"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" - Rita Mae Brown. Sudden Death, (c) 1983.
Well, Americans have done it again. Voted for political party instead of for country. They have succeeded in re-electing a failed president who failed in his first term, and in his re-election campaign only divided the country further than he already had. Barack Obama, the Great Divider.
Failures:
economy: unemployment rate is higher than he promised it would be.
national debt: He promised to cut the debt in half and instead he has almost doubled it. Each American needs to pay in excess of $50,000 to pay it off, and taxing the very rich doesn't even put a dent in the debt.
social issues: Too many to list and too divisive for the country (democratic scare tactics on "women's issues" to name one).
foreign issues: the POTUS has no problem with drone attacks on unsuspecting people, with "collateral damage" to innocents, but watches in real time as Americans, on foreign soil, are murdered, even after hearing their repeated pleas for help. And then lies about the whole incident.
Hurricane Sandy: He and the federal government have left approximately 30-40000 people homeless and fending for themselves in sub-zero temperatures.
Violations of the US Constitution: 1) governing by Executive fiat - every time he doesn't get his way, he issues an Executive Order, usually infringing on the power of another branch, usually Congress, and does what he wants, Congress and the American people be damned. 2) creating a "hit list" upon which have been the names of American citizens. Without trial by jury, a Constitutional right, he decides whether they live and die, and after killing at least four American citizens this way, we the American people will pay the price as the ACLU has brought wrongful death actions against the government. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths see also http://www.businessinsider.com/un-to-investigate-civilian-deaths-from-us-drone-strikes-2012-10
Once again, the President has no problem with killing American citizens without trial, but rescuing those under attack? He can't enter a foreign country's air space. Really? Does he think all Americans are that stupid?
Divider in Chief: Telling Americans to seek "revenge" upon other Americans is just appalling; slip of the tongue or not, it shows Obama's true feelings towards others. Instead of running on the accomplishments of his first term, he chose to tear apart and demonized Mitt Romney and his supporters, the truth be damned.
And for Americans to fall for this and vote for him again leaves me speechless. An America where the Constitution is violated in such ways, where Americans are left to die on foreign soil and on American soil after Hurricane Sandy, this is not my America. This is not my President.
To those that voted for Obama: You wish to destroy a country, go found your own and enjoy turning it into whatever you want. Don't destroy the United States of America.
Now, more than ever, God, please, help the United States of America.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Misleading Hurricane Sandy approval rate
Recently, there have been references to polls of likely voters showing a positive Hurricane Sandy approval rating for the President and the federal government. Of course, the main street media have published these polls.
Don't be fooled - the polls and the results are inherently biased. You see, those of us who were actually impacted by Hurricane Sandy could not be contacted to respond to the polls, because we had no power, no heat, no water and NO PHONES! We could not comment on the President's and the federal government's response because we were totally cut off. So these polls just represent the main stream media asking people no where near the impacted areas to opine on the response based solely on the reporting they saw on the very same main stream media. How self-serving can one get?
Speaking as one who was impacted and freezing, I can tell you that there was neither hide nor hair of the President or FEMA visible in my neck of the woods. Had Connecticut been a swing state, I'm sure he would have been here parading around for photo ops like he did in NJ. However, instead of staging supplies like water, ice, food and gasoline in the areas forecasted to be impacted on Sunday afternoon, before Sandy hit, the government sat on its collective asses to watch the devastation (hmmmm, remind anyone of another deadly situation a few months ago?). I think the death toll is up to 29 now, from the storm. It's sure to rise with freezing temps and people living in uninhabitable homes BECAUSE THE POTUS AND FEMA HAVE DONE VIRTUALLY NOTHING.
Don't believe the politicians you see on TV congratulating themselves and other politicians for their hard work. They've done little to nothing. Local communities have done the bulk of the work looking after their neighbors. So many places have so much to do, and so little time as a second Nor'easter is forecast for this week. People can't stay warm because they can't get gas for their generators. They can't go to work because they can't get gas for their cars.
Pollsters, please go to Staten Island, New York, the south shores of Long Island and Connecticut, and the Jersey Shore, walk the debris filled areas that were once communities and ask the people shivering there what they think of the President and FEMA. Open your eyes and get the REAL answer from the people who matter most - the people who are not being served by the government.
Don't be fooled - the polls and the results are inherently biased. You see, those of us who were actually impacted by Hurricane Sandy could not be contacted to respond to the polls, because we had no power, no heat, no water and NO PHONES! We could not comment on the President's and the federal government's response because we were totally cut off. So these polls just represent the main stream media asking people no where near the impacted areas to opine on the response based solely on the reporting they saw on the very same main stream media. How self-serving can one get?
Speaking as one who was impacted and freezing, I can tell you that there was neither hide nor hair of the President or FEMA visible in my neck of the woods. Had Connecticut been a swing state, I'm sure he would have been here parading around for photo ops like he did in NJ. However, instead of staging supplies like water, ice, food and gasoline in the areas forecasted to be impacted on Sunday afternoon, before Sandy hit, the government sat on its collective asses to watch the devastation (hmmmm, remind anyone of another deadly situation a few months ago?). I think the death toll is up to 29 now, from the storm. It's sure to rise with freezing temps and people living in uninhabitable homes BECAUSE THE POTUS AND FEMA HAVE DONE VIRTUALLY NOTHING.
Don't believe the politicians you see on TV congratulating themselves and other politicians for their hard work. They've done little to nothing. Local communities have done the bulk of the work looking after their neighbors. So many places have so much to do, and so little time as a second Nor'easter is forecast for this week. People can't stay warm because they can't get gas for their generators. They can't go to work because they can't get gas for their cars.
Pollsters, please go to Staten Island, New York, the south shores of Long Island and Connecticut, and the Jersey Shore, walk the debris filled areas that were once communities and ask the people shivering there what they think of the President and FEMA. Open your eyes and get the REAL answer from the people who matter most - the people who are not being served by the government.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
The meaning of the word "Presidential"
The past few days, we had the meaning of the word "Presidential" presented to us.
President Obama said "vote for revenge". Revenge against whom? What fellow Americans are you seeking revenge against, Mr. President? Why are you encouraging Americans to seek "revenge" on fellow Americans? Do you really think such language unifies the country? I thought, in 2008, you ran claiming you would unify the country? Yet another promise broken.
On the other hand, Mitt Romney: "vote for love of country". So simple, so elegant, and so right. This is unifying, not divisive language. This is language of which Abraham Lincoln would be proud.
Seriously, how can anyone think there is an actual decision to be made? You have the emperor, who doesn't have old clothes, never mind new clothes, who couldn't accomplish anything in the past four years, who has run a campaign of negativity, and who refused to work in a bipartisan fashion, versus a man with a proven track record in business and government, who has a history of many charitable acts, and who is ready to work, not waste countless precious years blaming his predecessor, and who has a record of actually working in a bipartisan fashion.
Vote for Romney. We can't afford another four years of the "constitutional scholar" so fixed upon divisiveness and revenge, that he has ordered the execution of American citizens without trial. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths
President Obama said "vote for revenge". Revenge against whom? What fellow Americans are you seeking revenge against, Mr. President? Why are you encouraging Americans to seek "revenge" on fellow Americans? Do you really think such language unifies the country? I thought, in 2008, you ran claiming you would unify the country? Yet another promise broken.
On the other hand, Mitt Romney: "vote for love of country". So simple, so elegant, and so right. This is unifying, not divisive language. This is language of which Abraham Lincoln would be proud.
Seriously, how can anyone think there is an actual decision to be made? You have the emperor, who doesn't have old clothes, never mind new clothes, who couldn't accomplish anything in the past four years, who has run a campaign of negativity, and who refused to work in a bipartisan fashion, versus a man with a proven track record in business and government, who has a history of many charitable acts, and who is ready to work, not waste countless precious years blaming his predecessor, and who has a record of actually working in a bipartisan fashion.
Vote for Romney. We can't afford another four years of the "constitutional scholar" so fixed upon divisiveness and revenge, that he has ordered the execution of American citizens without trial. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
"It's the Economy, Stupid" - James Carville
Yup, after all the interruptions and non sequiturs of the debate last night (and, for that matter, the prior debates), it still comes down to James Carville's pithy quote "It's the economy, stupid."
Personally, I don't like the use of name calling, but, the quote does fit the times once again. As does the quote "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" I know the answer for me is a resounding NO.
So, why would anyone consider giving President Obama another 4 years in office when he has failed so abysmally over the past 4 years?
He said he would cut the deficit in half - instead he almost doubled it.
He said unemployment would be in the 5% range. Not even close (and don't get me started on the folks not counted by the BLS - those who are underemployed and those who have stopped looking for work).
Almost 50 million Americans are on some form of public assistance.
Trials of detainees have barely begun.
No resolution to the illegal immigration problem.
Take home pay is steadily falling for middle class Americans.
Wake up America - this emperor (presidential fiats, anyone?) has no new clothes and never did. He certainly has no new clothes now.
And don't buy into the constant whining about what he inherited. He knew what he was going to get when he ran in 2008 and he told us he could fix it in four years. He hasn't. When a CEO doesn't turn a company around, it's time to put in place a new CEO and save the company, in this case, the country, before it is too late.
Vote out Obama.
Don't vote for Obama.
Vote for Romney and let's fix the country.
And just to clear up a few of the President's mistakes last night:
The Marines and the Army still use bayonets.
While horses still serve in the Army, I could find no mention of Naval horses or even sea horses.
The US had submarines during WWI.
Personally, I don't like the use of name calling, but, the quote does fit the times once again. As does the quote "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" I know the answer for me is a resounding NO.
So, why would anyone consider giving President Obama another 4 years in office when he has failed so abysmally over the past 4 years?
He said he would cut the deficit in half - instead he almost doubled it.
He said unemployment would be in the 5% range. Not even close (and don't get me started on the folks not counted by the BLS - those who are underemployed and those who have stopped looking for work).
Almost 50 million Americans are on some form of public assistance.
Trials of detainees have barely begun.
No resolution to the illegal immigration problem.
Take home pay is steadily falling for middle class Americans.
Wake up America - this emperor (presidential fiats, anyone?) has no new clothes and never did. He certainly has no new clothes now.
And don't buy into the constant whining about what he inherited. He knew what he was going to get when he ran in 2008 and he told us he could fix it in four years. He hasn't. When a CEO doesn't turn a company around, it's time to put in place a new CEO and save the company, in this case, the country, before it is too late.
Vote out Obama.
Don't vote for Obama.
Vote for Romney and let's fix the country.
And just to clear up a few of the President's mistakes last night:
The Marines and the Army still use bayonets.
While horses still serve in the Army, I could find no mention of Naval horses or even sea horses.
The US had submarines during WWI.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
"We have so much more to do."
"We have so much more to do." A line from Michelle Obama's DNC speech this week. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michelle-obama-speech-wows-critics-lights-twitter-141131431--election.html And, believe me, this critic isn't wowed, just astounded at the audacity of the Obamas.
Well, of course there is so much more to do. The present administration has failed to pass a budget for any year of the administration. The president has played over 104 rounds of golf during the past 3.5 years and has attended over 207 fundraisers since he decided to run for re-election. The First Lady has had excessive vacations, all costing taxpayers for the use of Air Force One and Secret Service (perhaps a bit of parsimony might make we normal people - e.g. the 99%/ the middle class believe the administration is actually on our side, but with stats like the above and $35,800 per plate fundraisers in tony Westport CT - for which the President and the DNC have refused to pay the local police costs and have instead placed the cost for security for *fundraisers* (e.g. campaign expenses) on the backs of the taxpayers of Connecticut - it's clear that the President and his wife are clearly in the 1% and paying lip service to the 99%).
We the middle class have so much more to do - like trying to pay down the 6 trillion dollars in debt Mr. Obama has racked up during the course of his administration. Like trying to find jobs. Like trying to regain the median income lost while the President has held office. Like trying to get unemployment under 8%.
In February, 2009, Obama, in an interview on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, said the following "“A year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” said Obama. ”But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-flashback-my-presidency-will-be-a-one-term-proposition-if-economy-doesnt-turn-in-3-years/ The economy has not turned around in the following three years, so why is he running? Yet another Obama promise broken? Or does he never believe/intend what he says?
Michelle, we the middle class, have been the only ones working - you and your husband have been playing at the expense of the American taxpayer. Go back to eating your 1700 calorie lunches while telling the rest of us to starve, Michelle "Marie Antoinette" Obama. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/michelle-obama-has-1556-calories-meal-at-shake-shack-outing/2011/07/11/gIQAgwPE9H_blog.html All she is is a lot of noise saying "do as I say, not as I do." Hypocrites, all.
Well, of course there is so much more to do. The present administration has failed to pass a budget for any year of the administration. The president has played over 104 rounds of golf during the past 3.5 years and has attended over 207 fundraisers since he decided to run for re-election. The First Lady has had excessive vacations, all costing taxpayers for the use of Air Force One and Secret Service (perhaps a bit of parsimony might make we normal people - e.g. the 99%/ the middle class believe the administration is actually on our side, but with stats like the above and $35,800 per plate fundraisers in tony Westport CT - for which the President and the DNC have refused to pay the local police costs and have instead placed the cost for security for *fundraisers* (e.g. campaign expenses) on the backs of the taxpayers of Connecticut - it's clear that the President and his wife are clearly in the 1% and paying lip service to the 99%).
We the middle class have so much more to do - like trying to pay down the 6 trillion dollars in debt Mr. Obama has racked up during the course of his administration. Like trying to find jobs. Like trying to regain the median income lost while the President has held office. Like trying to get unemployment under 8%.
In February, 2009, Obama, in an interview on the Today Show with Matt Lauer, said the following "“A year from now I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress,” said Obama. ”But there’s still going to be some pain out there. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-flashback-my-presidency-will-be-a-one-term-proposition-if-economy-doesnt-turn-in-3-years/ The economy has not turned around in the following three years, so why is he running? Yet another Obama promise broken? Or does he never believe/intend what he says?
Michelle, we the middle class, have been the only ones working - you and your husband have been playing at the expense of the American taxpayer. Go back to eating your 1700 calorie lunches while telling the rest of us to starve, Michelle "Marie Antoinette" Obama. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/michelle-obama-has-1556-calories-meal-at-shake-shack-outing/2011/07/11/gIQAgwPE9H_blog.html All she is is a lot of noise saying "do as I say, not as I do." Hypocrites, all.
Friday, August 31, 2012
98% of Republicans are not funny
Okay, let's face it - most Republicans are not funny, a few are "awkwardly" funny, and a very small percentage are funny. Clint Eastwood falls into the not funny, awkwardly funny category. Who thought it was a good idea to do what he did last night? A 5 minute Dirty Harry riff or The Good The Bad and The Ugly riff, may have been OK, but I felt bad for him what with all the stammering and stuttering. All I could think was "get the man a script, please" and "Line!".
Let's face it - very few have come out of the Hollywood Conservative Closet. The few comedians who have outed themselves - Drew Carey, Dennis Miller and Patricia Heaton come to mind - would have done better (I would have called on Drew myself, for whatever that's worth).
If they wanted an actor with gravitas, Tom Selleck would have been a good pick.
Sadly, I think at Clint's age, the cross country flight, the pressure of a "surprise speaker" and speaking extemporaneously was just a bad combination. It left me feeling sad.
Keep your day jobs, Republicans, and let comedians handle comedy. Comedy is difficult.
If it wasn't meant to be comedy, then I am not sure what Clint's segment was supposed to be (what with the take on Harvey the rabbit with the empty chair for the President).
Let's face it - very few have come out of the Hollywood Conservative Closet. The few comedians who have outed themselves - Drew Carey, Dennis Miller and Patricia Heaton come to mind - would have done better (I would have called on Drew myself, for whatever that's worth).
If they wanted an actor with gravitas, Tom Selleck would have been a good pick.
Sadly, I think at Clint's age, the cross country flight, the pressure of a "surprise speaker" and speaking extemporaneously was just a bad combination. It left me feeling sad.
Keep your day jobs, Republicans, and let comedians handle comedy. Comedy is difficult.
If it wasn't meant to be comedy, then I am not sure what Clint's segment was supposed to be (what with the take on Harvey the rabbit with the empty chair for the President).
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The real war on women
Okay, too much Kool-Aid has been consumed in this country. I am so tired of the ignorant, including Jay Leno, claiming the Republicans are waging war on women. Taking a position on freedom of religion, and the fact that a woman can easily afford a $4.00 a month prescription from WalMart for birth control is not waging a war on women. Requiring an organization that performs abortions to seek private funding again is not waging a war on women.
What is a REAL war on women is as follows, and has been perpetrated by this administration and its party.
1) In November, 2009, a Government health panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose positions influence what is paid under Medicare, and thus trickles down to insurance companies, says women should not get mammogram screenings in their 40s, should only get mammograms once every other year between 50 and 75 ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-cancer/t/new-mammogram-guidelines-raise-questions/#.UD9hfNZlTno ), then after that, well, who the hell cares - when you are a woman over 75 you are only a drain on the system, right? The same government panel also claims breast self-exams are worthless. I personally know several women who saved their own lives with breast self-exams and finding lumps, but hey, that just can't be true, can it? After all, the government panel says breast self-exams are worthless, and the government must be right. This task force's guidelines, released under the Obama administration (and in conjunction or as a prelude to Obamacare, it seems), will result in higher death rates down the road, if followed. Fortunately, not many doctors are following it. And, if women have to pay out of pocket for regular mammograms (far more expensive than $48.00 a year for BCP), many will forego the needed exams. To me, this equals a war on women.
2) In March 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, again, that pesky government task force, under the Obama administration, released new cervical cancer screening guidelines, again reducing the amount of screening women will ultimately get. You can read the guidelines here http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm but in a nutshell, screening is to take place every 3-5 years for women between 21 and 65 (women are sexually active outside that age range) , and, more importantly, in the "throw grandma under the bus" theme, "The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than age 65 years . . . ." Because, once again, older women are only a drain on the country, so let 'em die of cervical cancer for lack of adequate screening. Again, PAP and HPV tests cost way more than $48.00 a year prescriptions for birth control pills at WalMart, so let's pay for the BCPs and not the screening that can save women's lives, right Mr. President and the Democratic Party? More war on women thanks to those who claim the Republicans are waging a war on women because, they don't want to pay for BCPs for recreational sex or pay for abortions.
People, open your eyes and educate yourself. Don't listen to party rhetoric. I know that people like Jay Leno (who claimed the Republican party was waging a war on women earlier this week when he was interviewing Dennis Miller) won't read this, but I hope a few people will and learn what a real war on women entails. A war on women allows women to die from lack of adequate screening - it does not result from asking women to take responsibility for their own recreation and pay less than $50.00 a year for birth control, or if they decide to take the life of the child they conceived, to pay for that choice as well. Women can choose, but choices have consequences and costs, and those costs should not be borne by American taxpayers who had no hand in the woman's choice to have sex, become pregnant and terminate the pregnancy.
What is a REAL war on women is as follows, and has been perpetrated by this administration and its party.
1) In November, 2009, a Government health panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose positions influence what is paid under Medicare, and thus trickles down to insurance companies, says women should not get mammogram screenings in their 40s, should only get mammograms once every other year between 50 and 75 ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-cancer/t/new-mammogram-guidelines-raise-questions/#.UD9hfNZlTno ), then after that, well, who the hell cares - when you are a woman over 75 you are only a drain on the system, right? The same government panel also claims breast self-exams are worthless. I personally know several women who saved their own lives with breast self-exams and finding lumps, but hey, that just can't be true, can it? After all, the government panel says breast self-exams are worthless, and the government must be right. This task force's guidelines, released under the Obama administration (and in conjunction or as a prelude to Obamacare, it seems), will result in higher death rates down the road, if followed. Fortunately, not many doctors are following it. And, if women have to pay out of pocket for regular mammograms (far more expensive than $48.00 a year for BCP), many will forego the needed exams. To me, this equals a war on women.
2) In March 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, again, that pesky government task force, under the Obama administration, released new cervical cancer screening guidelines, again reducing the amount of screening women will ultimately get. You can read the guidelines here http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm but in a nutshell, screening is to take place every 3-5 years for women between 21 and 65 (women are sexually active outside that age range) , and, more importantly, in the "throw grandma under the bus" theme, "The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than age 65 years . . . ." Because, once again, older women are only a drain on the country, so let 'em die of cervical cancer for lack of adequate screening. Again, PAP and HPV tests cost way more than $48.00 a year prescriptions for birth control pills at WalMart, so let's pay for the BCPs and not the screening that can save women's lives, right Mr. President and the Democratic Party? More war on women thanks to those who claim the Republicans are waging a war on women because, they don't want to pay for BCPs for recreational sex or pay for abortions.
People, open your eyes and educate yourself. Don't listen to party rhetoric. I know that people like Jay Leno (who claimed the Republican party was waging a war on women earlier this week when he was interviewing Dennis Miller) won't read this, but I hope a few people will and learn what a real war on women entails. A war on women allows women to die from lack of adequate screening - it does not result from asking women to take responsibility for their own recreation and pay less than $50.00 a year for birth control, or if they decide to take the life of the child they conceived, to pay for that choice as well. Women can choose, but choices have consequences and costs, and those costs should not be borne by American taxpayers who had no hand in the woman's choice to have sex, become pregnant and terminate the pregnancy.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Chris Matthews is appalling
The verdict is in. There can be no denial at this point. After Mr. Matthews' appalling behaior on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning (see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwNbLYoRzuQ ) not only has he confirmed that he is a failure as a journalist (who is supposed to be unbiased, and have integrity), but he is a failure as a human being as well.
No one one that show could stomach what Mr. Tingly Leg was doing in ranting and screaming at Reince Priebus - Just listen to Mika, Joe and Tom. At one point Tom Brokaw even shakes his head in disbelief. Chris so loves the sound of his own voice he wouldn't let it subside for anyone - not the hosts of the show, not the guest he was berating, not even for Tom Brokaw.
So, my question for NBC is, in light of the need for parity in political exposure, will NBC be giving airtime to Mr. Matthews to rant insanely against a Democrat as well? After all, shouldn't Mr. Matthews be an equal opportunity political abuser? Or is his bias just accepted by the network?
If NBC and MSNBC have any desire to be taken seriously as journalistic sources, kindly fire this man for his unbalanced and biased behavior immediately.
No one one that show could stomach what Mr. Tingly Leg was doing in ranting and screaming at Reince Priebus - Just listen to Mika, Joe and Tom. At one point Tom Brokaw even shakes his head in disbelief. Chris so loves the sound of his own voice he wouldn't let it subside for anyone - not the hosts of the show, not the guest he was berating, not even for Tom Brokaw.
So, my question for NBC is, in light of the need for parity in political exposure, will NBC be giving airtime to Mr. Matthews to rant insanely against a Democrat as well? After all, shouldn't Mr. Matthews be an equal opportunity political abuser? Or is his bias just accepted by the network?
If NBC and MSNBC have any desire to be taken seriously as journalistic sources, kindly fire this man for his unbalanced and biased behavior immediately.
Chris Murphy's shameful Congressional attendance record
Well, Linda McMahon's campaign ads have been pounding him for it, and while he originally pooh-poohed it, now Chris Murphy cannot deny his shameful attendance record. Hearst's Connecticut newspapers analyzed Murphy's attendance and found that he missed 185 of 237 hearings overall in the 2007-2008 legislative session.
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php
Now, Murphy's people make the following contentions:
1) Murphy made 129 of the 132 votes during the 110 Congress. My reply to that, is, if he didn't attend the hearings to educate himself on the issues on which he had to vote, how did he know how to vote? Oh, that's right, you don't have to educate yourself when you vote in lockstep with your political party. I vote for people who are smart, who educate themselves, who show up for work; not mindless sheep who do what a political party tells them.
2) Murphy (through a spokesperson) then complains that during the time Murphy missed those meetings, McMahon was off running her business and not saving the country. What would Murphy have had McMahon do in 2007-2008, when she was a private citizen running a company? Would Murphy have had her serve as an unpaid surrogate for him and do his job for him (if so, he should have told her, and informed voters that he was incapable of fulfilling his duties)? The specific (idiotic to my mind) quote is "'While Chris was fighting for consumers in Congress, McMahon was fiddling while our economy burned, orchestrating pay-per-view events featuring inferno matches and necrophilia,' Marter said." http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php#ixzz24kes0ni6 It should have read "While Chris missed over 75% of meetings/hearings, McMahon was busy running a business that employed many people. As she was not an elected official, she had no duty to perform Murphy's job functions which he was neglecting."
I'm not a fan of WWE, but at least it appears Linda showed up for work; the same can't be said for Murphy.
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php
Now, Murphy's people make the following contentions:
1) Murphy made 129 of the 132 votes during the 110 Congress. My reply to that, is, if he didn't attend the hearings to educate himself on the issues on which he had to vote, how did he know how to vote? Oh, that's right, you don't have to educate yourself when you vote in lockstep with your political party. I vote for people who are smart, who educate themselves, who show up for work; not mindless sheep who do what a political party tells them.
2) Murphy (through a spokesperson) then complains that during the time Murphy missed those meetings, McMahon was off running her business and not saving the country. What would Murphy have had McMahon do in 2007-2008, when she was a private citizen running a company? Would Murphy have had her serve as an unpaid surrogate for him and do his job for him (if so, he should have told her, and informed voters that he was incapable of fulfilling his duties)? The specific (idiotic to my mind) quote is "'While Chris was fighting for consumers in Congress, McMahon was fiddling while our economy burned, orchestrating pay-per-view events featuring inferno matches and necrophilia,' Marter said." http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php#ixzz24kes0ni6 It should have read "While Chris missed over 75% of meetings/hearings, McMahon was busy running a business that employed many people. As she was not an elected official, she had no duty to perform Murphy's job functions which he was neglecting."
I'm not a fan of WWE, but at least it appears Linda showed up for work; the same can't be said for Murphy.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Go Anderson!
For too long I have been listening to the inane ramblings of D. Wasserman-Schultz. She is, in my eyes, someone who can not be believed. Anderson Cooper went after her misquoting of the L.A. Times in a campaign fundraising email (fear mongering once again), and didn't back off. Despite his reading to her (over her constant interruptions - she seems to love the sound of her own voice) the exact quote from the LA Times, she doubled down on her misrepresentation and it is all here: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/08/24/ac-dnc-chairwoman-keeping-them-honest.cnn
It's so rare to see the media so doggedly try to get the truth out of a politician/campaign spokesperson, that I applaud Anderson for being so determined to get the truth out there. Great job Anderson! And Debbie, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of intelligent Americans, no matter how hard you lie.
It's so rare to see the media so doggedly try to get the truth out of a politician/campaign spokesperson, that I applaud Anderson for being so determined to get the truth out there. Great job Anderson! And Debbie, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of intelligent Americans, no matter how hard you lie.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Idiots abound
The political season is in full swing, and apparently it causes foot in mouth disease at a minimum, and idiocy to show itself.
While VP Joe Biden and the White House have doubled down on the "put y'all back in chains" comment (and, did you catch the inflection and tone used? There is no question when you hear how old Joe said it, the race baiting meaning was clear. Former VA Governor Wilder noted it and called Biden on it http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-Va-Gov-Wilder-slams-Biden-for-chains-remark-3791544.php ), Todd Akin, who won Missouri's GOP Senate primary earlier this month and will square off against incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill November's Senate race at least apologized and "took back" his comments referring to "legitimate rape". Seriously, what type of person would put those two words together as a phrase? Why do men always say incredibly bone-headed things when it comes to women and our bodies (although, kudos to Sandra Fluke for showing that not only men are boneheads - women can be equally boneheaded - no, I don't want to pay for your partying costs, Ms. Fluke, since you won't pay for my recreational travel costs. . . .)?
Words to the wise, Mr. Akin: until you grow a uterus or are raped yourself, kindly do not speak of rape and its effect on the female body. Thank you.
While VP Joe Biden and the White House have doubled down on the "put y'all back in chains" comment (and, did you catch the inflection and tone used? There is no question when you hear how old Joe said it, the race baiting meaning was clear. Former VA Governor Wilder noted it and called Biden on it http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-Va-Gov-Wilder-slams-Biden-for-chains-remark-3791544.php ), Todd Akin, who won Missouri's GOP Senate primary earlier this month and will square off against incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill November's Senate race at least apologized and "took back" his comments referring to "legitimate rape". Seriously, what type of person would put those two words together as a phrase? Why do men always say incredibly bone-headed things when it comes to women and our bodies (although, kudos to Sandra Fluke for showing that not only men are boneheads - women can be equally boneheaded - no, I don't want to pay for your partying costs, Ms. Fluke, since you won't pay for my recreational travel costs. . . .)?
Words to the wise, Mr. Akin: until you grow a uterus or are raped yourself, kindly do not speak of rape and its effect on the female body. Thank you.
Friday, August 17, 2012
This and That
Today's post will combine a number of issues.
First off, congratulations to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. It's great that at least one member of the Executive Branch of government understands that the Executive Branch ENFORCES the laws; it does not issue new laws by fiat, thereby avoiding the legislative process. I particularly enjoy the fact that Governor Brewer issued her own Executive Order indicating that the State of Arizona was not to comply with President Obama's Executive Fiat - um Order (it's so hard not to call them fiats, because this President obviously has nothing but contempt for Congress - if it doesn't do as he commands, then he issues his fiats to suit his personal wants). Our laws should be enforced. If you don't like the law, Mr. President, you do not abuse the office of the President by issuing Executive Orders willy nilly - you do what every other American citizen does and petition the Congress for change in the laws.
Secondly, President Obama has refused to face the White House Press Corps for over two months. Why? Is he too busy meeting with all his Richie Rich friends raising money for his campaign? Or is he too busy running for Entertainer-in-Chief, what with his appearances on Entertainment Tonight and interviews with People magazine? If you want the title of Entertainer-in-Chief, Mr. President, please do feel free to drop out of the Presidential campaign and see if you have any better luck than Conan O'Brien did in dethroning Jay Leno from the Tonight Show. Otherwise, get the heck back to work - we have in the range of 20 million American citizens unemployed or under-employed (and while we know you think your wife should be paid for being First Lady - although that sounds a bit bizarre on certain levels - putting her on the payroll does not solve the unemployment problem of the American people, and she gets reimbursed by the taxpayers paying for her use of Air Force One to go on her, what 20+ vacations in 3.5 years? All those vacations really show that you and your family are in touch with the average American). We pay you, Mr. President, to work in the White House, not to go on approximately 200 fundraisers (if not more) in the past 15 months or so.
I don't care about Mitt Romney's taxes. He makes a hell of a lot more money than I do, and at an effective rate of 13%, he still pays a hell of a lot more in taxes (and charitable contributions) than I do. Harry Reid needs to apologize for slandering Governor Romney and refusing to provide proof of his slanderous comments. Contrary to Harry's claims and the President's, in the United States of America, one is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, Harry and the President must prove their ridiculous claims that Governor Romney hasn't paid taxes; the Governor has nothing to prove. I would expect a supposed Constitutional scholar to understand this basic premise of American jurisprudence, but since President Obama refuses to release his college and graduate school applications and transcripts, I guess we'll never have proof that he attended the institutions he claims to have attended or that he had decent grades, or that he graduated or that he is, as he claims to be, a Constitutional scholar. Finally, if Governor Romney hadn't paid his taxes, don't you think the Internal Revenue Service would be prosecuting him for tax evasion by now?
Logic and common sense are wonderful things. Too bad so many in government are so lacking in both.
First off, congratulations to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. It's great that at least one member of the Executive Branch of government understands that the Executive Branch ENFORCES the laws; it does not issue new laws by fiat, thereby avoiding the legislative process. I particularly enjoy the fact that Governor Brewer issued her own Executive Order indicating that the State of Arizona was not to comply with President Obama's Executive Fiat - um Order (it's so hard not to call them fiats, because this President obviously has nothing but contempt for Congress - if it doesn't do as he commands, then he issues his fiats to suit his personal wants). Our laws should be enforced. If you don't like the law, Mr. President, you do not abuse the office of the President by issuing Executive Orders willy nilly - you do what every other American citizen does and petition the Congress for change in the laws.
Secondly, President Obama has refused to face the White House Press Corps for over two months. Why? Is he too busy meeting with all his Richie Rich friends raising money for his campaign? Or is he too busy running for Entertainer-in-Chief, what with his appearances on Entertainment Tonight and interviews with People magazine? If you want the title of Entertainer-in-Chief, Mr. President, please do feel free to drop out of the Presidential campaign and see if you have any better luck than Conan O'Brien did in dethroning Jay Leno from the Tonight Show. Otherwise, get the heck back to work - we have in the range of 20 million American citizens unemployed or under-employed (and while we know you think your wife should be paid for being First Lady - although that sounds a bit bizarre on certain levels - putting her on the payroll does not solve the unemployment problem of the American people, and she gets reimbursed by the taxpayers paying for her use of Air Force One to go on her, what 20+ vacations in 3.5 years? All those vacations really show that you and your family are in touch with the average American). We pay you, Mr. President, to work in the White House, not to go on approximately 200 fundraisers (if not more) in the past 15 months or so.
I don't care about Mitt Romney's taxes. He makes a hell of a lot more money than I do, and at an effective rate of 13%, he still pays a hell of a lot more in taxes (and charitable contributions) than I do. Harry Reid needs to apologize for slandering Governor Romney and refusing to provide proof of his slanderous comments. Contrary to Harry's claims and the President's, in the United States of America, one is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, Harry and the President must prove their ridiculous claims that Governor Romney hasn't paid taxes; the Governor has nothing to prove. I would expect a supposed Constitutional scholar to understand this basic premise of American jurisprudence, but since President Obama refuses to release his college and graduate school applications and transcripts, I guess we'll never have proof that he attended the institutions he claims to have attended or that he had decent grades, or that he graduated or that he is, as he claims to be, a Constitutional scholar. Finally, if Governor Romney hadn't paid his taxes, don't you think the Internal Revenue Service would be prosecuting him for tax evasion by now?
Logic and common sense are wonderful things. Too bad so many in government are so lacking in both.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Let's waste more taxpayer dollars, shall we Mr. President?
As if closing down Connecticut beaches, and restricting the movements of the citizens of Connecticut weren't enough so that the Prez could raise more money from the 1% (at two fundraisers in CT yesterday - one at a mere $500 a pop - but that was a cattle call - and one at $35,800 per person - more intimate - only 50 invited guests), the Prez was responsible for the scrambling of two F15 fighter jets because two small planes had the audacity to fly over Long Island and the other over New Haven Connecticut. Heavens to Betsy! Especially in light of the fact that the Prez was in Stamford, CT (41 miles away from New Haven) and Westport CT (about 35 miles away from New Haven), and far enough from Long Island. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13160528-f-15-fighter-jets-intercept-two-small-planes-in-obama-airspace?lite
So, is the Democratic National Committee paying for the F15s, the loss of revenue to Connecticut parks and businesses, etc.? If not, why not? This was not Presidential business - this was PRIVATE FUNDRAISING, and we the taxpayers should not be footing the bill.
Also, it was suggested yesterday that Connecticut Governor Malloy would be attending the $35,800 per person fundraiser in Westport. Who paid for that ticket?
So, is the Democratic National Committee paying for the F15s, the loss of revenue to Connecticut parks and businesses, etc.? If not, why not? This was not Presidential business - this was PRIVATE FUNDRAISING, and we the taxpayers should not be footing the bill.
Also, it was suggested yesterday that Connecticut Governor Malloy would be attending the $35,800 per person fundraiser in Westport. Who paid for that ticket?
Monday, August 6, 2012
So much for caring for the 99%
Okay, so the POTUS claims he cares for, and feels the pain of the middle class (although he is a millionaire). If that's the case, why isn't he meeting with the middle class to discuss their problems with them? Why is he attending a fundraiser (as of June 12, 2012, the POTUS had held 160 fundraisers http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obama-fundraiser-in-chief/2012/06/12/gJQAVAQ8XV_blog.html) at the estate of filmmaker Harvey Weinstein in tony and uber-rich Westport, Connecticut? http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Obama-to-Westport-Stamford-for-August-fundraisers-3723753.php To top it off, this shindig costs each person $35,800 to attend. Not a function the 99% can afford. Apparently, it's a tit-for-tat deal as Weinstein wrangled an invite to State Dinner earlier this year. See above link. It must be tough.
Additionally, with temperatures approaching 90 degrees Fahrenheit, President Obama's visit will cause a state beach and park and a town of Westport beach to be closed all day. http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Beaches-Close-for-Obama-Visit-Reports-165135156.html How's that for feeling the pain of the 99%? The POTUS seems to feel that we can all forego creature comforts so he can cavort with the Richie Riches who can pony up $35,800 per person. Nice - very nice.
Still think the guy cares about the 99%? I think he cares more about his fundraising, myself.
More details here re co-sponsors and closures (I'm sure the closures are all for the benefit of the people of Connecticut and the US). http://woodbury-middlebury.patch.com/articles/obama-celebrities-to-attend-campaign-fundraiser-in-westport-ct
Additionally, with temperatures approaching 90 degrees Fahrenheit, President Obama's visit will cause a state beach and park and a town of Westport beach to be closed all day. http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Beaches-Close-for-Obama-Visit-Reports-165135156.html How's that for feeling the pain of the 99%? The POTUS seems to feel that we can all forego creature comforts so he can cavort with the Richie Riches who can pony up $35,800 per person. Nice - very nice.
Still think the guy cares about the 99%? I think he cares more about his fundraising, myself.
More details here re co-sponsors and closures (I'm sure the closures are all for the benefit of the people of Connecticut and the US). http://woodbury-middlebury.patch.com/articles/obama-celebrities-to-attend-campaign-fundraiser-in-westport-ct
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Only in California
Only in California would the State Bar Committee argue in favor of granting admission to the Bar of an illegal immigrant. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/19/12298380-california-bar-illegal-immigrant-should-get-law-license?lite
As an attorney, I find this ridiculous.
As part of the Bar screening, one must pass a moral character review - how does one pass such a review when one is knowingly breaking the laws of the United States? How does one take the attorney's oath, which starts out as follows: "It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:
(a) To support the Constitution and the laws of the United States and this state.
(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." http://www.calbarxap.com/applications/CalBar/PDFs/code_section_6068.pdfNow, how does one take such an oath when one has been and is still breaking the laws of the United States of America? And, if one does take such an oath, while breaking US immigration laws, isn't one then lying under oath? And if one lies under oath, does that then raise the question of one's moral character? If it doesn't, it certainly should.
Why is this country rewarding illegal behavior with "perks" and benefits for which US citizens must pay into the system and/or fight?
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Today's question to ponder. . . .
Why is it when a Democrat changes his position on an issue, it is called "evolving" or "evolution", but when a Republican changes his position on an issue, it's called "flip-flopping" or "waffling"?
Still think the press is unbiased? I don't.
Most independents are smart enough to know that people learn during the course of their lives, and thus, intelligent people will probably change their positions on issues ("A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," Ralph Waldo Emerson). Thus, a person, who after careful thought and consideration, changes his position, is to be admired and commended; one who is forced into voicing a change in his position because his VP once again spewed without thinking, is not.
Still think the press is unbiased? I don't.
Most independents are smart enough to know that people learn during the course of their lives, and thus, intelligent people will probably change their positions on issues ("A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," Ralph Waldo Emerson). Thus, a person, who after careful thought and consideration, changes his position, is to be admired and commended; one who is forced into voicing a change in his position because his VP once again spewed without thinking, is not.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Not on the menu
Who knew John McCain had such a sense of humor? He recently posted a photo of himself and his son's dog Apollo, and told the POTUS that Apollo was "not on the menu" - a reference to the POTUS' book in which he described eating dog meat when he was younger and lived in Indonesia. Now, you'd think David Axelrod would have read his boss' book before maligning Mitt for his doggie debacle, but nooooooooo. Bad Dave! Bad Dave! Dave, I've got news for you - it's a worse offense to dog lovers to EAT DOG MEAT (I don't care what age you are) than it is to put a dog in a crate on a car. Seamus survived - the dog the POTUS ate - not so much!
So, in the spirit of John McCain, Mr. President, my dog isn't on the menu either!
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Obama has "won" the dog wars - or is it that he "takes the dog cake"?
Okay, let's put another bit of Democratic idiocy to rest. By now everyone has heard that about 30 years ago, Mitt Romney placed his Irish Setter, Seamus, in a dog crate on the roof of his car while he drove the 7 member family north to Canada. According to the Democrats, Bad Mitt, Bad, bad Mitt. But, what they forgot to check was Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father - you know, the man who deserted him and left him to be raised by his white family (or whatever it is called) in which the POTUS admitted to EATING DOG MEAT while living in Indonesia.
Now, when I was the POTUS' age of the dog meat eating incident(s), I had pet rabbits. There were members of my family who would like to eat rabbits. They never ate any of my rabbits, and I never ate any rabbit meat. Even at that age, some children have backbone, integrity and principals, while others show their early inclination to be malleable, sell their souls to get ahead and throw friends, family and pets to the proverbial wolves.
So, now that Obama has bested Mitt in the dog wars by actually having eaten dogs, let's put the now sleeping dog issue to rest and move on to the issues the President doesn't want to discuss: the economy, gas prices, sustainable energy (not throwing money away to bankrupt companies), regaining our standing in the world, etc. Unless the POTUS would like to move on to the Cartagena hooker wars next?
Now, when I was the POTUS' age of the dog meat eating incident(s), I had pet rabbits. There were members of my family who would like to eat rabbits. They never ate any of my rabbits, and I never ate any rabbit meat. Even at that age, some children have backbone, integrity and principals, while others show their early inclination to be malleable, sell their souls to get ahead and throw friends, family and pets to the proverbial wolves.
So, now that Obama has bested Mitt in the dog wars by actually having eaten dogs, let's put the now sleeping dog issue to rest and move on to the issues the President doesn't want to discuss: the economy, gas prices, sustainable energy (not throwing money away to bankrupt companies), regaining our standing in the world, etc. Unless the POTUS would like to move on to the Cartagena hooker wars next?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The cost of recreation
*Sigh* Just when you think that people couldn't present more illogical arguments for avoiding personal responsibility, along comes another one to restore your faith in the never ending lunacy of the human race.
Law student argues for contraception coverage for her while she attends a JESUIT university. There are medical exceptions for coverage for birth control for medical reasons. She herself claims that it costs her $3,000 for birth control, and she is using it to avoid pregnancy, thus making her use a recreational, not medical, use.
This one embarrasses me. Seriously, she wants me to pay for her recreational meds? What's next, the condoms, too, because we all know that BCPs do not prevent HIV or STDs? What's that going to add to her bill, given the rate of her "recreation"?
Lady, really. If you expect me to pay for your recreation, then you darn well better plan on ponying up for my recreation. I would dearly love to travel to Ireland, Alaska, Hawaii, Paris, London, Rome, Hong Kong and Australia, just to name a few places. So, I'll pay your $3,000 for way too frequent sex (do you have time to study?) and you can pay all my recreational travel expenses.
Sheesh! Get a job and pay for the costs of your own hobbies, woman.
Law student argues for contraception coverage for her while she attends a JESUIT university. There are medical exceptions for coverage for birth control for medical reasons. She herself claims that it costs her $3,000 for birth control, and she is using it to avoid pregnancy, thus making her use a recreational, not medical, use.
This one embarrasses me. Seriously, she wants me to pay for her recreational meds? What's next, the condoms, too, because we all know that BCPs do not prevent HIV or STDs? What's that going to add to her bill, given the rate of her "recreation"?
Lady, really. If you expect me to pay for your recreation, then you darn well better plan on ponying up for my recreation. I would dearly love to travel to Ireland, Alaska, Hawaii, Paris, London, Rome, Hong Kong and Australia, just to name a few places. So, I'll pay your $3,000 for way too frequent sex (do you have time to study?) and you can pay all my recreational travel expenses.
Sheesh! Get a job and pay for the costs of your own hobbies, woman.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Class and morals
Ah, I am so tired of the media inundation of the airwaves (NBC - I'm talking about you) about the latest JFK mistress to brag about her adultery. It seems that 50 years after the fact, she just can't keep quiet about it and feels the need to parade her scarlet letter proudly. Apparently, coming from money and being a debutante (or is that debutramp as my husband would say?) can't buy one class, morals or even a little remorse for one's actions.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not letting JFK off the hook - he was an adulterer. But, one who is old enough to drink, vote and serve as a White House Intern is old enough to know that one should not sleep with a married man in his wife's bed. And, contrary to her claims that I heard yesterday, JFK did not "take" her virginity - she "gave" her virginity.
In any case, at 70 or so years old, why publish one's indiscretions to the world? Most people would be embarrassed, but it seems others will do anything for money. People, please don't watch this woman (I turned off the program after hearing her speak for a few minutes), and don't buy her book - please. Let her fade back into obscurity where she so rightfully belongs.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not letting JFK off the hook - he was an adulterer. But, one who is old enough to drink, vote and serve as a White House Intern is old enough to know that one should not sleep with a married man in his wife's bed. And, contrary to her claims that I heard yesterday, JFK did not "take" her virginity - she "gave" her virginity.
In any case, at 70 or so years old, why publish one's indiscretions to the world? Most people would be embarrassed, but it seems others will do anything for money. People, please don't watch this woman (I turned off the program after hearing her speak for a few minutes), and don't buy her book - please. Let her fade back into obscurity where she so rightfully belongs.
Monday, February 6, 2012
The Billion Dollar Question
So President Obama seems bound and determined to raise a billion dollars for his re-election. My question to the President, is, "instead of being known as the Billion Dollar President with regards to your re-election campaign, why aren't you already known as the Billion Dollar President for raising a billion dollars to pay down the US debt that you have raised by over 5 trillion?"
Seriously, why don't you get all your rich buddies together (Warren Buffet, you listening?) and have them raise a billion dollars to pay towards the US deficit? All they have to do is go here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm
This gives them all the information as to how to contribute, but if they don't have time, here it is in a nutshell (quoted directly form the above website):
"How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:
You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188"
Come on, Mr. President - put the good of the American people before the good of your party and your own self-aggrandizement. Work to raise a billion dollars to pay down the government debt BEFORE you raise a billion dollars to stay in the White House. I challenge you.
Seriously, why don't you get all your rich buddies together (Warren Buffet, you listening?) and have them raise a billion dollars to pay towards the US deficit? All they have to do is go here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm
This gives them all the information as to how to contribute, but if they don't have time, here it is in a nutshell (quoted directly form the above website):
"How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:
You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188"
Come on, Mr. President - put the good of the American people before the good of your party and your own self-aggrandizement. Work to raise a billion dollars to pay down the government debt BEFORE you raise a billion dollars to stay in the White House. I challenge you.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Newt, the question was not despicable, however, your actions have been.
At Thursday's presidential debate, moderator John King of CNN had the audacity to ask Newt Gingrinch about the allegations surfacing that day from his second wife, Marianne. Newt, who was married to Marianne and carrying on an affair with the good Catholic girl he later married at the time he was calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for extra-marital shenanigans, took extreme umbrage at the question, and replied, in part: "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine." http://uk.news.yahoo.com/gingrich-slams-ex-wife-close-despicable-anything-imagine-004300067.html
I don't need much of an imagination to think of far more despicable things. In fact, I need no imagination at all - I merely have to look at Newt's life for despicable acts: 1) Leaving his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer for mistress-turned-second-wife; 2) carrying on an affair with yet another woman while married to second wife all while calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for less than the egregious acts which Newt committed; 3) leaving the second wife after she was diagnosed with MS for the mistress-turned-third wife; 4) ethics violations costing him $300,000 as assessed by his own colleagues, which ethics violation information Newt refuses to disclose; 5) claiming to be a "Catholic" now, in part, thanks to his third wife, a "lifelong Catholic" - not only is this claim despicable, it is offensive to true Catholics (true "lifelong Catholics" as his present wife has claimed to be, would not have been involved in an adulterous affair with a married man for years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/newt-gingrich-catholic_n_854562.html ) . All of the above is far more despicable to me than John King's question seeking a comment/explanation as to the charges.
If a man cannot keep a vow he made before God, his friends and family (more than one time, mind you), do you really expect him to keep true to the Oath of Office of the President of the United States? If the people a man is supposed to love the most cannot trust his word and fidelity, then why should we the people trust him?
Hubris, of a far less degree than Newt holds, has been the fall of many a man.
I don't need much of an imagination to think of far more despicable things. In fact, I need no imagination at all - I merely have to look at Newt's life for despicable acts: 1) Leaving his first wife after she was diagnosed with cancer for mistress-turned-second-wife; 2) carrying on an affair with yet another woman while married to second wife all while calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for less than the egregious acts which Newt committed; 3) leaving the second wife after she was diagnosed with MS for the mistress-turned-third wife; 4) ethics violations costing him $300,000 as assessed by his own colleagues, which ethics violation information Newt refuses to disclose; 5) claiming to be a "Catholic" now, in part, thanks to his third wife, a "lifelong Catholic" - not only is this claim despicable, it is offensive to true Catholics (true "lifelong Catholics" as his present wife has claimed to be, would not have been involved in an adulterous affair with a married man for years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/newt-gingrich-catholic_n_854562.html ) . All of the above is far more despicable to me than John King's question seeking a comment/explanation as to the charges.
If a man cannot keep a vow he made before God, his friends and family (more than one time, mind you), do you really expect him to keep true to the Oath of Office of the President of the United States? If the people a man is supposed to love the most cannot trust his word and fidelity, then why should we the people trust him?
Hubris, of a far less degree than Newt holds, has been the fall of many a man.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Looks like Bruce Ismay can rest in peace
After the events aboard the Costa Concordia, it looks like Bruce Ismay will no longer hold the title of the most cowardly in maritime history. After the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, Ismay, once the chairman and managing director of the White Star Line, after he was rescued from Collapsible C off the Titanic, he was vilified by both the American and British press for taking a seat in a lifeboat while women and children were still aboard the Titanic.
However, it seems that the captain of the Costa Concordia, Schettino, has beat that. No longer does the Captain go down with his ship - apparently the Captain jumps on a lifeboat and argues with the Coast Guard, which is now in charge and able to give orders to Captain Schettino, as to whether he will or will not return to his ship to oversee evacuations. Although the taped audio has been interpreted as the Captain agreeing to return to the ship, he apparently failed to do so, and according to some passengers, he and other member of the senior crew were already on the pier when the passengers arrived, having been rescued either by lifeboats or local boats. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9020679/Costa-Concordia-coast-guard-to-captain-Get-back-on-board-the-ship.html
The heroes are the crew members, which, according to passengers, in additional to junior officers, included wait staff, bellhops and cabin staff, etc., who helped to evacuate the ship as best they could. They are to be commended for saving lives.
29 people apparently are still missing - pray for them.
However, it seems that the captain of the Costa Concordia, Schettino, has beat that. No longer does the Captain go down with his ship - apparently the Captain jumps on a lifeboat and argues with the Coast Guard, which is now in charge and able to give orders to Captain Schettino, as to whether he will or will not return to his ship to oversee evacuations. Although the taped audio has been interpreted as the Captain agreeing to return to the ship, he apparently failed to do so, and according to some passengers, he and other member of the senior crew were already on the pier when the passengers arrived, having been rescued either by lifeboats or local boats. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9020679/Costa-Concordia-coast-guard-to-captain-Get-back-on-board-the-ship.html
The heroes are the crew members, which, according to passengers, in additional to junior officers, included wait staff, bellhops and cabin staff, etc., who helped to evacuate the ship as best they could. They are to be commended for saving lives.
29 people apparently are still missing - pray for them.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
CL&P part "who knows what we are up to now"
Well, it didn't take long for our electric company, charmingly referred to by some as "Constantly Losing Power" to seek a 10% permanent rate increase for an approximate 30% increase in reliability (as reported by Star 99.9 radio station). So, basically, the company wants more money to do what they were supposed to be doing in the first place - providing reliable service.
The kicker is that CL&P has been spending oodles of money on advertisement: radio, TV, newspapers, and Internet, trying to tell us that good people work at the company and they want to win our trust and business back. Well, that's all well and good except for the fact that the money spent on all this advertising (as well as Jeff Butler's severance package which was outrageous given that he failed and had been here for no more than 2 years) could have been put to "increasing reliability" of service instead of wasted on meaningless advertising. Seriously, whomever is making these decisions for the company, listen closely : YOU ARE NOT HELPING TO ENDEAR THE COMPANY TO CUSTOMERS BY WASTING MONEY THIS WAY.
Improve reliability first, and then maybe we'll like you. And stop always raising our rates - especially with the executive compensation packages you put out.
The kicker is that CL&P has been spending oodles of money on advertisement: radio, TV, newspapers, and Internet, trying to tell us that good people work at the company and they want to win our trust and business back. Well, that's all well and good except for the fact that the money spent on all this advertising (as well as Jeff Butler's severance package which was outrageous given that he failed and had been here for no more than 2 years) could have been put to "increasing reliability" of service instead of wasted on meaningless advertising. Seriously, whomever is making these decisions for the company, listen closely : YOU ARE NOT HELPING TO ENDEAR THE COMPANY TO CUSTOMERS BY WASTING MONEY THIS WAY.
Improve reliability first, and then maybe we'll like you. And stop always raising our rates - especially with the executive compensation packages you put out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)