Saturday, September 29, 2012

Rushing at the Polls.

With President Obama The deepening recession is taking a slight toll on President Barack Obama's standing, but he's still twice as popular as archnemesis Rush Limbaugh, according to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll. consistently beating Mitt Romney in most of the recent national opinion polls, hearing the rage of Rush Limbaugh’s Less than half of likely GOP primary voters in three Super Tuesday states said they have a favorable view of Limbaugh – 45 percent favorable to 28 percent unfavorable in Ohio, 46-29 percent in Tennessee, and 44-30 percent in Georgia — a Public Policy Polling survey in those states found.You have to look at the numbers if they poll 5oo people and they know going in that they are polling a group of 500 that lean right or left the poll is skewed. The polls will correct in about 4 weeks to save what crediblilty the polling company has. Watch Rasmusson he has been bore correct than most. The left has to try to surpress the right it is the only thing they have. That is why the odd polls. Anytime you see CBS, USA today or NY Times before a poll you should know the numbers have been cooked.You need to take a real close look at both the sampling and methodologies of those polls. Other than Ras, the others have been consistently shown to be over sampling democrats and seriously undersampling independents. These same entities admit that the right base is more energized than the left then continue to oversample left leaning voters. They are using sampling sizes based on the last presidential election but Obama's base is seriously depressed compared to 2008. A better sample  rate would be to use 2010 which is closer to what Ras uses. If they do not correct themselves they are in for a shock come Nov.The skewed polls meme has taken over much of conservative media. According to many conservative critics, the current set polls, which show President Obama leading nationally and in key battleground states, are all wrong because they over sample Democrats. To correct this “skewing”, Dean Chambers of has recalculated every poll with more Republican-friendly party identification samples. Chambers essentially reverses the results of every poll, showing Mitt Romney with a big lead even though the pollster reports otherwise.The truth actually probably lies somewhere in the middle. Rather than assuming everything will go the way of Republicans or Democrats, the pollsters simply ask questions to respondents, and then report their numbers assuming neither side wins all of the unknowns. What the pollsters are reporting is the real version of “unskewed polls.” Karl Rove and other Republican strategists are suggesting that some polling organizations are overestimating the number of Democratic voters, but that argument is largely a red herring. In many swing states, successive polls carried out by the same pollsters, using the same sampling procedure, have showed Obama gaining ground. Even polling organizations that tend to lean Republican have found the same trend.


. By double digits, Americans say women would be better off under an Obama presidency; men would be better off under a Romney presidency. Given that, it's hardly surprising that female voters nationwide and in some crucial swing states have boosted Obama while male voters are inclined to support Romney.
With one group, though, there seems to be a disconnect. Those 65 and older are the age group that most strongly backs Romney. But by 11 points, Americans say seniors would fare better over the next four years if Obama prevails.
In contrast, voters under 30 are Obama's best age group. By 13 points, Americans say young people will do better if the president wins a second term.
The decisive judgments of which groups that would be winners in an Obama or Romney presidency is a sign of how sharply defined the two candidates have become. Investors would do better under Romney, those surveyed say by an overwhelming 41 points. Racial and ethnic minorities would do better under Obama, they say by an equally huge 42 points.
Only one group fell right in the middle: Small-business owners. By 47%-47%, those surveyed divided over whether they would do better under Obama or Romney. For the other nine groups named, Americans by double digits and well outside the survey's margin of error say they would fare better under one or the other.
The poll of 1,446 adults, taken Monday through Thursday, has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Obama 's Apologetic s @ the U. N.

Obama again apologizes to Muslims.
Obama's UN speech today is can be broken down as a "kissing up speech to Muslims" , Yes again he is apologizing . It must be called a  mea culpa. Our   President  should never apologize for this country's values, especially to the United Nations. Granted, Innocence of Muslims is a noxious film, but that is why America has free speech.  Like he said , The First Amendment is there to protect offensive words, not speech that everyone agrees with. Together trying to look strong at the UN .Obama of course blaming  the film trailer for **  the assassination of ambassador Chris Stevens, despite all the evidence showing al-Qaeda had been planning it for months. In fact, Stevens was worried he was on a terrorist hit list, and told friends about it. Each case like Mitt Romney 's 47 % gaff . Sure enough this UN speech is a gaff of it's own . It looks good to the detail on "preaching" Americanism , but it changes nothing to the "people " who don't value our free -speech system . Like his 2009 speech at Cairo Egypt . Obama struggles to convince Islamist s that America is their friend.  But not stopping there, Obama stressed that the film was offensive to him, suggesting it was also offensive to millions of Americans despite its relative obscurity.  With Chaos raging our President's apologetic tactfulness , the  broader range of crises in the Arab world this year is especially uncomfortable to address for Mr. Obama, who has built his foreign policy approach to Muslim countries on a more-moral philosophy that emphasizes encouragement for pro-democracy movements and puts less focus on military solutions.With protests of the U.S. roiling the Middle East, several analysts said they expect Mr. Obama will have to walk a fine line by defending a filmmaker’s right to free speech while rejecting the anti-Islam message of his film.“Islamic leaders in the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and even Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan have all announced a push to criminalize speech that offends Muslims,” said Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “It is essential that Obama remember his roots as a law lecturer and give an impassioned defense of the importance of free speech. Free speech ­— the basic right upon which centuries of progress has been based — is under unprecedented assault. It’s time for Obama to stand up and lead rather than merely react with platitudes and apologies.”


** And while Obama’s kinder, gentler outreach to the Muslim world was unraveling in Morsi’s newly Islamist Egypt, in Libya U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was making history as the first U.S. ambassador to be murdered in the line of duty since Adolph Dubs was killed in Afghanistan in 1979.
One of the most astonishing aspects of the murder of Ambassador Stevens--along with three other Americans—was that like the attacks in Egypt, U.S. officials had credible intelligence of a possible attack on the Benghazi embassy forty-eight hours before it happened.

Monday, September 24, 2012

On Prop 32.

Like it or not we are a were at a crossroads in California As the Field Poll revealed in July, “Californians have had an extremely gloomy view of the state’s economy since 2008. … Currently nine out of 10 residents … describe the state’s economy as being in bad times.” The data is a couple months old, but nothing suggests any drastic change since then. Well I just received my union's magazine  'Focus' , plus numerous telephone call asking me to vote yes on Prop 30 and no on Prop 32 . #  My breakdown of this initiative is as follows  : 
Meanwhile, the latest polling for the two highest-profile November ballot initiatives brings good news for those who embrace the status quo. A Public Policy Institute of California survey shows Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which would temporarily increase the state sales tax and income taxes on those earning at least $250,000 a year, ahead, 52 percent to 40 percent. By the way, how often have you met a temporary tax hike that actually goes away?Furthermore, PPIC reports that voters have soured on perhaps the most significant statewide initiative on the statewide ballot.Happy Labor Day! But whether a union represents you or not, your vote will help decide a November ballot measure that is keeping labor leaders up at night. Proposition 32, according toits advocates, “stops special interests from taking political deductions from employee paychecks to guarantee every dollar given for politics is strictly voluntary.” Proposition 32 resembles proposals attempted in 1988 by Gov. George Deukmejian and again in 2005 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. At the ballot box, both failed by wide margins.  But critics say: “This measure says it prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. It says it also applies to corporations, so it sounds balanced. But 99 percent of California corporations don’t use payroll deductions for political giving; they would still be allowed to use their profits to influence elections.”  Which argument influences you? Prop. 32, a “paycheck protection” measure that is losing, 49 percent to 42 percent. (Even though support for it is fading, PPIC found a solid majority of voters in favor of the goals of the initiative, which makes California voters even more perplexing.)The proposition stops the state’s politically dominant unions from using automatic payroll deductions to finance their political activities. The initiative has some other features, such as a bans on political payroll deductions from corporations, on direct giving to political candidates and on political donations from government contractors seeking favors. One major California union called   ** Prop. 32 “the Death Star for unions,” which is an overstatement, but illustrates how concerned the unions are about this proposition. Consider why it is on the Nov. 6 ballot. Last year, Brown signed Senate Bill 202, requiring ballot initiatives to be decided during general elections, not during lower-turnout primary elections. “Everyone knows that passing SB202 was to diminish chances that voters would pass a so-called ‘paycheck protection’ measure that would eat into unions’ ability to gather campaign funds from public employees – money that almost always goes to Democrats,” opined Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters. Unions are NOT muzzled by this. Their ability to spend union dues for the latest democrat shill that promises to continue to bankrupt are state is the problem here. Unions  Members can still support whatever candidate they want, and they could certainly go and ask their union members to contribute if they choose, just stop using union dues to back candidates that the union members themselves do not support.


** Unions brought us the 40-hour work week, 8 hour workday with paid overtime, child labor laws, safety and better working conditions, in many companies vacation time and sick leave, etc. Anti-union workers today instead of being grateful for the benefits they do have, have been convinced by corporate shills and their "friends at Fox, that their fellow working men and women are their enemies! Job well done 1%!

#  I have to admit. Trying to keep track of what your UNION does for you with your money is a difficult road . If you are a 'Republican' and you have to belong to a union , you KNOW that your union's  politicking  may not be to your own interests . Even with a union blitzkrieg against Scott Walker in Wisconsin, 38% of union members voted for Scott Walker. Similar results have been logged elsewhere in other states and other elections: a high percentage of union members do not agree with their union leaders being in the pocket of the Democrat Party.

Friday, September 21, 2012

The Anti-Islam riots are anti- Islamic.

 ^^ In the name of Allah , the compassionate and the Merciful. 
While the riots  continue . Muslims are killing Muslims in an angry Jihad .
Pakistani protesters hold a banner depicting U.S. President Barack Obama and pastor Terry Jones during a rally in Peshawar, Pakistan
 ** Wide spread rioting has erupted into the Arab world over a film  A 13-minute amateur trailer for the film "Innocence of Muslims" depicts the prophet Muhammad as a womanizer, child molester and criminal. Though the clip had been available for at least several weeks on the Internet, protests over the film last week erupted in nearly two dozen countries, and several American embassies were attacked. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, were killed. For the most part of the rioting as  I have come to note that much of the 'violence' that is  directed toward America seems to be killing Muslims everyplace. WTF is wrong here? ACT has posted a set of statistics that demonstrates the real violence against Muslims, it is not Jews, Christians or even America that is leading the pack in Muslim Genocide, but rather other Muslims.  ## These numbers (almost 10 million killed by other Muslims) defy rationality and surely anyone with half a brain can see where the real problem lies. Islam may or may not be a peaceful religion, but the people who dominate the religion and are the face that the world sees as representation of the religion, surely are far from peaceful. What has troubled me over the years , and it must be obvious to the Imans who issue Fatwas that for the most part which is contrary to the "teachings of the Prophet Muhammad who forbade any Muslim from killing Muslims " . Of course these riots against America seem so pointless that it only serves to "demonize" Islam to any converts  Perhaps some think this to be intelligent in the long run, that over 1,000 years of violence between the two sects of Islam will not result in the use of these weapons against each other, ignoring that more Muslims have been killed by other Muslims than by all infidels in history. In the battle against unbelievers, can one also kill Muslims? Even the terror network al-Qaida is troubled by this question. NO surprise that al-Qaida kills more Muslims than non-Muslims -- particularly for people in the Islamic world. But a new report by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at the United States' Military Academy at West Point in New York -- which has gathered together these and other relevant figures in one report ("Deadly Vanguards: A Study Of al-Qaida's Violence Against Muslims "), spells out the discrepancy in black and white.  @ They are nothing more than the Middle Eastern equivalent of the mob. When will these people (now w/internet and cell phones) wake up???

^^ In the name of Allah the compassionate and the Merciful. Every opening of the Quran (Koran ) Open's with this introduction . That is supposed to relay the idea that (God) is Compassionate and Merciful to all . Has the Modern followers of the Prophet done so ? So far all the rioting , and violence is un becoming a Muslim .

**The deadliest violence occurred in the southern port city of Karachi, where 14 people were killed, said hospital officials. More than 80 people were injured, said the top government official in the city, Roshan Ali Shaikh. At least three of the dead were policemen, one who died when hundreds of protesters attacked a police station.
 ## “some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”
 @ It’s funny. 9/11, and other terrorist attacks on the West, not to mention the terror attacks against other Muslims are a result of a modern society clashing with a  primitive, less adaptive society, all because of natural resources possessed by Middle East countries which brings an influx of foreign investments and interest. In essence, the Muslim world had been defeated; the problem is that they sit on resources we need.  So what happens? Our governments interfere, manipulate, which helps radicals foster a hate for us. All the while, strengthened dictatorships become more oppressive.  The Islamic world is fractured, broken, and united only in hate . Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims more than they do to Western aggression. [...]

Thursday, September 20, 2012

So what did Mr. Romney say?

Mitt should worry about the poor, but that's  not what he said.

Well Mr. Romney why did you open your mouth? OK . Now everything is now overblown . I really don't care what Romney said. The 1-year anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, where the chant was "We are the 99%," and 2. The day we got the video of Mitt Romney talking to his affluent donors and saying "There are 47% who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. These are people who pay no income tax." That was a paraphrase on what Romney said. Remember too about the 99% , who make up part of the 47 %  ?
Any how Romney's transcript follows :
** "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement, and that government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 -- he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect.

"So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not."
I didn't quote the worst part: "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
I don't know if there is anything wrong about saying that to  take personal responsibility and care for their lives is wrong . Mitt Romney is not wrong from an electoral perspective about what he said. He’s right, polls are consistently showing that Obama holds a statistically insignificant lead over Romney nationally, and battleground states across the country are even closer. Romney is right to say that a large majority of Americans feel victimized, and in large part Obama plays on this with his campaign rhetoric as well.  From an electoral perspective, he’s right to do so if he wants to get elected. In America’s two-party system, it is critical to put divergent blocs of people together within your coalition to win. Mitt Romney’s comments are not bothersome because they correctly identified the fact that too many people in this country are reliant upon government assistance and re-distributive policies. It’s bothersome because he put a number out there: 10%, 50%, 99% ... it doesn't matter. The philosophical base that these people have is what’s dangerous, and regardless if one person or one hundred million people hold that philosophy, we need to ensure our government institutions reject that philosophy. Our government is here to protect rights, individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

** 1) Most of 47 percent of Americans who aren't paying income taxes don't get away tax free: Nearly two-thirds pay payrolltaxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution.2) Of that smaller group that pays no income taxes orpayroll taxes, more than half are elderly -- a population thatskewed heavily Republican in the 2010 elections -- and over a third are low-income, earning less than $20,000 a year, according to the Tax Policy Center.3) Romney says his "job is not to worry about those people," assuming people who pay no income taxes are likely to vote Democratic. However, the Tax Foundation found that the states with the highest percentages of people who don't pay income taxes are overwhelmingly red.4) Finally, as New York Times columnist David Brooks pointed out in his reflections this morning on Romney's comments, people who rely on government funding are a diverse group of stakeholders, including everyone from veterans receiving health care from the V.A. to students receiving college loans. It's not just the poor and elderly.

It has now come out that, despite the claim of releasing the "full" video, Mother Jones is apparently now admitting that they released an edited version which cuts out what they claim is "one to two minutes" of Romney's response and then jump-cuts to him addressing another question.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

California Tax Civil war.

The Mercury News today has an article " Schools spit by dueling taxes" ( Sept, 2012 ) . This article is detailing  how much our tax rates will go up under Propositions 30 & 38 . Not as much as our states Public school system crying afoul ** .   $ Well that 1.6 %  tax increase for me as a single filer who makes close to 50,000 a year is a bit meager to the "big" picture on taxation.In California the state with with the title "king of tax" . Sometimes I wish we had our own Boston Tea Party to throw the "governor's tea in the state harbor" . With revenues  always going bonk , the state always is looking for a hand out from us little guys Both initiatives place a heavy burden on ALL Californians. We already have some of the highest taxes in the nation. This, coupled with the severe fiscal mismanagement in Sacramento, frame a situation that we can not afford. We need to see some reforms in the way of fiscal responsibility before Sacramento can be trusted with MORE money. Going back to Propositions 30 & 38 both of them will likely confuse the voter,  face two conflicting tax measures on the November ballot. The first is backed by Gov. Jerry Brown, whose attempt to close the budget gap by raising personal income taxes through the state legislature failed late last year. Instead, Brown made a plea directly to the people with a petition drive. Prop 30, an initiative constitutional amendment also known as the Schools & Local Public Safety Protection Act, is the result of that campaign. The other tax measure is Prop 38, which has been funded almost exclusively by its proponent, wealthy tax attorney  # Molly Munger. Both ballot measures put the focus on protecting education funding, but they go about it in different ways.The likelihood of open warfare between Gov. Jerry Brown and civil rights attorney Molly Munger, who have rival tax increase measures on the November ballot, has increased with the formation by Brown's supporters of a committee to oppose Munger.While polls indicate that Brown's measure has bare majority support, Proposition 38 falls below 50 percent, largely because it would hike income taxes on a wider segment of socety. And that appears to be the focus of the new anti-Munger committee.Munger has criticized Brown's measure for purporting to bolster school spending while giving little or no new money to education, but has not indicated yet whether she'll finance an opposition campaign to Proposition 30. Munger, whose personal wealth stems in large part from her father'sbusiness partnership with billionaire Warren Buffett, has clashed with Governor Brown's camp for months over whether multiple tax hikes on the same ballot would lead voters to summarily reject all of them.  The 63-year old Pasadena attorney told reporters this past winter that she wasn't going to "just do what the king says" in setting aside her $10 billion a year income tax increase for K-12 schools.

Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:

Seems here . The Rich Taxing the Poor?

Trickle, trickle, trickle. Unfortunately our leaders in Sacramento continue to take away from the wrong well. They should be serious about reforming the unsustainable pensions liabilities we have in California. As we saw a few days ago the Democratic Senate leader cut of the mic at a budget debate so we "the general public" would not be exposed to the sausage making. Now they want to continue to keep us in the dark as they shift the burden of information to the municipal level. We should not allow them to treat us like kids. The strongest voice we have is at the ballot box; let's remind them that we are grown-ups as they ask us for more of our money to waste in their propositions in Nov.


Current California (not federal) income tax for a couple with no children, 5 taxable income levels:

$20,000 - ~$250 total state income taxes (~1.25% of income)
$50,000 - ~$1,180 total state income taxes (~2.4% of income)
$100,000 - ~$4,700 total state income taxes (~4.7% of income)
$200,000 - ~14,000 total state income taxes (~7% of income)
$1,000,000 - ~$88,400 total state income taxes (~8.8% of income)

There is a similar breakdown (about 2.5-3x as much per category) for federal income taxes.

So why are we hitting those already giving the most, while arguing they aren't paying their fair share?

If we need more money, why not charge everyone the same percentage of their income - another $200 for the couple earning $20K, another $1K for the $100K couple. 

**Schools Crying afoul.........Like most states, California has seen a dramatic cut in education funding, most speakers at the event pointed out. “Today many schools don’t have paint or clay or a sculpture teacher. I’m tired of knowing and thinking about the budget crisis. I want to do something,” said Nathan, who became interested in educational funding after her daughter brought home an orange clay bunny she had made at school. It was orange, Nathan said, because her teacher only had enough funds for three paint color choices.

 #Brown and Munger both want to raise taxes by tens of billions of dollars.  That means the cost of products and services will go up while employment will go down.  They mean to harm the “rich”.  Instead it will be poor kids hurt the worst.    Molly Munger is taking on big interests and our very own Governor (Jerry Brown) here in California. She is spending millions of dollars of her own personal money to put a tax code change on the California Ballout and Jerry Brown wants her to Back Off. But Molly has been a prosecutor, a woman who became a partner of 2 male dominated law firms and an advocate for children's rights & education always. She and Connie Rice were awarded the Martin Luther King Human Dignity Award for their excellence.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Ok where is Mr. Obama?

Looking for President Obama? Guess what..........

We just got to be kidding our selves this week.  This week things just took a rough edge . Focusing on the Chicago Teacher strike first.  I just waiting for Obama to jump the lines and side with the teacher union on their issues . Yet not a whimper from the Oval office . Hum ho. While the Teacher strike may end soon , it was just a bit overblown . Most of the 300,000 children could not attend school . They had no place to go as was reported  Chicago’s Democratic mayor and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff for one took the seat for a Wisconsin hard line.  What is more, the strike pits organized labor against myriad wealthy liberals — vital donor to Democratic coffers — many of whom contribute heavily to efforts to finance charter schools and weaken teachers’ unions. with a strike pitting two of Mr. Obama’s most prominent allies against each other — the teachers’ union and Mr. Emanuel — the president could face many land mines if he steps into this battle.It only gets more complicated for him if the strike drags on for a long time,” said Joe Williams, executive director of  *** Democrats for Education Reform, a national advocacy group that has often battled teachers’ unions. “President Obama really has to thread the needle here.”After a day of silence, the Obama administration addressed the ongoingstrike of the Chicago Teachers Union, a blistering fight that has divided labor, one of the most reliable bases for the Democratic party, against Democratic Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. Chicago has one of the highest poverty schools in the nation .“I hope that the parties will come together to settle this quickly and get our kids back in the classroom," U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement. "I’m confident that both sides have the best interests of the students at heart, and that they can collaborate at the bargaining table –- as teachers and school districts have done all over the country –- to reach a solution that puts kids first.” Well we just have to wait this out because of other nation problems. Jumping ahead for internal problems we arrive at another  point of test for the Obama administration .  Secondly ....One of the stupidest situations just out of the trick of the blue  .  Federal authorities have concluded that a 55-year-old Egypt-born Coptic Christian man living in the Los Angeles area was the key figure behind the anti-Islam film  ## "Innocence of Muslims," blamed for sparking riots and protests in the Middle East, the Associated Press reported Thursday, quoting an unidentified U.S. law enforcement official. I am not laughing here folks . I just watched the Video on YouTube it's akin to a silk burlesque show . It really defames the "character" of Islam's Prophet to a degree if I were a Muslim ( am not ) I too would be offended . Worse off it was dumb as a film  . So the Arab Spring now has turned into the Arab blood feast ? . We had our Embassy attacked undoubtedly by some terrorist group who planed it  in advance . Judging by the date near September 11th  . @  Now protests are spreading like crazy .Police in Sanaa shot in the air, but failed to prevent crowds from gaining access to the embassy compound and setting fire to vehicles.Security force reinforcements used tear gas, water cannon and live fire to drive protesters back.There were reports of injuries on both sides, although the Reuters news agency carried a statement from the embassy saying there were none. More recently . Just showing you how  ^^ STUPID people are here is what a top Israeli Arab Knesset official warned of “Armageddon” if the United Nations does not intervene. “If the U.N. does not mobilize to stop this erosion, it will be Armageddon,” MK Talab el-Sana told the Israeli paper.

***  Both the NEA and the AFT have strongly endorsed Obama's re-election despite his administration's support of policies to expand charter schools, weaken tenure and base teacher evaluations on how much student performance improves. The Chicago strike could test that alliance, as Obama declines to take a public stand supporting the union. Of  Course of he wanted the 'vote' he should had jumped to solidarity with the teachers . After all he went for Gay rights .
## A trailer for the amateurish film, posted on YouTube in July and later reposted after being translated into Arabic, portrays Muhammad, believed by Muslims to be God’s prophet, variously as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser. A man who said his name was "Sam Bacile" claimed to have made the film in an interview on Tuesday.If the movie was intended to provoke violence among Muslims and the Violence caused the Death of a US ambassador then should not the people who created the movie be held responsible. The Hard part would be proving intent but I think it could be done there intent was to provoke a response and it did cause the death of a US Ambassador then the makers of the movie are as guilty of the Death as those who did it. @ In other developments:
  • Mr Abu Shagur says there is "no justification" for the Benghazi attack and investigations are under way to find the "criminals" responsible
  • Russia says it fears "chaos" in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia condemns both the film and the violence
  • Iranians chanting anti-US and anti-Israel slogans stage a protest outside the Swiss embassy in the Iranian capital, Tehran, which represents US interests
  • Afghan President Hamid Karzai has postponed a planned visit to Norway, fearing violence could erupt in his country
  • There were small protests in Bangladesh and Iraq, in addition to Morocco, Sudan and Tunisia
  • Security has been increased at US embassies and consulates around the world; US officials say a marine anti-terrorism team is being deployed to Libya and two destroyers to the Libyan coast as a precautionary measure
  • ^^ STUPID PEOPLE. I might get heat for this , but I find that Most predominately Muslims  nations the people seem to be less educated , and seem to go for random acts of violence . Killing innocents in a war of Jihad puts Islam in a downward spiral with other religions . I don't see American Muslims jumping around Washington D.C. with loaded guns over the film . I think the film's makers need to be prosecuted for inciting violence  ( which was there goal ) , perhaps hate crimes.

Sunday, September 9, 2012

September 11th , what if's .....

Erase 9/11 and the local political scene would be similarly transfigured

With September 11th coming up. I wanted to summarize a 'what if scenario' . What our world would have been like if the fatal hijacking terrorist plot never happened . We would still see two twin towers over looking the Manhattan skyline. Better yet there would be obvious scenarios right out out of science fiction , and an alternative timeline. Imagine that the twin towers still dominated the Manhattan skyline. Imagine that the Pentagon’s western facade had remained intact. Imagine that there was no reason to build a memorial in Shanksville, Pa. And imagine that the numbers 9 and 11 meant nothing more than an emergency telephone call.Historians and novelists love constructing “what if” scenarios: What if Hitler had won World War II? What if the Confederacy had prevailed in the Civil War? What if a Chinese sailor, rather than Columbus, had discovered America? First off former President Bush would have come out a much better President than he is viewed now , for sure we would have not have had the economic meltdown that happened in 2008. We would have not had a President Obama either . In this parallel universe, that group of voters might have stayed with the GOP rather than defecting to the Democrats in great numbers in 2008 — and would have wielded more influence in contemporary politics than the tea party movement. And unlike Obama, a Democratic president in a world without 9/11 might have paid less attention to right-leaning independents and governed as more of a progressive.  That means Barack Obama might still be a senator from Illinois. There would have been no history-making first African American president, no birth-certificate controversy — and  ** Obama could still be friends with his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah WrightWhy  am I saying this ? Well lets figure the September 11 attacks greatly ruined America's economic system that has sent the deficit through the roof with war costs . American politics would have unfolded in vastly different ways. Assume that, with no 9/11 to use as a pretext to invade Iraq, the election of 2004 would have been a peacetime contest, centered largely on economic issues. It may seem minor compared with today’s  $ economic difficulties, but  after 9/11  followed the crash of the tech bubble, and the subsequent bubble in real estate and stocks took time to inflate. George W. Bush likely would have still won the 2004 election , basing this probability that John Kerry would not have won the nomination to the Democratic Party . California would not have seen the massive debt , and likely we would have avoided recalling it's Governor . Arnold Schwarzenegger still would have been acting . These are just my guesses , but guesses are not accurate . I  just pasting a history of what if . Launching it from a non event 9/11 from happening .The terrorist attacks further accelerated our descent towards becoming a police state. Over the past few years we have seen the establishment of "wars" against this and that, the appointment of "czars" to implement these various "war" efforts, and increase legislation diminishing our civil rights. Due process is vaporizing. "Without the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there would have been no effort to reorient the U.S. armed forces toward counterinsurgency operations. No 9/11, no COIN. America’s defense planners might have spent the first decade of the 21st century focusing on possible high-tech naval and air combat in Asia, rather than on policing and nation-building in occupied Muslim countries."  Contrasting this we may never know , but 9/11 had serious consequences to the United States over the past 12 years . It leaves us with something to think about this week.


$ And what of the U.S. economy in a world in which Mohamed Atta and his fellow terrorists never hijacked airplanes? If the United States had not invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the national deficit and debt would be considerably lower today. According to a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, between September 2001 and March 2011, Congress appropriated $1.283 trillion for the wars, additional security measures and health care for veterans — with 63 percent of the total related to Iraq and 35 percent to Afghanistan. Economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes have estimated that the long-term cost of the wars, including veterans’ care, may exceed $3 trillion. ** Someone else  would have won in 2008, and everyone in 2008 wouldn't have been fighting to distance themselves from being compared with Bush.  Would Obama have rallied all the voters sick of the war and swept into office in 2008?  Running against an incumbent president would be difficult, and Obama may not have even run for another four years.  Who would our president be now?