Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Why Can't a Woman Run for President?

Are WE ready ? All other Nations have had women in charge in the Past , but  can America Really Change?

With the tone and substance of national policy in the United States in a seemingly bottomless downward spiral, threatening both the peace of the world and the freedom of Americans, it may be fair to ask, why talk about a woman running for president? When will a woman run for president? When this question is posed in op-ed opinion pieces, the answer frequently offered is something along the lines of "when one decides to run." A very reassuring bromide that injects "choice," that most pliable word of American corporate-speak, into the discussion. The treatment of Hillary Clinton set a standard of viciousness no other society on earth, claiming to be civilized, could match. An intelligent and independent-minded woman was harassed and insulted for eight long years simply because she was intelligent and independent-minded. Undoubtedly, it all served as an effective warning that the Barbara Bush image, the smiling granny serving cookies and milk while overseeing ghost-written books about her dog Fluffy is the preferred one for the White House. 
In a very real sense, Elizabeth Dole,  and Sarah Palin who did make a weak attempt at the Republican nomination, despite the benefit of a syrupy Southern accent, was never a serious candidate. Comments on Ms. Dole's abilities, reported in the mainstream press, included her skill at descending from a podium and the fact that her shoes coordinated with d├ęcor.  The strong, lingering smell of anti-feminism in America, kept alive by people who believe we should be guided by principles that predate the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, certainly helps explain why the most capable women don't run. Christine Whitman, former governor of New Jersey, is an outstanding example, now safely tucked into a lesser cabinet post (lesser as far as the Bush Boys are concerned - after all, what's the environment but a name for a photo-op?) where she is free to say virtually nothing - a very dynamic governor, whether you agree with all her policies or not, reduced to a cipher. 
Perhaps, "can't run" is the more appropriate expression, since money, steam-shovels full of it, from private sources drives the entire American political engine. George Bush provided the definitive proof that a candidate most people never heard of and who had never taken any interest in national policy can win, provided only he started his journey through the primary campaigns with $70 million stuffed in his pockets and received frequent top-ups as he glutted the airwaves with numbing pictures of vacuous benignity. The sources of this money still do not see fit to trust women with command over resources in business, so it is not surprising they do not trust them with command over resources in politics. 

The party system is also at fault here. Despite the countless chamber-of-commerce testimonials we hear about free enterprise in America, it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone to institute it into politics. We have a virtual monopoly situation (actually, what economists call a duopoly) with two parties using countless dodges, gimmicks, and unfair rules to keep out competitors. Just a little room is left around the edges of all the high barriers to entry so that some suggestion of a free market is maintained, much the way small independent bottlers of soda receive a few square feet out of an entire aisle dedicated to Coke and Pepsi products in a supermarket. The restrictions against a third-party candidate's even getting on the ballots of all fifty states would fill a book. 

Methods of national debate also are part of the problem. So long as argumentative nonsense is regarded as debate, an immature and intellectually-dull national politics will continue. Negative advertising is only a small part of this phenomenon. Many talented people are repulsed at entering a contest where lung-power and attitudes play a far greater role than ideas or wisdom. This was certainly the case for General Powell, and I suspect former Governor Whitman. One could make a joke about this form of debate appealing more to hormone-driven males than thoughtful women, but in fact it does not appeal to the thoughtful of either sex. Yet it dominates American politics, just as dominates the airwaves with public affairs programs that don't inform.

Change in the way America does the business of politics offers the best chance for escape from the intellectual and moral sinkhole represented by the Bush administration. Such change would bring more excellent people forward, and I have no doubt that at least half of them would be women. And America would take a big step forward in its promise to be a democratic society, rather than one run by money with a semblance of democratic institutions. But in saying these things, I fear I may be pointing towards solutions whose very impossibility now leaves a sense of a settled and depressing fate.  

Sunday, June 26, 2011

The Republican betrayal

The Republican betrayal 
Below is today's New York Times article on the bill's passage, unquestionably the greatest victory that same-sex "marriage" has so far enjoyed in this country. And here is the key event that allowed it to pass:
... after days of contentious discussion capped by a marathon nine-hour closed-door debate on Friday, Republicans came to a fateful decision: The full Senate would be allowed to vote on the bill, the majority leader, Dean G. Skelos, said Friday afternoon, and each member would be left to vote according to his or her conscience. "The days of just bottling up things, and using these as excuses not to have votes--as far as I'm concerned as leader, it's over with," said Mr. Skelos, a Long Island Republican who voted against the bill.
Apparently it was not Skelos alone, but the entire Republican caucus, including the 28 Republican senators who voted against the bill, who allowed the bill to come to the floor and be passed. So the Republicans deserve to be damned. When a ruinous thing threatens society, it must be stopped. You just say no. And if that means preventing a floor vote on a bill, even if that seems "undemocratic," that is what you must do. But, as with the Republican surrender  U.S. military last year, the Republicans seem drawn by some fatality always to end up going along with liberalism. The underlying reason, perhaps, is what reader Aaron S. identified yesterday: "the inability of any Republican of note to think or speak outside the language of rights." State senators in New York serve a two year term. I hope every Republican senator who voted to allow this bill to come to the floor is defeated.
See also, in the third and fourth paragraphs of the article, the mindless thought process that led Republican senator Mark Gristanti to switch sides and vote for homosexual "marriage."

California Passed a few years ago legislation prohibiting same sex marriage, the 'voters' rejected twice any law to allow any same sex recognition  of marriage . I for one voted against same sex marriage for logistical reasons as I will explain. First the state should have recognized Domestic Partnerships which easily included the right for benefits and the adoption of children . Second , the 'terms'  Husband and Wife are heterosexual terms that can't be applied legally if two men were to call themselves both 'husband' . When taking a wedding vow , would the chaplain who preforms the marriage say : " I now pronounce you husband , and husband ". Heterosexual terms can't be used during same sex weddings , yet they are . There confusing legal language . Third , this was a subject that was better kept in it's place , when the conservatives brought forward a ballot measure that only recognized traditional marriages in California years ago they may have set up a legal chain reaction that pushed the Gay agenda  further into the mainstream .  Gay's could have had weddings preformed without  any legal interference from Government , There were churches already preforming 'weddings' ,  the fact that most of the mass weddings of Gays were more catering toward sensationalism rather than genuine love between two people .Forth, Marriage is about reproduction . Two men and Two woman can't make babies . Men who are gay have tried to adopt , and have problems raising children . If there is two women . They will usually seek a sperm bank . Five,  Most flagrant homosexual behavior seems to be stimulated by pornographic  images , and fetishism . This  has created a stigma for the acceptance of homosexuality in society  . Most of it is  deviant behavior to many people .
Yet with only 10% of the population being Homosexual . This is a vary small minority of a group of people in the United States whose behavior  influences society , and politics while it's not exceptionable to most of the greater majority of the people.

Here are more arguments. Republican betrayal , Gov. Cuomo .

What really annoys me about this Gov. Andrew Cuomo-driven agenda is that the Republicans will be the enablers. I am so sick of Republicans trying to appear reasonable in the media. The only way a Republican is reasonable to the elites is if he betrays Republican principles and positions.
Do you think if the Democrats controlled the state senate that they would allow a bill that limited abortion or significantly cut spending or was contrary to their agenda? Of course not; Dems may be liberal bullies but they are not stupid. They don’t betray their base.

Why cannot the Republicans, who generally have better ideas, be so smart? There is a disconnect and it justifies not voting for them anymore. We need the Tea Party to make its mark in the state.
Why elect people who will turn around and violate the sacred trust on such a fundamental issue? What do we gain by sending in people who claim to support us and then abandon us in our moment of need?
Despite the recent opinion polls that indicate the contrary, New Yorkers do not want gay marriage. If they did, the gays and their supporters would place it on the ballot and if they won, they would declare that the people are on their side.
But with 30 states ruling against them on the ballot, they know better. Instead they use judges, pressure legislators and manipulate the media. They try to persuade public opinion, but when that fails, they use coercion–typical leftist tactics.
It is bad enough when Dems are in charge but to have the Repubs be the betrayers is too much. And why? So they can get a little praise from the media who surely laugh at their weakness.


Thursday, June 23, 2011

We Need A New National Political Party

 Time for a third political Party . Democrats and Republicans are epic failure!

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting closer and closer to this everyday, as it becomes more and more evident many Republican’s interest in working with “Tea Partiers”, if at all, often seems one-sided.  In addition, I’m really starting to wonder if the ‘establishment’ GOP has what it takes to get to the root of our nation’s problems.  I’m wondering if they even have a desire to to this, to lead a charge in getting us back to a Constitutional Republic, as intended by the Founding Fathers, and thus putting checks and balances back in place.  As my disappointment and disgust grows, I just may switch to ‘unaffiliated’ after being a registered Republican since 1992. Democrats and Republican's seem always in a grid lock , and can't get anything done .
Is it just me or is anyone else getting the feeling if the GOP loses the 2012 presidential election, they’ll blame it on “the” Tea Party?  If they do lose, I’d venture to guess it will not be because of “the” Tea Party, but rather, at least in part, because of their failure to acknowledge the importance of “the” Tea Party or to work with them… snub, snub.

Set aside any Obama euphoria you feel.� The other important news is that third-party presidential candidates had a miserable showing this year, totaling just over one percent of the grand total with 1.5 million votes nationwide, compared to some 123 million votes for Barack Obama and John McCain.
� It couldn't be clearer that Americans are not willing to voice their political discontent by voting for third-party presidential candidates.� The two-party duopoly and plutocracy is completely dominant.� The US lacks the political competition that exists in other western democracies.� Without real political competition there is insufficient political choice.
� A key problem is that for many years, third parties have not offered presidential candidates that capture the attention and commitment of even a modest fraction of Americans, unlike Ross Perot (8.4 percent in 1996 and 18.9 percent in 1992), and John Anderson (6.6 percent in 1980).
� This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent).� He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent.
� Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot.� In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates. �In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were (Oklahoma).
� Nader's best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney's with 28,624 votes.� Baldwin was not on the ballot there.� Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California.� Barr's best state was Texas with 56,398 votes.� None of the other three were on the ballot there.� In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot).� Baldwin's best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes.� Nader was not on the ballot there.
� In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote.� Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.
� It must also be noted that there were countless congressional races with third-party and independent candidates, but none were able to win office, with only a very few reaching the 20 percent level.� That third-party candidates can win local government offices means little because political party affiliation at that level is overshadowed by personal qualifications.
� I say that current third-party activists should admit defeat, shut down their unsuccessful parties, and move on.� Unlike so much of American history, current third-parties no longer play a significant role in American politics or even in affecting public policies.� They have shown their inability to matter.
� We need a new, vibrant political party that could bring many millions of American dissidents, progressives and conservatives, and especially chronic non-voters, together behind a relatively simple party platform focused on structural, government system reforms (not merely political change).� Examples include: replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, restoring the balance between Congress and the presidency, eliminating the corrupting influence of special interest money from politics, preventing the president to use signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress.�
� What would unite people is a shared priority for revitalizing American democracy.� It should position itself as a populist alternative and opponent to the two-party plutocracy.� It should define itself as against the corporate and other special interests on the left and right that use money to corrupt our political system.� Possible names: Patriotic Party, United Party or National Party.� With Thomas Jefferson as its spiritual founder it should seek the political revolution he said was needed periodically.
� Here is what helps.� Despite considerable enthusiasm for Barack Obama, there is widespread unhappiness with both the Democratic and Republican Parties.� One indication is that so voters register as independents.� Plus there has always been a chorus of negative views about the two-party system.� In one pragmatic sense this is the ideal time to create a new party.� Why?� Because of the incredible loss of stature of the Republican Party.� Why not envision a new party that could replace the Republican Party on the national stage and provide a sharp alternative to the Democratic Party?� In other words, we don't need a new third party as much as we need a new major party. We GOT TO GET TO WORK ON IT !

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Obama Afghanistan = $

 Time for some action!

President Obama has just addressed  the nation on the subject of the Afghanistan war. Specifically, he's going to make good on a promise made a year-and-a-half ago: to begin the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan next month.
The big question everyone's been speculating about in the run-up to this announcement has been how big of a troop pull out . Now that Bin Laden is dead, Obama has a wider range of options to choose from, in terms of how fast he's going to get our troops home. Bin Laden's death meant (among other things) that Obama has the political leeway to withdraw troops much faster now. The American public is tired of this war (when they even notice we're still fighting it), and the politicians have slowly come to realize this fact. Both Democratic and Republican support for the war is fading in Congress, which (again) makes Obama's task that much easier.. The Number of troop reductions "small" as 5,000-10,000 troops pulled out before the end of this year, "medium" as 10,000-25,000, and "large" as over 25,000 troops withdrawn. I further concluded that "medium" was the likely route Obama would take,This would still leave roughly 75,000-90,000 troops in Afghanistan next year, which is still over twice the number Bush ever devoted to the war. Obama will likely (no matter how fast he withdraws initially) review the Afghanistan situation at the end of this year, and could then elect to slow the withdrawal after a fairly large initial pullout, if circumstances on the ground merit it. Obama could also speed up the withdrawal in 2012.

 
The Afghan war has been a BIG waste of MONEY for the American Government  . It's been costly , and literally the nation building failed ,the United States  has been ramping up its reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan: Money is flowing to a host of new projects, from roadbuilding in Paktika province to the construction of new police headquarters in Wardak..
That means tremendous opportunities for government contractors; it also brings the potential for billions in wasteful spending. Since 2001, the United States has provided around $32 billion in aid and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan. But unfortunately, the top government watchdog for Afghanistan reconstruction is only just getting around to checking the books.
The Associated Press’ Richard Lardner reports that the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (nice acronym: SIGAR) still lacks adequate staff to do its job. What’s more, the office is off to a very late start: The SIGAR didn’t even start work until last July, seven years after U.S. forces toppled the Taliban. D’oh!
Says Retired Marine Corps Gen. Arnold Fields, the head of SIGAR: “We probably should have done this several years before now … I think we may have lost some ground that we are now trying to make up.”
Since 2001, the U.S. has provided approximately $32 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan. That’s on top of the $25.3 billion donated by the international community. If the Iraq experience is any guide, that’s created massive potential for waste, fraud and abuse. The watchdog for Iraq spending, for instance, estimated that around 15 percent — or $3 billion — of the $20 billion spent on major reconstruction projects in Iraq had been wasted.
Allow me to indulge in some fuzzy math. If we assume that money has been spent twice as effectively in Afghanistan — and that’s a big if, considering Afghanistan’s corruption, logistical difficulties and poor rule of law — that’s still $2.4 billion in (potential) wasteful spending out of that $32 billion pot of money. And while it’s important to underscore Washington’s (and the taxpayer’s) commitment to Afghanistan, the firehose of aid money hasn’t exactly won points with ordinary Afghans. If Afghans are on the fence when it comes to supporting their government, enabling more corruption definitely won’t help.


Sunday, June 19, 2011

Sarah Palin’s e-mails-- Media's dirt grab.

 
Isn’t that the truth? Very humbling.
 
Many are wondering just what Sarah Palin said in the emails sent and received by the former governor being released on Friday, but there is a chance the dispatch won't produce any groundbreaking revelations. Nevertheless, the documents could provide offer insight into many of the controversies surrounding Palin, and her time in office. However, while the vast majority of the emails are being released, there are a number that won't be disclosed to the public. From the AP: Another 2,275 pages are being withheld for reasons including attorney-client, work product or executive privilege; an additional 140...  MORE
 
 
Question : Do we really need to know?
Answer: NO , who cares . What's in her e-mail to media is a power grab . Sure they will find some shocking stuff . Sarah Palin is NO real "danger" to Obama . She won't get the Presidency . Her e-mails could be a barrel of laughs .If I wanted to read some ones e-mail in Politics it has to be Anthony Weiner  . I am sure he e-mailed a few women other than his wife , but still it's NO BODIES BUSINESS . The Palin that emerges from the first cut at nearly 25,000 emails released by the state of Alaska Friday is touchingly authentic, responding to the news she’s been tapped for the national ticket with the words, “Can you flippinbelieveit?!”.
The Media is OVER REACTING ? There is a Great Possibility. They are looking for some kinda dirt , but it shows how unfocused the Country is . From the Weiner scandal  to Sarah's e-mails .
 Here is some 'examples' of some of her e-mails. This is one is vary touching , it only shows her human side .


Sarah Palin imagined God talking to her in a deeply touching email she wrote two weeks before her fifth child, Trig, was born with Down’s Syndrome, it was revealed today.
The poignant message to family and friends, included in 25,000 pages of her private emails made public on Friday, may alter the way the former Governor of Alaska is viewed by the American public.
In April 2008, two weeks before Trig was born with Down’s Syndrome, Mrs Palin sent the email to her friends and family from her official government account.
In the touching message, Mrs Palin writes from the voice of God, as ‘Trig’s creator, your heavenly father’.
She addresses the ‘unreal, sad and confusing’ news that her soon-to-be born child will have Down’s Syndrome.
The letter’s existence had previously known, but only very brief excerpts had been made public.
SARAH PALIN’S COMPLETE LETTER TO HER FAMILY ABOUT TRIG
To the Sisters, Brother, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, and Friends of Trig Paxson Van Palin (or whatever you end up naming him!):
I am blessing you with this surprise baby because I only want the best for you. I’ve heard your prayers that this baby will be happy and healthy, and I’ve answered them because Ionly want the best for you!
I heard your heart when you hinted that another boy would fit best in the Palin family, to round it out and complete that starting five line-up. Though another girl would be so nice, you didn’t think you could ask for what you REALLY wanted, but I knew, so I gave you a boy because I only want the best for you!
Then, I put the idea in your hearts that his name should be “Trig”, because it’s so fitting, with two Norse meanings: “True” and “Brave Victory”. You also have a Bristol Bay relative with that name, so I knew it would be best for you!
Then, I let Trig’s mom have an exceptionally comfortable pregnancy so she could enjoy every minute of it, and I even seemed to rush it along so she could wait until near the end to surprise you with the news – that way Piper wouldn’t have so long to wait and count down so many days – just like Christmastime when you have to wait, impatiently, for that special day to finally open your gift? (Or the way the Palins look forward to birthday celebrations that go on for three, four days… you all really like cake .) I know you, I knew you’d be better off with just a short time to wait!
Then, finally, I let Trig’s mom and dad find out before he was born that this little boy will truly be a GIFT. They were told in early tests that Trig may provide more challenges, and more joy, than what they ever may have imagined or ever asked for. At first the news seemed unreal and sad and confusing . But I gave Trig’ s mom and dad lots of time to think about it because they needed lots of time to understand that everything will be OK, in fact, everything will be great, because I only want the best for you!
I‘ve given Trig’s mom and dad peace and joy as they wait to meet their new son. I gave them a happy anticipation because they asked me for that. I‘ll give all of you the same happy anticipation and strength to deal with Trig’s challenges, but I won’t impose on you…
I just need to know you want to receive my offer to be with all of you and help you everyday to make Trig’s life a great one.
This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together and get everyone focused on what really matters . The baby will expand your world and let you see and feel things you haven’t experienced yet. He’ll show you what “true, brave victory“ really means as those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells you is ”normal“ or ”perfect”. You will grow and be blessed with greater understanding that will be born along with Trig.
Trig will be his dad‘s little buddy and he’ll wear Carhartts while he learns to tinker in the garage. He’ll love to be read to, he’ll want to play goalie, and he‘ll steal his mom’s heart just like Track, Bristol, Willow and Piper did. And Trig will be the cuddly, innocent, mischievous, dependent little brother that his siblings have been waiting for in fact Trig will – in some diagnostic ways – always be a mischievous, dependent little brother, because I created him a bit different than a lot of babies born into this world today.
Every child is created special, with awesome purpose and amazing potential. Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed up world you live in down there on earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome. Doctors call it “Down’s Syndrome”, and Downs kids have challenges, but can bring you much delight and more love than you can ever imagine! Just wait and see, let me prove this, because I only want the best for you!
Some of the rest of the world may not want him, but take comfort in that because the world will not compete for him. Take care of him and he will always be yours!
Trig‘s mom and dad don’t want people to focus on the baby’s extra chromosome. They’re human, so they haven’t known how to explain this to people who are so caring and are interested in this new little Alaskan. Sarah and Todd want people to share in the joy of this gift I’m giving to the Palin family, and the greater Alaska family. Many people won’t understand… and I understand that. Some will think Trig should not be allowed to be born because they fear a Downs child won’t be considered “perfect” in your world. (But tell me, what do you earthlings consider “perfect” or even “normal” anyway? Have you peeked down any grocery store isle, or school hallway, or into your office lunchroom lately? Or considered the odd celebrities you celebrate as “perfect” on t.v.? Have you noticed I make `em all shapes and sizes? Believe me ,, there is no “perfect”!)
Many people will express sympathy, but you don’t want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this.
I know it will take time to grasp this and come to accept that I only want the best for you, and I only give my best. Remember though: “My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts… for as the heavens are higher than the earth, my ways are higher than yours!”
I wrote that all down for you in the Good Book ! Look it up! You claim that you believe me – now it’s time to live out that belief!
Please look to me as this new challenge and chapter of life unfolds in front of you. I promise to equip you. I won‘t give you anything you can’t handle. I am answering your prayers. Trig can’t wait to meet you. I’m giving you ONLY THE BEST! 
Love,
Trig’s Creator , Your Heavenly Father
Read more at the Daily Mail.  h/t to the Blaze






Thursday, June 16, 2011

The California "Budget Passed " --- BUT April FOOLS!

"It's NOT ARNOLD this TIME" . 
Well I was about to rescind my last Posting , and admit defeat that I predicted that the CALIFORNIA BUDGET will be LATE . I heard this morning that CALIFORNIA PASSED It's BUDGET JUNE 15th . I nearly JUMPED for JOY .
Well It was 6:00 am today that that NEWS was over shadowed by the specter of Governor Jerry Brown's indecisiveness  . Jerry Brown pulled a Schwarzenegger on California . HE VETOED THE Democrats OWN BUDGET. Brown, who has promised for months that he would present Californians with a gimmick-free budget that solves the state's $26 billion deficit with a combination of tax extensions and spending cuts, said the legislators' budget was not a balanced solution.
"It continues big deficits for years to come and adds billions of dollars of new debt. It also contains legally questionable maneuvers, costly borrowing and unrealistic savings," he said. "We can -- and must -- do better."
In vetoing the budget, the governor, a Democrat, once again lashed out at Republican lawmakers. He called on them to put his plan to extend personal income and sales tax hikes on the ballot.
"If they continue to obstruct a vote, we will be forced to pursue deeper and more destructive cuts to schools and public safety -- a tragedy for which Republicans will bear full responsibility," Brown said.
Republicans, on the other hand, blasted their Democrats counterparts for passing an "irresponsible budget" on Wednesday and Brown for halting negotiations in March. Republicans have said they would let voters have their say on the tax extension if the governor would agree to certain reforms.
"Californians deserve a budget that stands the test of time, and that requires the real reforms that they are demanding -- meaningful pension reform, a spending limit and business-regulation relief for job creation," said Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton.
The rejection dismayed Democratic lawmakers who had raced Wednesday to pass a budget that did not include the tax extensions. By doing so, they also sought to meet a deadline that would allow them to continue getting paid. California voters last year required that legislators approve a balanced budget by June 15 or forfeit their pay.
While the ballot measure did not say the governor had to approve that budget, the state controller is reviewing whether the budget passed Wednesday meets the state constitution's requirement.
Democratic legislative leaders called on Brown to either secure the Republican votes needed to put the tax extensions on the ballot or to produce a new detailed plan for crafting a balanced budget.
"We are too far down the road for the governor to continue avoiding a specific set of proposals of what he intends to do or wants to be done if he can't gain those Republican votes," said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.
Budget talks had essentially been at a standstill until Wednesday, when the Democratic-led state legislature passed a budget that relied on cuts and fiscal sleights-of-hand. Lawmakers only needed a majority to approve it, thanks to a ballot measure voters approved last year.

Nobody -- least of of the Democrats in the state Legislature -- quite knows why Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the state budget. In fact, he didn't even tell Legislative leaders what he was about to do. "There was no heads up, and that's the most annoying part of it," Assembly member Tom Ammiano told me.
Brown knew exactly what the Democrats were doing. He also knew (or ought to know) that getting any Republicans ever to vote for his tax extensions was, and is, a pipe dream. If he didn't like the Dems proposal, he could have asked for changes. But no: Jerry is Jerry, and he did his own thing. (Just like Arnold, he complained about the "can being kicked down the road.") His veto message talks about how "strong medicine must be taken" to solve the deep fiscal crisis; without taxes (which the GOP won't allow) I guess he's talking about more cuts. I guess he's talking about Californians really feeling the deep pain of another $10 billion cuts to services, so maybe they'll wake up and demand more revenue and oust the Republicans.
But in the meantime, the governor won't miss any meals.
Brian at Calitics looks at the bright side -- at least that sale/leaseback idea is gone. And yes, the budget that the Democrats put forward was ugly and far from perfect. But I don't see where we go from here. The Democrats in the Legislature aren't going to vote for another $10 billion in cuts; no way. And the Republicans aren't going to vote for tax extensions. And the existing taxes expire at the end of the month.
If there's a good alternative out there, I don't see it.

California's $10.8 billion budget battle

The budget would have sent $3 billion less to schools and delayed the repayment of $744 million that the state borrowed from school districts. It also depended on tax revenues coming in higher than originally forecast, as they have been doing.
The state's universities would have had another $300 million cut in funding, while the courts would have gotten $150 million less.
The proposal also relied on revenue shifts and one-time maneuvers. For instance, it called for sending some motor vehicle fees to the state general fund, while raising registration fees by $12 to support the state Department of Motor Vehicles. And it took $1 billion from a fund dedicated to early childhood development.
The budget plan would have resurrected the sale of $1.2 billion of public buildings, which Brown called off earlier this year.
It also would have added a quarter percentage point to the local sales tax and extended the sales levy to online retailers, such as Amazon.com (AMZN, Fortune 500). An Internet sales tax would have brought in an estimated $200 million.
The path to a balanced budget has taken many turns since Brown unveiled a plan in January to close the state's massive shortfall by extending temporary personal income and sales taxes passed in 2009 and cutting spending.
Two months later, the legislature approved several measures that closed $14 billion of the gap. Then, the Golden State learned in early May that tax revenues were coming in $2.5 billion higher than forecast.
Brown released a revised budget in mid May that reduced the amount the state needed to raise in taxes and to cut in spending. But Republican lawmakers refused to put the measure on the ballot without securing the spending cap and pension and regulatory reforms. To top of page






Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Can SHE SAVE OBAMA?


His popularity has decreased considerably in recent months but it seems US President Barack Obama is attempting to repair the damage by unleashing his strongest weapon - his devoted wife Michelle.
The glamorous First Lady has taken a back seat since her husband was elected as America's 44th President in 2008.
However she has returned to the forefront in recent weeks in a bid to rescue Mr Obama as he and his Democratic Party prepare for what could be the worst U.S. election rout in 68 years, according to the final opinion poll before today’s mid-term vote.
First Lady Michelle Obama flew off to California to attend four fundraisers. She threw in two “official” appointments so we the taxpayers will most likely pick up most of her travel tab. Couldn’t she have stayed in Washington, DC to raise awareness about supporting military families? Is her appearance on iCarly really necessary official business?
Keith Koffler has the scoop:
Mrs. Obama will be in California today and tomorrow, visiting Los Angeles, Pasadena, Oakland and San Francisco. She will hold two official “first lady” events and be the star attraction at FOUR fundraisers.
Whether she would have attended the official events if she wasn’t going to troll for money is anyone’s guess. But what seems likely is the cost of flying Michelle out to the West Coast so she can soak the legions of wealthy Californian Democrats for cash is being mitigated by having the official appearances on the schedule.
The first lady’s office did not respond to a request for information about whether and how much of the trip will be paid for by the government. But with official events scheduled, it’s very safe to assume that a chunk – perhaps most –  of the first lady’s travel aboard a specially equipped air force plane along with her security detail and entourage will be paid for by taxpayers.
Koffler went on to note that her appearance at the military event and the iCarly taping will be open to the press. The fundraisers will be off limits except for a small pool of print reporters. And they better not try taping her with their iPhones. (06-14) 13:29 PDT OAKLAND -- First lady Michelle Obama talked about her campaign to curb childhood obesity Tuesday as 250 breakfast guests paid up to $2,500 for baked eggs, berries and organic coffee at Oakland's Claremont Hotel to raise money for her husband's re-election campaign.
Outside the swank hotel, fans of the first lady - and a handful of protesters including an Oakland woman who disrupted President Obama's fundraiser at a San Francisco hotel in April - lined the street as her motorcade drove by.
In a half-hour address pumping Obama's 2012 campaign, Michelle Obama implored guests including celebrity chef Alice Waters and Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee to "be with us for the next phase of this journey," adding that "Barack Obama never loses sight of the end goal."
After the Oakland event, the first lady crossed San Francisco Bay to a campaign luncheon in San Francisco where attendees paid $2,500 each. That event marked the end of her two-day swing in California that included just one public event, a discussion with military families in Beverly Hills.
Her visit prompted criticism from Republicans that the first lady is spending taxpayer money to foot much of the bill for her fundraiser-heavy trip to California this week to help the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Presidents and first ladies of both political parties typically raise campaign funds while using public resources to pay for their travels. But Obama's goal to raise $1 billion for his 2012 re-election campaign has handed Republicans an opportunity to attack the White House as Congress debates whether to limit or raise the nation's debt ceiling.

Events 'flimsy excuse'

With the economy sputtering and millions of Americans unemployed, "it's troubling that the president and his wife use the cover of some flimsy excuse to come to the Bay Area when the real purpose of the trip is fundraising," said Harmeet Dhillon, chairwoman of the San Francisco Republican Party. "I don't think the taxpayers should be footing the bill."
Political campaigns typically pay costs related to fundraising events, such as hotels. But the first lady's trip to California involves official transportation from Washington, security, staffing and other expenses - many of which are covered by taxpayers.
The Chronicle contacted the Obama 2012 campaign office on Monday to clarify which expenses are footed by taxpayers. The newspaper was referred to the first lady's office at the White House, which did not respond to e-mailed questions on the matter.
"What you see happening is that the public events are used as cover to justify the fundraising," said former California GOP Chairman Ron Nehring. "It's about, 'What's an excuse we can build for bringing them out there?' "

Modest by comparison

Michelle Obama's fundraisers are not as expensive or as large as those on her husband's last trip to the Bay Area in April, when he starred at four fundraising events for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Those events ranged from a $35,800-a-person dinner in San Francisco to a sold-out Masonic Auditorium appearance where admission was as low as $25 a person.
Her events have attracted enthusiastic sponsors and supporters, two-thirds of whom are women, insiders said. At a high-end fundraiser in Pasadena on Monday - while her husband starred in three fundraisers in Miami - the first lady warned that the 2012 re-election campaign would be arduous.
"Now more than ever we need your help to finish what we started," she told California donors.
Tom Del Beccaro, who heads the California GOP, said the first lady's expenses are being increasingly scrutinized, including her "expensive vacations," such as a trip to Spain with friends in the summer of 2010. He said average Americans are watching her White House parties and fundraising travels with a sense that the Obamas are increasingly out of touch.
But Democratic strategist Katie Merrill, who heads the Merrill Strategy Group in Berkeley, countered that the first lady "is incredibly popular with American voters - and certainly California voters."
"She's a great surrogate for the administration, and the people of California should be happy to have her come out and talk about the things she's doing around healthy families and (services) to military families," Merrill said. "It's work that actually matters to people."

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Voodoo Economics .

“Our task is to not panic, not overreact, to make sure that we’ve got a plan.”. Pres . Obama

Obama's economic record is indefensible. This whole administration is incompetent. David Axlerod said last week , after the release of the poor job creation numbers, that 'these numbers don't mean much to the average citizen". This is the height of arrogance and elitism. The unemployment numbers don't mean anything for someone trying to find a job? These guys are incompetent and arrogant!
It's pathetic how some refuse to put the blame where it belongs....on the de-regulated feast of greed that the corporate banks and wall st caused....they are the ones who played roulette with the housing market, they are the ones who outsourced the jobs and destroyed our manufacturing base, they are the ones who've turned our election process into a multi-billion dollar scam and they are the ones who turned our military into an international war-making machine that is sucking the monetary life from our budget...finally, during the early 21st century we had a housing market that moved real estate from family homes into a ridiculous and inflated market which allowed people to replace decent salaries with an unlimited credit line..once it crashed it had no place else to go except down...smh. Let's  try Voodoo .
President Obama said today he's concerned about last month's slow job growth, but he's not concerned about the economy sinking into another technical recession. "I'm not concerned about a double-dip recession," Mr. Obama said at a joint press conference at the White House with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "I am concerned the recovery we're on is not producing jobs as quickly as I'd like."
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that nearly six in 10 Americans believe the economy hasn't yet recovered from the recession.The president said job creation is at the top of his mind every day and that his administration has taken steps that have already helped, such as the payroll tax cut instituted.
In order to deal with more long-term competitive challenges, he said, Washington will have to invest in areas like energy and education, reform the tax system and get a handle on the national debt and deficit "in a way that's balanced and sensible." "We are on the path to recovery, but it's got to accelerate," Mr. Obama said.
 Obama has not a lot of time to jump on the wagon to create jobs ,  18 months is not a enough time on something he should of started FOUR YEARS AGO . "If 54,000 new jobs is the new standard, it's going to be a very, very rough 2012 for President Obama," Carville said on the Don Imus radio show, as simulcast on the Fox Business Network and reported by The Hill.    Job creation involves real "Socialism"  not a new  Economic stimulus " . Socialism is a BAD WORD . Obama has neither the guts to do it , The dismal  9.1  % unemployment on the national level only misses the point on  government intervention to prevent a national  disaster in 2012 .“This jobs report which would be weak in any economy comes at a particularly devastating time, when the labor market remains 6.9 million payroll jobs below where it was at the official start of the recession three years and five months ago,” Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute said in her report on the data for May. There should have been a government program on job creation . It takes more than just money to do it , and then too sit back and wait to see if any government money in the long run pays for job creation . The showdown is just around the corner .
Enter Charles Krauthammer . Who Warned  thus:
 The Republicans swept November's midterm election by making it highly ideological, a referendum on two years of hyper-liberalism - of arrogant, overreaching, intrusive government drowning in debt and running deficits of $1.5 trillion annually. It's not complicated. To govern left in a center-right country where four out of five citizens are non liberal is a prescription for electoral defeat.


Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Wisconsin & Obama 2012 .

Wisconsin may have become the most radicalized states to embrace controversial reforms .Take for instance legislation to require voters to show photo identification cards at the polls and to deregulate elements of the telecommunications industry. And the Republican-dominated Legislature is now in the midst of advancing provisions to expand school vouchers, to allow people to carry concealed weapons, to cut financing for Planned Parenthood and to bar illegal immigrants from paying in-state tuition at Wisconsin’s universities.
There is a sure SIGN that America could fall under the spell of Right Wing Conservatism . Should Obama lose the election in 2012? Wisconsin is a warning to the rest of the NATION . Of course there are a lot of angry people . Now planning to do a RECALL .
New, special elections are expected in as many as nine Senate districts (six of which are now held by Republicans) as part of the largest recall effort against state lawmakers in Wisconsin’s history — an effort that grew out of yet another controversial measure Republicans pushed through this spring, a sharp reduction to collective bargaining rights for public workers .Some might believe this topic to be dealing with the unthinkable, but I don't believe that it really is. The pundits currently state over and over again that he is a shoe-in, but I don't believe for one minute that this is true. The same pundits also told us that the Republican party was dead, until they (the media) brought them back to life with the made-up-by-the-media Teaparty. We thought good health care reform was possible, until the media made sure that enough turned against any reforms whatsoever.  NOW HEALTH CARE is worse than EVER .We thought Financial Regulations would be welcomed after the 2008 meltdown, but regulations were fought against tooth and nail by large corps and their money, and our media didn't help. BANKS GOT RICHER , and THE MARKET picked up .This question is being asked because I am reading here a lot from folks who have decided that they may not vote for, work for or donate to this President's re-election campaign.SO FAR NOTHING HAS CHANGED . The Ultra Right is gaining , and bringing on the table reforms could spread to other states
The Conservatives are getting their teeth in Obama these days , and they are just chomping at him left and right . The Wisconsin model is for the extreme, how a government could and should react to BUDGET crisis  , but I do not believe it's either CORRECT . The Warning Sign is there for the DEMOCRATS to get on the BALL .
.

Monday, June 6, 2011

California budget Prediction . Will be LATE AGAIN.

California legislators prepare for another frantic day of working on the budget


The California Constitution mandates that a budget be passed by June 15 of each year. The legislature finally did pass the budget on March 17, 2011, a mere nine months late, but still has not acted on how to fund it. Specifically, will redevelopment agencies be axed and tax hikes be extended? Remember this . The TAX EXTENSIONS will not happen , it all a big smoke screen by the State Government ( Gov. Brown )  to play games rather than to settle with a bipartisan budget plan . How's that? Remember the Games that Arnold played with the Democrats by vetoing their budget plan , now it's Jerry's turn !  The same games , and NO BUDGET . I can't say that  I am a psychic , but the vary nature of the way things were done in the PAST only Proves that NO BUDGET will be done before September of 2011 . June 15trh will come and go , and July 1 as well . Heehaw. 
It is now almost one year past the deadline and due to the endlessly squabbling, the California Legislature has failed to act on funding. Heck, they probably won’t even pass funding for last year’s budget before this year’s budget vote is due! And they’ll probably ignore that deadline too. In fact, they’ve only passed a budget on time five times since 1980.
Thus, California lawmakers would appear to be in violation of the Constitution. Since they continually ignore the Constitution, the only conclusion that can be reached is that they are contemptuous of it or think it doesn’t apply to them. Since there are no penalties for not passing a budget, they are free to ignore it. Gosh, what an inspiring message for the youth of California. Maybe one day you too can grow up and ignore the Constitution.


In November, voters approved Proposition 25, which said state lawmakers would be docked their pay if they were late in approving a “budget bill.” Earlier this year, the Legislature approved several billion dollars in budget cuts, but not enough to craft a balanced budget. Some were arguing that those budget cuts were enough to constitute a “budget bill” — meaning lawmakers shouldn’t get their pay cut if a balanced budget isn’t approved by June 15. The Secretary of the Senate, Greg Schmidt, even told the Los Angeles Times that what’s needed for lawmakers to get paid this year “has already been done.”
Well, apparently, the State Controller isn’t buying it. In a prepared statement released this morning, Chiang said “In passing Proposition 25 last November, voters clearly stated they expect their representatives to make the difficult decisions needed to resolve any budget shortfalls by the mandatory deadline, or be penalized.  I will enforce the voters’ demand.”
In other words, the clock is ticking if state lawmakers want to continue to get paid. The state still must address a $9.6 billion deficit. Gov. Jerry Brown wants to extend taxes implemented in 2009 to cover the gap. Republican lawmakers — so far — have been steadfastly against it. There is talk, however, that a Republicans are open to extending the taxes in exchange for pension reform and a hard spending cap, among other things.
There’s also talk, incidentally, that lawmakers will begin earnest negotiations next week, on June 8, starting, possibly, with a lock in of one or both houses. Locking lawmakers in to the Capitol, of course, creates pressure to get a deal done. Cutting their pay, obviously, will create some pressure too.


I would like to SEE the UNIONS instead of PROTESTING the "CUTS" . TO GO and PICKET SACRAMENTO to get the LAWMAKERS to get the JOB done.   


Saturday, June 4, 2011

A Weiner 's Problem.

New Weinergate Theory:  Weiner told the press to go frak themselves yesterday, so we're now saying he's guilty of something.After days of denials, a choked-up Rep. Anthony Weiner confessed Monday that he tweeted a photo of his bulging underpants to a young woman, and he also admitted to "inappropriate" exchanges with six women before and after he got married. He apologized for lying but said he would not resign.
Look at the recent list of casualties: Spitzer, Edwards, Sheen, Ensign, Schwarzenegger, Strauss-Kahn, Gingrich, and now Weiner. Isn't it reasonable to ask politicians - before they receive millions from their respective parties -  to take a non-invasive test to determine their mental and emotional fitness? I'm not talking about a federal law here. It should be obvious to the GOP that there is good reason to do this. The results of such tests should be sealed, of course.
A few hours spent in this way could spare us - and our nation - an enormous amount of grief. Can we afford not to do it?


Weiner’s actions raise questions: At first glance, it was easy to dismiss the story that a lewd photo to a young woman had come from Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) Twitter account. The explanation: Weiner’s account was hacked, and that seems like a common thing these days. But the congressman’s actions over the past 24 hours have raised more questions than answered them. For one thing, he hired an attorney. Second, and more importantly, he refused to answer reporters’ simple question on whether or not he sent the photo. Question: Was it from you or not? Weiner’s non-answer: “If I were giving a speech to 45,000 people and someone in the back threw a pie or yelled out an insult, I would not spend the next two hours of my speech responding to that pie or insult.” Third, he refused to answer why he was following the young woman on Twitter. Here’s this truism about Washington scandals: If someone is guilty, it’s never an isolated incident. Weiner has now put himself in a position of having to prove innocence -- which is never a good place to be for a politician, especially one who resides in the media capital of the world.

So sayeth Chuck Todd's crew at MSNBC, so shall it now be the "truth".  Andrew Breitbart?  Totally believable.  Anthony Weiner?  Dirty liar.  Also he's following someone on Twitter, which is illegal when a Democrat does it.

You guys should have stuck with the first assumption, because one of Joe Cannon's readers over at Cannonfire has figured out how the hoax was pulled off and has reproduced the method.  The vulnerability was in the yfrog.com picture service and not Twitter.

Not only that. Believe it or not, when an outsider sends a pic to someone else's Yfrog account in this fashion, the action creates a message in the "twitterstream." The message seems to originate with the Twitter account holder -- but it doesn't. It comes from somewhere else -- from someone mailing a picture to the account holder.

This is a serious security flaw in the design of Yfrog and Twitter. It allows a malicious outsider to "spoof" a tweet that seems to come from someone else.

Click on the image below (to enlarge it) and examine the "twitterstream." You'll see what I mean.

Please understand that I have never sent a single tweet in my entire life.

The first two instances were created automatically, when I uploaded those first two test pictures to Yfrog (as outlined in previous posts). The third instance was created when milowent sent a pic to my Yfrog address.

Both the tweet and the image seem to originate with me, but they did not.

This was the perfect frame. We know it was a frame because of the URL address beneath the header -- or rather, the lack thereof in the Weiner "crotch shot" screen cap.

Oops.  A little detective work seems to indicate that using the Yfrog.com vulnerability is a much, much more likely explanation as to what really happened.  So yes, that could explain why Weiner lawyered up, too.  So would I, I'd want to know what my rights and legal recourse options were if I were a public figure like Rep. Weiner is.

So, somebody want to explain to me how this isn't a hit job on one of the most outspoken liberals in Congress?

Ahh, but I have to keep the Democrat Stupidity tag because Weiner keeps refusing to say that the picture isn't of him.  Sigh.

If this is something as stupid as an old girlfriend getting revenge, or someone hacking the guy's hard drive because hey, he kept a picture of his junk on it, admitting to that would actually be better in the long run than the long, slow death of his career by Breitbart and News Corp.

[UPDATE]  Looks like A. Weiner will set the record straight on The Rachel Maddow Show tonight.

There needs to be a petition . A new Law for any one in a political office .
With Edward's Misconduct, and   the list of many US Senators falling from Grace . It's TIME FOR CONGRESS TO STOP MESSING AROUND .


HERE IS A SET STANDARDS FOR CONGRESS :
Raise ethical standards for Congress members and staff

  • Ban campaign gifts, salaries or payments to family members; its just legalized bribery.
  • Require all ethics investigations be published for the public to review including "settlement" payments for sexual harassment.
  • Eliminate all "secret" votes.
  • Ban the ability of Congress members to "erase" comments made on the floor -- if they said it, it needs to be part of the permanent record (no more letting spin-doctors clean-up their mistrakes.)
  • Expel Members who are convicted of ethical breaches.
  • Require that all findings that indicate criminal actions be released to US Attorney or District Attorney; including solicitation, bribery, theft, and assault.
  • Any Member of Congress who violates their oath, is convicted of a crime or is guilty of ethical violations, should be expelled from Congress.

Thursday, June 2, 2011

The 'Sentence and the Dollars' .

The American Justice system is one of the 'strangest in the world' , and this is my own opinion. The Case in point is about sentencing of Phillip and Nancy Garrido . Phillip Garrido was given the max of 431 years . These rather long prison sentences puzzle me . The Dollars involved to incarcerate Garrido could amount to millions of dollars ,along with prison health benefits within a decade . NO HUMAN BEING is going to live for 431 years . The Judge could of sentenced him to life in prison , but the legal system can't carry out the death penalty , so it has to jump to absurdities . When it applies to sex offenders , like Garrido who was a registered sex offender  '.the system failed' , he was out with no supervision . This 'justice' failure lead to the kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard..But setting a sentence that is longer than a human life span means that once a person gets time off for good behaviour, etc it still remains beyond a human life span. It basically means that the person dies in prison. If you set a sentence that means a person gets released at 100 years of age it is possible that they may alive to be be released on an early license.Madoff only got a sentence of 150 years. California is the state where people serve 30 years for marijuana possession violations. They get life sentences under the 3-strikes law.

We look to California when people start talking about "zero-tolerance" going to its logical conclusion. 


The press would would then GO into a  panic , we have a recent report of :


The warning is out about a high-risk sex offender in San Jose.
Police say 61-year-old Wayne Allen Page has the potential to re-offend. They aren't saying specifically why, but he has not been supervised since being paroled for rape and kidnapping in February.
On Wednesday, officers will hand out flyers around Payne Avenue and San Tomas Expressway warning people that page is living in their neighborhood.

It sounds familiar with the Dugard case . A high RISK individual is  OUT . LOCK YOUR DOORS. Like Garrido before,  Wayne Allen Page is free to roam the streets. Here is my theory . Wayne Allen Page was let out to make room for Garrido .
Meanwhile our prisons are overcrowded. Prisoners are being regurgitated back onto the streets. Repeat offenders are rampant. The legal system is clogged beyond belief with frivolous appeals filed by inmates .Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
> it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
.

Yeah...reasonable.