
Iran? A clown like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is just waiting in the wings with his nuclear plans. He's already an ally of Hezbollah, and the destabilization in Egypt is the last 'piece of the puzzle' to finally get Israel off the face of the Earth.
Yet, we hear virtually nothing from our leaders in Washington about these common factors, nor the fact that right now we are on the brink of beginning to witness a full scale war in the Middle East.
Like everyone else that HAS seen this trend, I hope I'm wrong.
FBI freeloaders watch porn and more!
Just when you thought you had heard it all when government workers in this country do nothing but collect tax payer money and get their pension funds along with full benefits... well, it turns out, they get more benefits... perhaps friends with benefits?
CNN ran a story yesterday on the disgusting misconduct of one this country's most recognized public agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This particular story centers around several employees in the FBI involved in varying types of salacious activities:
- One FBI employee apparently made a sex tape with his girlfriend and then threatened to release it, when his girlfriend wanted to release confidential information about him;
- another FBI freeloader watched pornographic films and satisfied himself in his office;
- one FBI supervisor used government information to solicit exotic dancers to accommodate both he and his friends in office after hours;
- and another employee said he was on a special assignment, when it turns out, he was just drunk at a strip club.
Isn't it nice to know that the top criminal bureau in this country is using our tax money generously?
During CNN's interview with FBI assistant director Candice Will, she stated that: "We don't tolerate our employees engaging in misconduct. We expect them to behave pursuant to the standards of conduct imposed on all FBI employees... It doesn't mean that we fire everybody. You know, our employees are human, as we all are. We all make mistakes. So, our discipline is intended to reflect that."
As insane as it sounds, if you screw around (no pun intended), in a public agency of the Federal Government, all you get is a slap on the wrist. Why the hell do these people still have their jobs? Do any of them even bother to read the FBI's code of conduct? Probably not. Had they read it, the FBI's orgy of office freeloaders probably would have not engaged in this activity in the first place.
Most of these FBI officials involved in this activity, simply received nothing more than a one month suspension, while a few eventually decided to resign. But no terminations.
Its a complete disgrace.
CNN ran a story yesterday on the disgusting misconduct of one this country's most recognized public agencies, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This particular story centers around several employees in the FBI involved in varying types of salacious activities:
- One FBI employee apparently made a sex tape with his girlfriend and then threatened to release it, when his girlfriend wanted to release confidential information about him;
- another FBI freeloader watched pornographic films and satisfied himself in his office;
- one FBI supervisor used government information to solicit exotic dancers to accommodate both he and his friends in office after hours;
- and another employee said he was on a special assignment, when it turns out, he was just drunk at a strip club.
Isn't it nice to know that the top criminal bureau in this country is using our tax money generously?
During CNN's interview with FBI assistant director Candice Will, she stated that: "We don't tolerate our employees engaging in misconduct. We expect them to behave pursuant to the standards of conduct imposed on all FBI employees... It doesn't mean that we fire everybody. You know, our employees are human, as we all are. We all make mistakes. So, our discipline is intended to reflect that."
As insane as it sounds, if you screw around (no pun intended), in a public agency of the Federal Government, all you get is a slap on the wrist. Why the hell do these people still have their jobs? Do any of them even bother to read the FBI's code of conduct? Probably not. Had they read it, the FBI's orgy of office freeloaders probably would have not engaged in this activity in the first place.
Most of these FBI officials involved in this activity, simply received nothing more than a one month suspension, while a few eventually decided to resign. But no terminations.
Its a complete disgrace.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Crime wave in 2011?
It has been two years since the stock market crash and a world economic crisis spread. Millions and millions of people not just in America, but all over the world, continue to suffer from unemployment, struggling with no source of income to support themselves and their families and debt. Due to these factors, it brings upon a great deal of stress for many people, and when stress is a problem in a continued economic crisis, people begin to loose it.
In the last few months, there has been an escalation of violence throughout the United States. In September, there was an attempted assassination on Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri but the perpetrator mistakenly attacked the dean of a college, were the Governor was speaking. In Florida, about a month ago, a man opened fire on a school board meeting because his wife had been laid off by the school district. At the beginning of this month, we had the shooting in Tucson on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. In this last week alone, there have been a number of shootings at schools in Los Angeles and eleven shootings on police officers across the country. Also last week in Santa Ana, California, police uncovered graffiti on two separate occasions which had scathing words for a proposed plot to kill California Governor Jerry Brown.
This is disturbing news. Many people may just say that some of this is nothing new or that some people are just 'venting their frustrations'. But if you look at what is happening across the world, people are revolting everywhere from Tunisia to Egypt, and to England and Greece. People are fed up with government and living in terrible times.
Back here in the United States, a new AP survey involving some of the leading economists in the world, say that in 2011, the outlook for economic recovery should be more optimistic. So if this is the case, then in 2011, we should see a decline in crime and more employment, right?
But this is not entirely optimistic. As States across this country continue to suffer from skyrocketing deficits, they'll have to find some way to either raise taxes and push more people to the brink of despair, or implement severe cuts, which will also put people out of work. Some of them of course, can afford not to work, like the ones that have gigantic pension funds.
Across the world, every country seems to be having the same problem, financially and people suffer.
So, due to the continuing severe economic factors, will we start to see a crime wave in 2011?
I'm predicting we will... unfortunately.
In the last few months, there has been an escalation of violence throughout the United States. In September, there was an attempted assassination on Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri but the perpetrator mistakenly attacked the dean of a college, were the Governor was speaking. In Florida, about a month ago, a man opened fire on a school board meeting because his wife had been laid off by the school district. At the beginning of this month, we had the shooting in Tucson on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. In this last week alone, there have been a number of shootings at schools in Los Angeles and eleven shootings on police officers across the country. Also last week in Santa Ana, California, police uncovered graffiti on two separate occasions which had scathing words for a proposed plot to kill California Governor Jerry Brown.
This is disturbing news. Many people may just say that some of this is nothing new or that some people are just 'venting their frustrations'. But if you look at what is happening across the world, people are revolting everywhere from Tunisia to Egypt, and to England and Greece. People are fed up with government and living in terrible times.
Back here in the United States, a new AP survey involving some of the leading economists in the world, say that in 2011, the outlook for economic recovery should be more optimistic. So if this is the case, then in 2011, we should see a decline in crime and more employment, right?
But this is not entirely optimistic. As States across this country continue to suffer from skyrocketing deficits, they'll have to find some way to either raise taxes and push more people to the brink of despair, or implement severe cuts, which will also put people out of work. Some of them of course, can afford not to work, like the ones that have gigantic pension funds.
Across the world, every country seems to be having the same problem, financially and people suffer.
So, due to the continuing severe economic factors, will we start to see a crime wave in 2011?
I'm predicting we will... unfortunately.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
2011 will have record deficit of $1.5 trillion
As President Obama indicated in his State of the Union address last night before Congress, the United States is dealing with the weight of horrible recession with skyrocketing deficits and there is the need to find a rational solution to deal with our escalating mountain of debt.
Today, the Congressional Budget Office reported that they are anticipating a budget shortfall by $1.5 trillion for 2011, making it the largest deficit in our country's history, and representing 9.8% of our gross domestic product. To make matters worse, the bickering that has been contentious between both political parties, has done little to find any form of compromise between tax cuts and federal spending cuts.
Republicans want to repeal Obama's controversial Health Care Reform law, which the CBO insists would only add $230 billion to the nation's deficit by 2021, and Democrats want to raise taxes, which are not favorable among many Americans.
Thus far however, President Obama and Congress have achieved some success on government spending. The President proposed $78 billion to be cut from the Military Defense over the course of the next five years. That would explain why the three Generals sitting in the front row of the State of the Union address last night were not smiling.
In addition to this, one has to consider that even cutting staff in government departments will just add to more unemployment. If a government worker looses their job, this is just one more person unemployed in this country, even though it is no secret that government workers get outrageous salaries and pension funds paid for kindly with tax payer money.
Either way you look at this, there is no easy way out of our nation's escalating financial problems. As one former budget adviser to President Reagan put it: "The United States has reached the point of no return"
Indeed, we have.
Today, the Congressional Budget Office reported that they are anticipating a budget shortfall by $1.5 trillion for 2011, making it the largest deficit in our country's history, and representing 9.8% of our gross domestic product. To make matters worse, the bickering that has been contentious between both political parties, has done little to find any form of compromise between tax cuts and federal spending cuts.
Republicans want to repeal Obama's controversial Health Care Reform law, which the CBO insists would only add $230 billion to the nation's deficit by 2021, and Democrats want to raise taxes, which are not favorable among many Americans.
Thus far however, President Obama and Congress have achieved some success on government spending. The President proposed $78 billion to be cut from the Military Defense over the course of the next five years. That would explain why the three Generals sitting in the front row of the State of the Union address last night were not smiling.
In addition to this, one has to consider that even cutting staff in government departments will just add to more unemployment. If a government worker looses their job, this is just one more person unemployed in this country, even though it is no secret that government workers get outrageous salaries and pension funds paid for kindly with tax payer money.
Either way you look at this, there is no easy way out of our nation's escalating financial problems. As one former budget adviser to President Reagan put it: "The United States has reached the point of no return"
Indeed, we have.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Egypt experiencing upheaval
Well, it looks like in this day and age as the world economic crisis continues, countries simply are getting beyond fed up with their government, and they're revolting. In the last three months or so, we've seen this. In the Ivory Coast, United Kingdom, Greece and most recently in Tunisia.
Now Tunisia's neighbors to the east are fed up their leader's authoritarian rule. Egypt experienced major upheaval today in Cairo and the protests were sparked mainly over President Hosni Mubarak's rule and the escalating poverty problems.
Police forces had to come in with tear gas and batons to stop protesters from nearly tearing down government buildings in the area. Still as the hours passed, many Egyptians continued with the protest without fall and as of this time, only two of those protesters and a police officer were killed.
You can see the common trend that is going on here around the world. People are fed up and they are angry, not only due to the struggling economic factors, but the government control has played a major part of the problem. These kinds of protests in many countries controlled by dictators and authoritarian rule, simply do not happen over night, nor to they happen so close to each other as they have been.
All I can say to Egypt is well done. Because I have a feeling in 2011, we're going to start having these same kinds of protests right here in the United States, but probably far more serious than the Tea Party protests we've been having.
Now Tunisia's neighbors to the east are fed up their leader's authoritarian rule. Egypt experienced major upheaval today in Cairo and the protests were sparked mainly over President Hosni Mubarak's rule and the escalating poverty problems.
Police forces had to come in with tear gas and batons to stop protesters from nearly tearing down government buildings in the area. Still as the hours passed, many Egyptians continued with the protest without fall and as of this time, only two of those protesters and a police officer were killed.
You can see the common trend that is going on here around the world. People are fed up and they are angry, not only due to the struggling economic factors, but the government control has played a major part of the problem. These kinds of protests in many countries controlled by dictators and authoritarian rule, simply do not happen over night, nor to they happen so close to each other as they have been.
All I can say to Egypt is well done. Because I have a feeling in 2011, we're going to start having these same kinds of protests right here in the United States, but probably far more serious than the Tea Party protests we've been having.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Actor Ernest Borgnine's SAG Lifetime Award... and controversy...
I typically will not address Hollywood stories here on Independent Word, since I work on films but I try to keep the politics out of it... since many of the people in industry are more far left leaning or they still harbor resentment over the House of Un-American Activities from the 1950's when many actors, directors and writers were blacklisted.
But, I need to address this one since he is one of my favorite actors and the controversy surrounding him is patently absurd. Actor Ernest Borgnine, one of the last remaining major Hollywood actors of the early days has been in some of the best movies ever made. He won the Best Actor Oscar for Marty, and appeared in classics like From Here to Eternity and The Dirty Dozen, and became a familiar face on television in McHale's Navy. He recently appeared with Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirran in the action/comedy Red.
At the age of 93, he is still working hard and hopes to continue working for many years to come.
After doing films and television for over fifty years, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is going to present Mr. Borgnine with the Lifetime Achievement Award come this weekend, and hands down, Mr. Borgnine deserves this honor.
The Los Angeles Times thinks differently. On August 19th, 2010, shortly after SAG announced Mr. Borgnine as the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award, the LA Times' insider department, The Envelope which covers the entertainment industry, calls Mr. Borgnine's work ethic as "admirable, but his personal politics are less than laudable..."
This is of course an obvious attack on the fact that Mr. Borgnine is a conservative and a comment he made back in 2005 concerning director Ang Lee's gay cowboy film Brokeback Mountain starring the late Heath Ledger.
Borgnine commented to Entertainment Weekly at that time, "I didn’t see it and I don’t care to see it. I know they say it’s a good picture, but I don’t care to see it. If John Wayne were alive, he’d be rolling over in his grave!"
The Los Angeles Times apparently has a problem with Mr. Borgnine's comment there, but they don't have a problem with someone like Benecio del Torro dedicating his BAFTA award he received for playing a fascist like Che Guevara. Its not new news that Che Guevara was a racist and killed thousands of innocent people in Communist Cuba. If someone were to walk down Hollywood Blvd and say they admired Chairman Mao or Adolph Hitler, one might get very upset or possibly attacked or maybe even killed.
However, some Hollywood liberals, like del Torro and Sean Penn contradict themselves so many times in their far-left political belief system, its embarrassing.
All Mr. Borgnine stated at that time is he didn't want to see a film about a sexual relationship between two cowboys. Many people did not want to see that film when it first came out and many people still don't want to see it now! I really do not see why the Los Angeles Times wasted time trying to persuade SAG to change their minds, and they continue to put up a fuss about it.
After all, everyone in Hollywood at one point or another, has made some controversial remark.... the Los Angeles Times, as usual, is promoting a political bias to protect Hollywood, not to help honor a great actor.
So come this Saturday evening at the SAG Awards, here's to you Marty!
But, I need to address this one since he is one of my favorite actors and the controversy surrounding him is patently absurd. Actor Ernest Borgnine, one of the last remaining major Hollywood actors of the early days has been in some of the best movies ever made. He won the Best Actor Oscar for Marty, and appeared in classics like From Here to Eternity and The Dirty Dozen, and became a familiar face on television in McHale's Navy. He recently appeared with Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirran in the action/comedy Red.
At the age of 93, he is still working hard and hopes to continue working for many years to come.
After doing films and television for over fifty years, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) is going to present Mr. Borgnine with the Lifetime Achievement Award come this weekend, and hands down, Mr. Borgnine deserves this honor.
The Los Angeles Times thinks differently. On August 19th, 2010, shortly after SAG announced Mr. Borgnine as the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award, the LA Times' insider department, The Envelope which covers the entertainment industry, calls Mr. Borgnine's work ethic as "admirable, but his personal politics are less than laudable..."
This is of course an obvious attack on the fact that Mr. Borgnine is a conservative and a comment he made back in 2005 concerning director Ang Lee's gay cowboy film Brokeback Mountain starring the late Heath Ledger.
Borgnine commented to Entertainment Weekly at that time, "I didn’t see it and I don’t care to see it. I know they say it’s a good picture, but I don’t care to see it. If John Wayne were alive, he’d be rolling over in his grave!"
The Los Angeles Times apparently has a problem with Mr. Borgnine's comment there, but they don't have a problem with someone like Benecio del Torro dedicating his BAFTA award he received for playing a fascist like Che Guevara. Its not new news that Che Guevara was a racist and killed thousands of innocent people in Communist Cuba. If someone were to walk down Hollywood Blvd and say they admired Chairman Mao or Adolph Hitler, one might get very upset or possibly attacked or maybe even killed.
However, some Hollywood liberals, like del Torro and Sean Penn contradict themselves so many times in their far-left political belief system, its embarrassing.
All Mr. Borgnine stated at that time is he didn't want to see a film about a sexual relationship between two cowboys. Many people did not want to see that film when it first came out and many people still don't want to see it now! I really do not see why the Los Angeles Times wasted time trying to persuade SAG to change their minds, and they continue to put up a fuss about it.
After all, everyone in Hollywood at one point or another, has made some controversial remark.... the Los Angeles Times, as usual, is promoting a political bias to protect Hollywood, not to help honor a great actor.
So come this Saturday evening at the SAG Awards, here's to you Marty!
Friday, January 21, 2011
U.S. and China not getting along these days
In case anyone didn't notice, this Wednesday's side show dinner with President Obama and Chinese President Hu, was just that... a show for the American people. I'm sure that the objective of this little get together between the two leaders was to discuss international relations, the economy and of course, China's support of North Korea.
Well the show has been over for a day now, and it has become clear to just about everyone that the United States and China are not getting along.
For one, China (or as Glenn Beck refers to as our landlord) owns our staggering $14 trillion debt. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is begging Congress to raise the debt ceiling limits because he believes if they don't, our economy will dwindle back down into a much worse recession than in 2008. So if the Republican controlled House is going to raise the debt limits, which they vowed never to do, this means Geithner is most likely going to have to go back to China and beg for more money.
Last year, the United States tried unsuccessfully to convince China to revalue its currency, so that jobs would be imported back here. Now, the United States is trying to teach China a lesson (as embarrassing as that sounds, they're only years ahead of us) by putting tariffs on China's exports, which were passed by the House back in September.
Then you have North Korea. Its most generous supporter is of course, China. Ever since North Korea fired artillery on South Korea, China has done little to convince peace talks between the two countries. The United States today said that it will redeploy forces to Asia, if China continue to fail on getting a hold on North Korea's rather rebellious acts as of late.
The United States of course strongly believes North Korea could be a major threat if nothing is done.
So because of a crumbling economy, revaluing currency and dealing with some 4 foot dictator, these are the reasons why China and the United States can't get along lately, and yet both countries think that playing these games will solve our problems.
Thank god that's why we have the Pacific Ocean that separates one from the other. But if we don't meet our debt obligations, I guess China could move in here at any time.
Well the show has been over for a day now, and it has become clear to just about everyone that the United States and China are not getting along.
For one, China (or as Glenn Beck refers to as our landlord) owns our staggering $14 trillion debt. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is begging Congress to raise the debt ceiling limits because he believes if they don't, our economy will dwindle back down into a much worse recession than in 2008. So if the Republican controlled House is going to raise the debt limits, which they vowed never to do, this means Geithner is most likely going to have to go back to China and beg for more money.
Last year, the United States tried unsuccessfully to convince China to revalue its currency, so that jobs would be imported back here. Now, the United States is trying to teach China a lesson (as embarrassing as that sounds, they're only years ahead of us) by putting tariffs on China's exports, which were passed by the House back in September.
Then you have North Korea. Its most generous supporter is of course, China. Ever since North Korea fired artillery on South Korea, China has done little to convince peace talks between the two countries. The United States today said that it will redeploy forces to Asia, if China continue to fail on getting a hold on North Korea's rather rebellious acts as of late.
The United States of course strongly believes North Korea could be a major threat if nothing is done.
So because of a crumbling economy, revaluing currency and dealing with some 4 foot dictator, these are the reasons why China and the United States can't get along lately, and yet both countries think that playing these games will solve our problems.
Thank god that's why we have the Pacific Ocean that separates one from the other. But if we don't meet our debt obligations, I guess China could move in here at any time.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Iran backs Lebanon; asks U.S. and Israel to stop interfering
The circus in the Middle East is asking the United States and Israel to stop interference with Lebanon's recently collapsed government. When I say circus, I'm referring to the joke that is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad responded on Lebanon's situation: "I tell the Zionists and the U.S. ... be ashamed of your interference in Lebanon and be sure that the Lebanese and regional nations will chop your dirty hands off."
He went on to say that each time the United States interferes in any country in the Middle East, it makes things much more complicated and that Lebanon can take care of itself.
This is a president that is basically for the most part, offering safe haven to the Militant Shiite group Hezbollah, which effectively collapsed Lebanon's unity government last week when its representative ministers resigned because Hezbollah remains at the top of the list of an international tribunal in the assassination of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah is hoping to establish a new power in Lebanon and to possibly wage a new war on Israel sometime down the road.
Hezbollah has issued a warning that they will "cut off the hands" of anyone who blames any member of the group for Hariri assassination. But the pressure is mounting. While Lebanon's government remains ineffective for the most part, Israel is basically having to battle enemies from all sides by itself and will have one more thing to worry about if Hezbollah gets it way. On the same front, Iran has a nuclear program which is for the most part, aimed at Israel and resentment is harbored by other Middle East nations after Israel was accused of carrying out the assassination on a leader of Hamas.
Things right now in the Middle East are not at all calm. President Obama might want to start getting serious that this idea of international talks and relations is not working. The Middle East could care less about this idea of peace. They want Israel out. If the United States chooses to do nothing, that entire region of the world may become a much larger threat than was anticipated.
Ahmadinejad responded on Lebanon's situation: "I tell the Zionists and the U.S. ... be ashamed of your interference in Lebanon and be sure that the Lebanese and regional nations will chop your dirty hands off."
He went on to say that each time the United States interferes in any country in the Middle East, it makes things much more complicated and that Lebanon can take care of itself.
This is a president that is basically for the most part, offering safe haven to the Militant Shiite group Hezbollah, which effectively collapsed Lebanon's unity government last week when its representative ministers resigned because Hezbollah remains at the top of the list of an international tribunal in the assassination of former Lebanon Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Hezbollah is hoping to establish a new power in Lebanon and to possibly wage a new war on Israel sometime down the road.
Hezbollah has issued a warning that they will "cut off the hands" of anyone who blames any member of the group for Hariri assassination. But the pressure is mounting. While Lebanon's government remains ineffective for the most part, Israel is basically having to battle enemies from all sides by itself and will have one more thing to worry about if Hezbollah gets it way. On the same front, Iran has a nuclear program which is for the most part, aimed at Israel and resentment is harbored by other Middle East nations after Israel was accused of carrying out the assassination on a leader of Hamas.
Things right now in the Middle East are not at all calm. President Obama might want to start getting serious that this idea of international talks and relations is not working. The Middle East could care less about this idea of peace. They want Israel out. If the United States chooses to do nothing, that entire region of the world may become a much larger threat than was anticipated.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tax payer funded sex change operations?
At the height of California facing severe financial difficulties and a State auditor finding that hundreds of thousands of dollars were wasted and some of it fraud, looks like taxpayers might think differently about jumping onto Governor Jerry Brown's tax hike bandwagon that he wants to propose to solve California's $25 billion crisis.
Now there is going to be even more tax payer money simply thrown down the garbage disposal. The City of Berkeley, which is in the helm of the dictatorship that is San Francisco, is thinking about setting aside tax payer money to pay for sex-change operations. The city council wants to pay up to $20,000 as cash stipends which would be used to pay for surgeries, even though Berkeley's employee pension plans are already skyrocketing out of control.
If this passes Berkeley's city council, this should be added to more complete waste and fraud.
Some citizens in Berkeley are a little more than irritated by this, as they can't figure out why the city council wants to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for sex-change operations for city employees, when there are more serious matters that the city council should be addressing such as infrastructure issues, road improvement and keeping public buildings open.
But the City Council doesn't think that improving public use is important. While just about every city, county and State in the entire country is facing financial difficulties from having to cut employees at all levels, reduce spending and close public works, Berkeley wants tax payers to pay for some freak show.
Here's a little advice for the people in Berkeley that are city employees and can't decide if they want to be a man or a woman: pay for it yourself with your own damn money and don't ask the tax payers to front the medical bill for replacing whatever private parts you want... or go get professional help.
Now there is going to be even more tax payer money simply thrown down the garbage disposal. The City of Berkeley, which is in the helm of the dictatorship that is San Francisco, is thinking about setting aside tax payer money to pay for sex-change operations. The city council wants to pay up to $20,000 as cash stipends which would be used to pay for surgeries, even though Berkeley's employee pension plans are already skyrocketing out of control.
If this passes Berkeley's city council, this should be added to more complete waste and fraud.
Some citizens in Berkeley are a little more than irritated by this, as they can't figure out why the city council wants to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for sex-change operations for city employees, when there are more serious matters that the city council should be addressing such as infrastructure issues, road improvement and keeping public buildings open.
But the City Council doesn't think that improving public use is important. While just about every city, county and State in the entire country is facing financial difficulties from having to cut employees at all levels, reduce spending and close public works, Berkeley wants tax payers to pay for some freak show.
Here's a little advice for the people in Berkeley that are city employees and can't decide if they want to be a man or a woman: pay for it yourself with your own damn money and don't ask the tax payers to front the medical bill for replacing whatever private parts you want... or go get professional help.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Death tax in Washington stirs controversy
How would you like to know that after you die, your family is stuck paying some kind of tax on your death? This is exactly what happened to a family in Seattle, Washington. The mother had just given birth to her baby girl and it was predetermined by medical staff that the baby would not survive outside the mother's womb.
Unfortunately, the baby only lived for about an hour.
Now, the family is even more shocked by a $50 tax on their infant daughter's death, even though she only lived for that one hour.
How unbelievably insensitive that would be to discover this tax after a birth of a child is supposed to be one of the happiest moments in a marriage, even though this was not the case and the parents knew that their daughter would not survive.
Three years ago, The Kings County Medical Examiners Office in Washington, had instituted this $50 fee for cremations and this year, included fees on burials as well. The office insists that the fee is just for a "review of all deaths", but for this grieving family, they don't think a review is necessary since it was already predetermined that the infant child could not live outside her mother's body.
Nevertheless, a death tax fee is pretty despicable. The cost of burials and cremations is high as it already is, not to mention the costs families have to go through dealing with the medical examiner's office, attorneys, insurance and wills. But Kings County in Washington State says that if you die, one of your family members will have to front that $50 tax.
Looks like every State in the union is going to try some kind of ridiculous tax to solve their financial mess.
Unfortunately, the baby only lived for about an hour.
Now, the family is even more shocked by a $50 tax on their infant daughter's death, even though she only lived for that one hour.
How unbelievably insensitive that would be to discover this tax after a birth of a child is supposed to be one of the happiest moments in a marriage, even though this was not the case and the parents knew that their daughter would not survive.
Three years ago, The Kings County Medical Examiners Office in Washington, had instituted this $50 fee for cremations and this year, included fees on burials as well. The office insists that the fee is just for a "review of all deaths", but for this grieving family, they don't think a review is necessary since it was already predetermined that the infant child could not live outside her mother's body.
Nevertheless, a death tax fee is pretty despicable. The cost of burials and cremations is high as it already is, not to mention the costs families have to go through dealing with the medical examiner's office, attorneys, insurance and wills. But Kings County in Washington State says that if you die, one of your family members will have to front that $50 tax.
Looks like every State in the union is going to try some kind of ridiculous tax to solve their financial mess.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Tunisia's prime minister dealing with crisis
We've already seen the upheavals in countries like Lebanon, Sudan and Ivory Coast over the course of the last few months, now we can add Tunisia to that list.
The North African nation, suffered from violence and street protests last week, that began when a man set himself on fire after police confiscated his produce. This eventually led to a social and political unrest with Tunisia's people, fed up with unemployment, inflation and shortages, rioting on the streets and forcing military intervention. The rioting came to an end with demands that its President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, cease power and immediately step down. Ben Ali had declared a state of emergency for the country and dissolved its government, promising to establish a new one.
Doesn't look like Ben Ali is going to help with the process at all, since he fled to Saudi Arabia to avoid any forms of revolt against him, not to mention that he and his family took about $66 million worth of gold, out of Tunisia as well.
In the meantime, Tunisia's prime minister Mohamed Ghannouchi is forced with a nearly impossible process of maintaining solvency by trying to establish a new unified government. He has stated publicly that Tunisia will release political prisoners of opposition and pick out those involved with any form of corruption.
Tunisia's people however, are not buying into the program, at least not yet. Many of them strongly feel that Prime Minister Ghannouchi brings nothing new to Tunisia's government and will bring absolutely no change compared to the policies of its now ousted president Ben Ali.
At the height of this turmoil, it has risen strong concern for all countries in North Africa. Perhaps Tunisia's largest problem right now, like every other country on this planet, is faced with economic issues. It might sound odd when you consider that Tunisia is one of Africa's most wealthiest nations, yet the possibly of having to be apart of restructuring or defaulting on debt among North African nations has become a huge concern.
The North African nation, suffered from violence and street protests last week, that began when a man set himself on fire after police confiscated his produce. This eventually led to a social and political unrest with Tunisia's people, fed up with unemployment, inflation and shortages, rioting on the streets and forcing military intervention. The rioting came to an end with demands that its President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, cease power and immediately step down. Ben Ali had declared a state of emergency for the country and dissolved its government, promising to establish a new one.
Doesn't look like Ben Ali is going to help with the process at all, since he fled to Saudi Arabia to avoid any forms of revolt against him, not to mention that he and his family took about $66 million worth of gold, out of Tunisia as well.
In the meantime, Tunisia's prime minister Mohamed Ghannouchi is forced with a nearly impossible process of maintaining solvency by trying to establish a new unified government. He has stated publicly that Tunisia will release political prisoners of opposition and pick out those involved with any form of corruption.
Tunisia's people however, are not buying into the program, at least not yet. Many of them strongly feel that Prime Minister Ghannouchi brings nothing new to Tunisia's government and will bring absolutely no change compared to the policies of its now ousted president Ben Ali.
At the height of this turmoil, it has risen strong concern for all countries in North Africa. Perhaps Tunisia's largest problem right now, like every other country on this planet, is faced with economic issues. It might sound odd when you consider that Tunisia is one of Africa's most wealthiest nations, yet the possibly of having to be apart of restructuring or defaulting on debt among North African nations has become a huge concern.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Hezbollah collapses Lebanon's government
Earlier this week, Lebanon's government collapsed following the resignations of 11 ministers, 10 of which were representatives of the Militant Shiite Hezbollah, which opposes the parliament. The two main reasons as to why its government collapsed is because Hezbollah is hoping to establish a new form of government without a parliamentary and it would mean no further action can take place regarding indictments in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri from 2005, which the international tribunal is investigating. By collapsing Lebanon's government, Hezbollah has effectively ceased the tribunal's investigation and indictments because wouldn't you know it, Hezbollah is at the top of the tribunal's suspect list for Hariri's assassination.
It is quite obvious what is happening here, because Hariri is the father of Lebanon's current prime minister Saad Hariri and apparent that Hezbollah is hoping to stifle his investigation and opposition of their radical agenda, and remove him from his position. With this current situation growing, some leaders are fearing that the country could lead to the brink of turmoil including violence on the streets.
Of course Lebanon has had problems like this for many years. Find any country in the Middle East that doesn't have these radical problems from militant or terrorist groups, its not necessarily "new" news. Lebanon itself has had to deal with government turmoil before, which include a laundry list of never-ending problems such as assassinations, bombings, a war with Israel and at one point, almost went to the brink of civil war back in 2008. Just about every country over there, with the exception of Israel, hates the United States and they want to kill us.
But coming to a more political standpoint, it seems completely logical to conclude that with President Obama having to deal with all of our problems here, it is the right opportunity for an issue to start over there. Lebanon, is becoming more aggressive like Iran, and they know President Obama does not want to engage in becoming the world police or having to assist in going to war. It occurs to me however, if Lebanon's new government eventually is re-established as being completely dominated by Hezbollah, could also mean another war on Israel.
You think Iran will miss out on an opportunity to help Hezbollah if they want to rage another war on Israel? I think not. So while the resentment continues to grow in the Middle East, some people in Washington right now are continuing to not pay much attention, if any, to this new development that Lebanon is functioning without a government and becoming increasingly dominated by a radical militant group, and most likely, nobody is going to admit that they'll pose as a potential threat to Israel.
But I'll say it here.
It is quite obvious what is happening here, because Hariri is the father of Lebanon's current prime minister Saad Hariri and apparent that Hezbollah is hoping to stifle his investigation and opposition of their radical agenda, and remove him from his position. With this current situation growing, some leaders are fearing that the country could lead to the brink of turmoil including violence on the streets.
Of course Lebanon has had problems like this for many years. Find any country in the Middle East that doesn't have these radical problems from militant or terrorist groups, its not necessarily "new" news. Lebanon itself has had to deal with government turmoil before, which include a laundry list of never-ending problems such as assassinations, bombings, a war with Israel and at one point, almost went to the brink of civil war back in 2008. Just about every country over there, with the exception of Israel, hates the United States and they want to kill us.
But coming to a more political standpoint, it seems completely logical to conclude that with President Obama having to deal with all of our problems here, it is the right opportunity for an issue to start over there. Lebanon, is becoming more aggressive like Iran, and they know President Obama does not want to engage in becoming the world police or having to assist in going to war. It occurs to me however, if Lebanon's new government eventually is re-established as being completely dominated by Hezbollah, could also mean another war on Israel.
You think Iran will miss out on an opportunity to help Hezbollah if they want to rage another war on Israel? I think not. So while the resentment continues to grow in the Middle East, some people in Washington right now are continuing to not pay much attention, if any, to this new development that Lebanon is functioning without a government and becoming increasingly dominated by a radical militant group, and most likely, nobody is going to admit that they'll pose as a potential threat to Israel.
But I'll say it here.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Schwarzenegger issues letter on reducing Nunez prison term
It must be very tough to loose a family member, especially if that family member is your child. But it must be even more tougher, when your child is murdered by the son of a former California State Assembly Speaker and then to later discover that the Governor himself, decides to commute the prison term of that murderer, just because of politics and power. That's the case here, as discussed in one of last week's blogs.
Literally just hours before his term expired last week, now-former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reduced the prison term of Estaban Nunez for the murder of Luis Santos, a student at the University of California San Diego. Nunez is the son of former California Assembly Speaker, Fabian Nunez.
Well after all of this generated a great deal of controversy and anger from the Santos family, Governor Schwarzenegger finally decided to issue an apology letter to the victim's family. In his apology letter to the father of Luis Santos, Mr. Schwarzenegger, trying to literally BS his way around the fact that this is all about politics, stated that "I understand why you may never comprehend or agree with my decision."
While it is totally understandable to issue an apology after a week of dodging questions, Mr. Schwarzenegger was reluctant to even answer any questions about why he chose Esteban Nunez, over the thousands of prisoners in the State of California that could have received a reduction in their prison sentence for lesser crimes, nor any elaboration on the fact that he just so happened to be the former Speaker's son.
Its a complete disgrace.
While a family continues to grieve due to the loss of this young man who was murdered for no apparent reason, Schwarzenegger just added more hurt and fuel to an already burning fire, and instead of just coming forward at the very beginning to make his decision, Schwarzenegger hid out like a little child for over a week before finally deciding to send a letter to the family about his decision, but still refused to answer any explanation about why Nunez was chosen out of thousands of prisoners.
What a despicable and disgusting person Schwarzenegger is....
And its worth repeating, he is a despicable and disgusting person.
Literally just hours before his term expired last week, now-former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reduced the prison term of Estaban Nunez for the murder of Luis Santos, a student at the University of California San Diego. Nunez is the son of former California Assembly Speaker, Fabian Nunez.
Well after all of this generated a great deal of controversy and anger from the Santos family, Governor Schwarzenegger finally decided to issue an apology letter to the victim's family. In his apology letter to the father of Luis Santos, Mr. Schwarzenegger, trying to literally BS his way around the fact that this is all about politics, stated that "I understand why you may never comprehend or agree with my decision."
While it is totally understandable to issue an apology after a week of dodging questions, Mr. Schwarzenegger was reluctant to even answer any questions about why he chose Esteban Nunez, over the thousands of prisoners in the State of California that could have received a reduction in their prison sentence for lesser crimes, nor any elaboration on the fact that he just so happened to be the former Speaker's son.
Its a complete disgrace.
While a family continues to grieve due to the loss of this young man who was murdered for no apparent reason, Schwarzenegger just added more hurt and fuel to an already burning fire, and instead of just coming forward at the very beginning to make his decision, Schwarzenegger hid out like a little child for over a week before finally deciding to send a letter to the family about his decision, but still refused to answer any explanation about why Nunez was chosen out of thousands of prisoners.
What a despicable and disgusting person Schwarzenegger is....
And its worth repeating, he is a despicable and disgusting person.
Bill Maher blames NRA for Tucson shooting
What has to be one of the most hypocritical statements made in the days of the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, has-been HBO talk show host Bill Maher was asked on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno about the shooting and Mr. Maher is citing blame on the National Rifle Association.
Yet again, even after all of the evidence was presented yesterday on ABC's Good Morning America concerning Jared Loughner's history, Mr. Maher did not even put the blame on the shooter himself. Instead, he resorted to objecting completely to the 2nd Amendment and blaming right wing extremism. Here's a man who obviously hates the U.S. Constitution.
He went on to further say that "the NRA should just change their name to Assassin's Lobby." He even encouraged applause from Mr. Leno's rather stunned audience. At one during the show, someone from the audience challenged Mr. Maher's assertion on radical right wing extremism. Mr. Maher responded to the audience member with rather sarcasm, asking "do you read?". He went further to say people on the left are not as hateful or crazy, as people on the right.
Incredibly, just seconds after making this comment, Mr. Maher went even further and stated "Newt Gingrich, and by the way, among the right wing douchebags I hate, I hate them, he said the Obama Administration is as much of a threat to us as were the Nazis and the Soviet Union..."
I guess Mr. Maher believes that just because he works in entertainment, he must automatically be exempt for spewing the same hate filled comments.
Yet again, even after all of the evidence was presented yesterday on ABC's Good Morning America concerning Jared Loughner's history, Mr. Maher did not even put the blame on the shooter himself. Instead, he resorted to objecting completely to the 2nd Amendment and blaming right wing extremism. Here's a man who obviously hates the U.S. Constitution.
He went on to further say that "the NRA should just change their name to Assassin's Lobby." He even encouraged applause from Mr. Leno's rather stunned audience. At one during the show, someone from the audience challenged Mr. Maher's assertion on radical right wing extremism. Mr. Maher responded to the audience member with rather sarcasm, asking "do you read?". He went further to say people on the left are not as hateful or crazy, as people on the right.
Incredibly, just seconds after making this comment, Mr. Maher went even further and stated "Newt Gingrich, and by the way, among the right wing douchebags I hate, I hate them, he said the Obama Administration is as much of a threat to us as were the Nazis and the Soviet Union..."
I guess Mr. Maher believes that just because he works in entertainment, he must automatically be exempt for spewing the same hate filled comments.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Loughner was not on the right or left
In the height of the news media jumping on the "blame the right" bandwagon as for the reason Jared Loughner shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, killed six and injured many others, the one thing many of these commentators on MSNBC and writers at the New York Times left out altogether... was really Loughner himself.
As stated in my commentary blog on Monday, literally just moments after this massacre took place in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday, voices on the left blamed the Republican Party, the Tea Party, Talk Radio, Fox News and particularly Sarah Palin, for provoking violence. Again, I honestly don't care that much for Sarah Palin as a politician, but isn't it just a little bit ironic that the same people on the left say that Sarah Palin is the stupidest woman on Earth, but yet she does have enough intelligence to help orchestrate a tragic shooting in Arizona?
Insane.
Well rest assured, this game of blame should soon quietly be laid to rest, based on an interview this morning on ABC's Good Morning America with Ashleigh Banfield. Ms. Banfield interviewed one of Jared Loughner's best friends from high school, Zach Osler, and was asked if Loughner was influenced by the news or talk radio. Osler replied: "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right."
That should pretty much debunk this notion of the right wing in this country being responsible. Another comment made by Osler was that Loughner was inspired by the 2007 documentary film Zeitgeist, which discusses a wide range variety of conspiracy theories including the International Monetary System, religion and how 9/11 was orchestrated by the American Government.
In short, the news media, particularly the New York Times and specific commentators on MSNBC such as Chris Matthews, seemed to have failed miserably to even do the slightest bit of research on this despicable example of human existence, instead relying on contributors to spew their same rhetoric over and over again. I have yet to hear anyone on MSNBC or at the New York Times bring up an issue over Democratic Senator Joe Manchin's election ad this last November were he was "promoting guns". Or what about the Democratic Committee in 2004 using almost an identical "target map" on Republicans, when President Bush was up for re-election?
All of that has just been an oversight?
Yeah right.
Some of these people in the news media are down right lazy, pathetic and apparently cannot take five minutes of their time to do a little bit of research on facts. The New York Times said in November of 2009 following the Ford Hood massacre for all of us to "not jump to conclusions".
Why didn't that same rule of thumb not apply to the massacre in Tucson?
As stated in my commentary blog on Monday, literally just moments after this massacre took place in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday, voices on the left blamed the Republican Party, the Tea Party, Talk Radio, Fox News and particularly Sarah Palin, for provoking violence. Again, I honestly don't care that much for Sarah Palin as a politician, but isn't it just a little bit ironic that the same people on the left say that Sarah Palin is the stupidest woman on Earth, but yet she does have enough intelligence to help orchestrate a tragic shooting in Arizona?
Insane.
Well rest assured, this game of blame should soon quietly be laid to rest, based on an interview this morning on ABC's Good Morning America with Ashleigh Banfield. Ms. Banfield interviewed one of Jared Loughner's best friends from high school, Zach Osler, and was asked if Loughner was influenced by the news or talk radio. Osler replied: "He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left. He wasn't on the right."
That should pretty much debunk this notion of the right wing in this country being responsible. Another comment made by Osler was that Loughner was inspired by the 2007 documentary film Zeitgeist, which discusses a wide range variety of conspiracy theories including the International Monetary System, religion and how 9/11 was orchestrated by the American Government.
In short, the news media, particularly the New York Times and specific commentators on MSNBC such as Chris Matthews, seemed to have failed miserably to even do the slightest bit of research on this despicable example of human existence, instead relying on contributors to spew their same rhetoric over and over again. I have yet to hear anyone on MSNBC or at the New York Times bring up an issue over Democratic Senator Joe Manchin's election ad this last November were he was "promoting guns". Or what about the Democratic Committee in 2004 using almost an identical "target map" on Republicans, when President Bush was up for re-election?
All of that has just been an oversight?
Yeah right.
Some of these people in the news media are down right lazy, pathetic and apparently cannot take five minutes of their time to do a little bit of research on facts. The New York Times said in November of 2009 following the Ford Hood massacre for all of us to "not jump to conclusions".
Why didn't that same rule of thumb not apply to the massacre in Tucson?
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Ignorance in California Part 3: Governor Brown's plan
Sometimes I think the people in California are honestly re-enacting the movie The Producers. The things that go on in this State are unintentionally hilarious. Or maybe to Governor Brown, they are intentionally hilarious.
Who the hell knows?
Governor Brown has a so-called new plan to solve California's $25 billion deficit crisis. His plan is to ask tax payers to "dig deeper" into their wallets to solve its escalating financial problems. First of all, I need to apologize to any reader of this commentary blog, because I said about a month ago that Governor Brown would propose something like this sometime in his first year as Governor. Well, I had no idea he would do it just days after he was sworn in.
His grim plan includes slashing the state's welfare program, health care to the poor, about a $1 billion cut from both the University of California and California State University institutions and eliminating home health services to elderly citizens.
You may recall during the election, that Governor Brown vowed to only raise taxes if tax payers approved it. So come this June, Governor Brown will be asking tax payers to most likely vote on a measure that would approve these cuts and raise taxes.
Now I had thought that Governor Brown said last month "We've been living in fantasy land..."
I guess he too is living in fantasy land because he seems to forget that just last year, Governor Schwarzenegger had a special election to raise taxes and cut pretty much the same programs. The measure was defeated overwhelmingly by most of California.
Does Governor Brown honestly believe that this will be any different?
Well it might, if you consider that the same ignorant voters in this State that chose to elect him as Governor, will probably continue to be ignorant and go with the flow. Why? Because he is a Democrat.
I'd really like to see the look on every voter's face if and when there is an election and the measure is passed, taxes raised and programs cut. Then you're going to hear all of this whining and complaining from people who can't figure out why they're taxes are so high or why they cannot apply for welfare programs.
Give me a break.
Republicans State lawmakers are vowing against this citing that people cannot afford any higher taxes. Seems quite obvious that Governor Brown is already failing to address the two critical issues that have destroyed this State for many years: The cost of illegal immigration and pension funds and salaries to state employees.
But probably the most hilarious comment that came after Governor Brown announced his plan was from Democratic Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, who is quoted as saying in the Los Angeles Times: "I hate the cuts, but I'm not going to reject the cuts."
This is the same Senator Steinberg that opposed Governor Schwarzenegger's similar budget reductions last year, yet all of a sudden, he is now for them?
Who the hell knows?
Governor Brown has a so-called new plan to solve California's $25 billion deficit crisis. His plan is to ask tax payers to "dig deeper" into their wallets to solve its escalating financial problems. First of all, I need to apologize to any reader of this commentary blog, because I said about a month ago that Governor Brown would propose something like this sometime in his first year as Governor. Well, I had no idea he would do it just days after he was sworn in.
His grim plan includes slashing the state's welfare program, health care to the poor, about a $1 billion cut from both the University of California and California State University institutions and eliminating home health services to elderly citizens.
You may recall during the election, that Governor Brown vowed to only raise taxes if tax payers approved it. So come this June, Governor Brown will be asking tax payers to most likely vote on a measure that would approve these cuts and raise taxes.
Now I had thought that Governor Brown said last month "We've been living in fantasy land..."
I guess he too is living in fantasy land because he seems to forget that just last year, Governor Schwarzenegger had a special election to raise taxes and cut pretty much the same programs. The measure was defeated overwhelmingly by most of California.
Does Governor Brown honestly believe that this will be any different?
Well it might, if you consider that the same ignorant voters in this State that chose to elect him as Governor, will probably continue to be ignorant and go with the flow. Why? Because he is a Democrat.
I'd really like to see the look on every voter's face if and when there is an election and the measure is passed, taxes raised and programs cut. Then you're going to hear all of this whining and complaining from people who can't figure out why they're taxes are so high or why they cannot apply for welfare programs.
Give me a break.
Republicans State lawmakers are vowing against this citing that people cannot afford any higher taxes. Seems quite obvious that Governor Brown is already failing to address the two critical issues that have destroyed this State for many years: The cost of illegal immigration and pension funds and salaries to state employees.
But probably the most hilarious comment that came after Governor Brown announced his plan was from Democratic Senate President Pro-Tem Darrell Steinberg, who is quoted as saying in the Los Angeles Times: "I hate the cuts, but I'm not going to reject the cuts."
This is the same Senator Steinberg that opposed Governor Schwarzenegger's similar budget reductions last year, yet all of a sudden, he is now for them?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shooting, leads to blame game
The despicable and senseless shooting this last Saturday on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona which left her in critical condition, six dead and others injured, certainly demonstrates the risk of taking public office. But now, the "blame game" following the shooting, is stirring up all over the internet and into the national news media.
There were already reports and comments popping up all over Twitter from online magazines like Salon and The Huffington Post that it was all about right-wing extremism. Never mind at least allowing some breathing time for people to pray for the Congresswoman's recovery or for those that were killed in the tragic shooting which involved a Federal Court Judge, a Congressional aide, a young child and three senior citizens. Apparently, left-leaning opinion editorial magazines don't have anytime for that, they must find someone on the right to blame immediately.
The first person on their list is Sarah Palin. What a surprise. I honestly don't care for the former Alaskan Governor's views on politics, but it is becoming rather insane that every-time there is a controversy among the Republican party, Palin is the first to blame. The reason Palin is brought into the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords steems from March 2010 when Palin apparently posted a map on her Facebook page showing individuals in the Midterm elections she hoped to "take down".
The second persons on their list are those associated with the Tea Party. Another surprise? The left is blaming the radical right-wing extremism as instrumental in leading to the shooting on Congresswoman Giffords.
There are also some reports to suggest that Tea Party members were angry with believing in the Congresswoman's opposition of the right to bear arms, when in fact, if you look at her track record, Congresswoman Gifford as a blue-dog Democrat, actually supported gun rights and even opposed a Washington D.C. ban on fire arms.
While the left immediately jumped to conclusions this weekend on the shooting, they seem to have been completely ignorant on the real perpetrator who pulled the trigger. A 22 year old, pot smoking, hateful, despicable and horrible individual known as Jared Loughner. According to law enforcement officials and what was found on his Myspace page, this was a man who despised American Government and apparently had a deep admiration for Hitler, Marx and Communism. Those strange elements honestly don't sound like a typical Tea Party member.
Since all of this, there are some in the news media that are taking a look at some of their remarks that have been deemed as hateful. Even MSNBC liberal commentator Keith Olbermann included himself in this arena.
We live in a nation were we're supposed to be allowed to have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression. We can offer opinions, but it seems as though lately there is the notion of imposing opinions and belief systems on other people to the point that those people become insane and carry out acts of violence. We're all supposed to be responsible for our own actions.
And there is only one person responsible for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
There were already reports and comments popping up all over Twitter from online magazines like Salon and The Huffington Post that it was all about right-wing extremism. Never mind at least allowing some breathing time for people to pray for the Congresswoman's recovery or for those that were killed in the tragic shooting which involved a Federal Court Judge, a Congressional aide, a young child and three senior citizens. Apparently, left-leaning opinion editorial magazines don't have anytime for that, they must find someone on the right to blame immediately.
The first person on their list is Sarah Palin. What a surprise. I honestly don't care for the former Alaskan Governor's views on politics, but it is becoming rather insane that every-time there is a controversy among the Republican party, Palin is the first to blame. The reason Palin is brought into the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords steems from March 2010 when Palin apparently posted a map on her Facebook page showing individuals in the Midterm elections she hoped to "take down".
The second persons on their list are those associated with the Tea Party. Another surprise? The left is blaming the radical right-wing extremism as instrumental in leading to the shooting on Congresswoman Giffords.
There are also some reports to suggest that Tea Party members were angry with believing in the Congresswoman's opposition of the right to bear arms, when in fact, if you look at her track record, Congresswoman Gifford as a blue-dog Democrat, actually supported gun rights and even opposed a Washington D.C. ban on fire arms.
While the left immediately jumped to conclusions this weekend on the shooting, they seem to have been completely ignorant on the real perpetrator who pulled the trigger. A 22 year old, pot smoking, hateful, despicable and horrible individual known as Jared Loughner. According to law enforcement officials and what was found on his Myspace page, this was a man who despised American Government and apparently had a deep admiration for Hitler, Marx and Communism. Those strange elements honestly don't sound like a typical Tea Party member.
Since all of this, there are some in the news media that are taking a look at some of their remarks that have been deemed as hateful. Even MSNBC liberal commentator Keith Olbermann included himself in this arena.
We live in a nation were we're supposed to be allowed to have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression. We can offer opinions, but it seems as though lately there is the notion of imposing opinions and belief systems on other people to the point that those people become insane and carry out acts of violence. We're all supposed to be responsible for our own actions.
And there is only one person responsible for the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Homeland Secretary Napolitano in Qatar to solve border problems?
Well we're already starting off 2011 by showing even more ridiculous and absurd ineptness of the Obama Administration.
Apparently, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano decided to take a trip over to Qatar, the little country that occupies the small peninsula off of Saudi Arabia. Her reasons to going to Qatar is to help that country secure its borders from terrorist groups and signing a security cooperation agreement.
Her visit to the country on January 2nd was signed in Qatar's capital, Doha and said: "This agreement will help us expand collaboration with Qatar in order to better protect the citizens of both nations against the evolving threats we face..."
Napolitano's reasoning for reaching out to Qatar is because they have not been as effective in endorsing security and capturing members of al-Qaeda.
Isn't it funny that Napolitano is in another country trying to educate them about how to secure their borders, when she can't even figure out how to secure our own country's borders! This is the same Janet Napolitano who is all for suing the State of Arizona because they decided to secure the Mexican border by resorting to profiling criminal illegal aliens.
The people that work in Government who seem to be endorsing the protections of other countries, but not the protection of our own country, should honestly just come right out and admit that they are really nothing more than a bunch of lousy hypocrites.
Apparently, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano decided to take a trip over to Qatar, the little country that occupies the small peninsula off of Saudi Arabia. Her reasons to going to Qatar is to help that country secure its borders from terrorist groups and signing a security cooperation agreement.
Her visit to the country on January 2nd was signed in Qatar's capital, Doha and said: "This agreement will help us expand collaboration with Qatar in order to better protect the citizens of both nations against the evolving threats we face..."
Napolitano's reasoning for reaching out to Qatar is because they have not been as effective in endorsing security and capturing members of al-Qaeda.
Isn't it funny that Napolitano is in another country trying to educate them about how to secure their borders, when she can't even figure out how to secure our own country's borders! This is the same Janet Napolitano who is all for suing the State of Arizona because they decided to secure the Mexican border by resorting to profiling criminal illegal aliens.
The people that work in Government who seem to be endorsing the protections of other countries, but not the protection of our own country, should honestly just come right out and admit that they are really nothing more than a bunch of lousy hypocrites.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Geithner pressuring Republicans to raise debt limit
U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is making a fuss today because he is putting pressure on Republican lawmakers to raise the limits on the country's $14 trillion national debt, cautioning that if no action is taken, it would lead to another economic collapse.
Geithner apparently wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid which stated that the United States might hit the debt ceiling level allowed by March 31st; his suggestion to the newly Republican controlled House of Representatives is to raise the level to avoid pushing the United States into default.
Already the bickering has started. House Speaker John Boehner released a statement that said:
"The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending and end the job-killing spending binge in Washington."
Republicans primary argument is to not default, but not continue to borrow recklessly, while Geithner believes if no action is taken, the United States will begin to default on its obligations and would no longer be in a position to make interest payments, which alone total $21 billion a month for this fiscal year. He thinks that this would lead to something much more catastrophic than what was seen in 2008 and 2009.
Nonetheless, foreign lenders including China and Japan have voiced their concerns, especially seeing the financial turmoil in countries like Greece and Ireland. Those countries couldn't meet their obligations and eventually had to be bailed out. Something that Geithner is seeking to avoid again.
Seems like his primary focus is to continue to spend money so that you have revenues taken to support the debt obligations. Either way you look at it, the situation appears grim. You've got one party that wants to spend and borrow, and one party that wants to cut spending across the board.
Yet, isn't it interesting that for the last two years, Secretary Geithner has made little to no comment whatsoever about the impacts of our growing national debt, until just now?
Geithner apparently wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid which stated that the United States might hit the debt ceiling level allowed by March 31st; his suggestion to the newly Republican controlled House of Representatives is to raise the level to avoid pushing the United States into default.
Already the bickering has started. House Speaker John Boehner released a statement that said:
"The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the president and Congress to cut spending and end the job-killing spending binge in Washington."
Republicans primary argument is to not default, but not continue to borrow recklessly, while Geithner believes if no action is taken, the United States will begin to default on its obligations and would no longer be in a position to make interest payments, which alone total $21 billion a month for this fiscal year. He thinks that this would lead to something much more catastrophic than what was seen in 2008 and 2009.
Nonetheless, foreign lenders including China and Japan have voiced their concerns, especially seeing the financial turmoil in countries like Greece and Ireland. Those countries couldn't meet their obligations and eventually had to be bailed out. Something that Geithner is seeking to avoid again.
Seems like his primary focus is to continue to spend money so that you have revenues taken to support the debt obligations. Either way you look at it, the situation appears grim. You've got one party that wants to spend and borrow, and one party that wants to cut spending across the board.
Yet, isn't it interesting that for the last two years, Secretary Geithner has made little to no comment whatsoever about the impacts of our growing national debt, until just now?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
112th Congress convenes with Boehner as Speaker
As the 112th United States Congress resumed today, Republican lawmakers cheered as Ohio Congressman John Boehner filled the post as the new Speaker of the House, replacing Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who proved herself worthy as perhaps the worst House Speaker this country has ever had. Under her reign over two years of the Bush Administration and two years of the Obama Administration, Congress has for the most part achieved nothing, except for play rubber stamps and continue to spend money into oblivion, thus moving this country to the brink of near bankruptcy.
So with Mr. Boehner as Speaker, Americans are trying to appear optimistic and hope for a sense of real change that Congress can finally move forward and actually get work done.
But it appears that a blood bath is already lying ahead. Republican leaders are already vowing to repeal Obama's controversial Health Care Law and are wanting to investigate the Obama Administration's rather unethical efforts in the last two years. Of course, I sincerely doubt that Republicans will be successful in repealing the Health Care Law, because the Senate is still controlled by the Democrats and President Obama can always veto the bill and they don't have the necessary 2/3rds majority to override a veto by the President.
Nonetheless, I would give Republican lawmakers a great deal of credit if they do move forward on attempting to repeal the law. The bill is largely unfavorable among most Americans and they simply cannot afford it. Personally, I would have supported a public option but not a mandate that every American has to buy health insurance. It is obvious that there are some provisions in the bill that are good and some that are clearly bad.
But Americans are hoping the top priority of the new 112th Congress will be fixing the economy and many of them are not looking forward to more of the same political bickering among Democrats and Republicans. They want wasteful government spending cut and more transparency in their government, something that both now-former Speaker Pelosi and President Obama failed to fulfill in the last two years.
There will be some new changes in the Congress when it does come to transparency in government. For example, Congressman Ron Paul will be chairing the House Monetary Policy Committee and will most likely have stronger oversight and a chance to audit the Federal Reserve, which is something people have been waiting far too long for.
Here's to a new year in American politics.
Hopefully this year, work will be done for once.
So with Mr. Boehner as Speaker, Americans are trying to appear optimistic and hope for a sense of real change that Congress can finally move forward and actually get work done.
But it appears that a blood bath is already lying ahead. Republican leaders are already vowing to repeal Obama's controversial Health Care Law and are wanting to investigate the Obama Administration's rather unethical efforts in the last two years. Of course, I sincerely doubt that Republicans will be successful in repealing the Health Care Law, because the Senate is still controlled by the Democrats and President Obama can always veto the bill and they don't have the necessary 2/3rds majority to override a veto by the President.
Nonetheless, I would give Republican lawmakers a great deal of credit if they do move forward on attempting to repeal the law. The bill is largely unfavorable among most Americans and they simply cannot afford it. Personally, I would have supported a public option but not a mandate that every American has to buy health insurance. It is obvious that there are some provisions in the bill that are good and some that are clearly bad.
But Americans are hoping the top priority of the new 112th Congress will be fixing the economy and many of them are not looking forward to more of the same political bickering among Democrats and Republicans. They want wasteful government spending cut and more transparency in their government, something that both now-former Speaker Pelosi and President Obama failed to fulfill in the last two years.
There will be some new changes in the Congress when it does come to transparency in government. For example, Congressman Ron Paul will be chairing the House Monetary Policy Committee and will most likely have stronger oversight and a chance to audit the Federal Reserve, which is something people have been waiting far too long for.
Here's to a new year in American politics.
Hopefully this year, work will be done for once.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Ivory Coast president Gbagbo refuses to cease power
Well it looks like we may have yet another case of genocide in an already world gone mad, Laurent Gbagbo, the president of the Ivory Coast has refused to cease power ever since the country's November 28th election, in which his rival, Alassane Ouattara actually won the election.
Reuters reported earlier today that Gbagbo was going to eventually allow traffic through the military block into the Gulf Hotel where Ouattara is based, after Gbagbo had military forces surrounding it. This shows he's not going out without a fight.
Since the election, Gbagbo has been accused of carrying out the killings of more than 170 people thus far, who are opposed of his power and control over the country, which has struggled to rebuild itself since its civil war back in 2003.
Now, the United Nations has stepped in to try and establish solvency and they insist Ouattara was the real winner to take the helm as the Ivory Coast's next leader. Gbagbo has agreed to open up talks with neighboring countries like Sierra Leone and the African Union who say that he is willing to negotiate peacefully to prevent military intervention from ECOWAS.
Despite this, the situation sounds like it could be escalating into something that looks disturbingly like the Khmer Rouge era in Cambodia. The United Nations said that Gbagbo could be held criminally liable for violating human rights, torture, kidnapping and murder.
However, it seems as though that is doing little to deter him out of presidential control. He apparently has the country's high court and military in his pockets (and probably his check book) and for the most part has ignored any interference from the African Union or other countries asking for him to cease power.
It is all just another carnival act concerning a leader who rules over a country by destroying his people.
Reuters reported earlier today that Gbagbo was going to eventually allow traffic through the military block into the Gulf Hotel where Ouattara is based, after Gbagbo had military forces surrounding it. This shows he's not going out without a fight.
Since the election, Gbagbo has been accused of carrying out the killings of more than 170 people thus far, who are opposed of his power and control over the country, which has struggled to rebuild itself since its civil war back in 2003.
Now, the United Nations has stepped in to try and establish solvency and they insist Ouattara was the real winner to take the helm as the Ivory Coast's next leader. Gbagbo has agreed to open up talks with neighboring countries like Sierra Leone and the African Union who say that he is willing to negotiate peacefully to prevent military intervention from ECOWAS.
Despite this, the situation sounds like it could be escalating into something that looks disturbingly like the Khmer Rouge era in Cambodia. The United Nations said that Gbagbo could be held criminally liable for violating human rights, torture, kidnapping and murder.
However, it seems as though that is doing little to deter him out of presidential control. He apparently has the country's high court and military in his pockets (and probably his check book) and for the most part has ignored any interference from the African Union or other countries asking for him to cease power.
It is all just another carnival act concerning a leader who rules over a country by destroying his people.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Schwarzenegger reduces prison term for Calif. Speaker's son
With his horrible reign of destruction in California already over, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made one last ditch effort before he left office to make himself look even more ridiculous than he already was, by reducing a prison sentence for Estaban Nunez, the son of former disgraced Speaker of the California State Assembly, Fabian Nunez.
Estaban Nunez had been given a sixteen year prison sentence for fatally stabbing a student at California State University San Diego fraternity party, and Governor Schwarzenegger decided that a sentence like that was too harsh, so he'll only get a seven year sentence instead.
Simply unbelievable.
But maybe outgoing Governor Schwarzenegger is reducing his prison sentence simply to reduce tax payer money for incarcerating prisoners in the State, which already cost an arm and a leg? Your guess is as good as mine that this is just another game of politics. The former Speaker of the Assembly comes begging to Schwarzenegger to please reduce his criminal son's incarceration and maybe offer some forgiveness as well, which under Fabian Nunez's tenure as Speaker, the State continued to spend money rapidly and the blame of course is also put on Schwarzenegger.
Speaker Nunez, by the way, was also investigated for apparently misusing tax payer money on a lavish trip to Europe many years ago. He was never formally convicted as he should have been, and now his son gets a partial pardon, because of political connections.
Its disgusting, just disgusting.
Estaban Nunez had been given a sixteen year prison sentence for fatally stabbing a student at California State University San Diego fraternity party, and Governor Schwarzenegger decided that a sentence like that was too harsh, so he'll only get a seven year sentence instead.
Simply unbelievable.
But maybe outgoing Governor Schwarzenegger is reducing his prison sentence simply to reduce tax payer money for incarcerating prisoners in the State, which already cost an arm and a leg? Your guess is as good as mine that this is just another game of politics. The former Speaker of the Assembly comes begging to Schwarzenegger to please reduce his criminal son's incarceration and maybe offer some forgiveness as well, which under Fabian Nunez's tenure as Speaker, the State continued to spend money rapidly and the blame of course is also put on Schwarzenegger.
Speaker Nunez, by the way, was also investigated for apparently misusing tax payer money on a lavish trip to Europe many years ago. He was never formally convicted as he should have been, and now his son gets a partial pardon, because of political connections.
Its disgusting, just disgusting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)