Sunday, October 06, 2013

I am on strike while the Republicans continue to use the nation as political theater and our citizens well being hang in the balance.

I don't find any of this amusing. I find it a threat to the sovereign USA and an act of treason. 

I have been reading and evaluating all that is stated and nothing has changed my mind. If anything the more the Republicans continue to make their stand, the more convinced I am about their resolve to end the USA as we know it and as the Constitution has provided.

One has to care about the people in order to govern. 

Treason is the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Something difficult to understand about those words? Words aren't words anymore? This is too difficult a definition? I am sure any eighth grader could understand it. 

October 11, 2013

This was on Facebook.

October 12, 2013

I am not surprised after President Obama's initiative to satisfy the "meeting" has resulted in a continued stalemate. The Republicans are interested in having a country. They are interested in having money.

“We always have enough money to pay our debt service,” said Mr. Burr, who pointed to a stream of tax revenue flowing into the Treasury as he shrugged off fears of a cascading financial crisis.

That is a lie. If the government had plenty of money to pay for all of it's debts and obligations the federal government would still be open. The National Debt exists for a reason. Burr is attempting to 'talk the public' into his corner. This is a fight. It is a civil war actually. There aren't bullets yet, exactly, but it is a fight for a nation that belongs to all of us.

What is Burr really saying here? "Debt Service?" What is he actually saying to the people of the USA? He is stabbing the country in the back. Punishing people for believing their government was trustworthy. Isn't that what he is saying? Isn't he actually saying Americans will have a rude awakening. Yes? 

Just to put this into perspective, helmet cams are used everywhere in the USA...

...even by young equestrians who want to critique themselves on their way to being world class champions. It is not just bikers that wear helmet cams so they can defend themselves when wrongly accused in a court of law.

"H.W." destroyed the USSR.

"W" destroyed the USA.

"Jesusland" has the nukes. 

You think this is a joke? No! The majority of the military is back at work while the rest of the country are looking at their next meal.

The complaints in the media about the bikers are misplaced. The van driver committed "Hit and Run."

The Bikers were trying to stop him and then it escalated. The driver that commit "Hit and Run" aggravated the situation. These people did not know each and and the bike riders were NOT looking for a cause. This isn't Road Rage. This is different. The bikers tried to stop someone out of control and hurting other people. The assault of the driver was to get him out from behind the wheel of his SUV and his foot off the accelerator. A fight ensued. The driver got the worst of it. 

By the way, the driver wasn't assassinated in order to stop the SUV. Even with children in the car, the driver is still alive to answer for his crimes. I don't know if he has mental health issues, either.

October 5, 2013 3:41 PM
...Police are, however, (click here) questioning two suspects and trying to determine what charges, if any, will be brought against them.
Reginald Chance surrendered late Friday. The NYPD says he's the man seen on video hitting the SUV with his helmet.
Chance joins Robert Sims, who turned himself in earlier in the day. He's allegedly the man who was seen on video trying to open the door of the Range Rover after it slowed on the highway.
At that point, a series of 911 calls had already been made to police. The first was at 1:52 p.m., when Lien's wife told police that there was a large group of motorcycles driving recklessly....

What do you mean there are no charges filed. There is a man in the hospital paralyzed for the rest of his life. There better be charges filed.

No one, including Israel, can deny this is an incredible change in policy within Iran.

September 29, 2013
By Imtiyaz Delawala

In an exclusive interview (click here) this morning on “This Week,” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif condemned the Holocaust as a “heinous crime” and a “genocide,” dismissing as a poor translation the appearance of the word “myth” about the Holocaust on the Iranian Supreme Leader’s English website.

Iran has been criticized in recent years for the words of its former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who often denied the existence of the Holocaust, while the phrase “the myth of the massacre of Jews” appears in a translation of a speech from February 2006 by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamanei.

“The Holocaust is not a myth. Nobody’s talking about a myth,” Zarif told George Stephanopoulos on “This Week” Sunday when asked about the quote. “If it’s there … it’s a bad translation, and it’s translated out of context… This is the problem when you translate something from Persian to English, you may lose something, as the film goes, ‘Lost in Translation,’ you may lose some of the meaning.”

Zarif used his condemnation of the Holocaust to segue into a critique of Israel, which he characterized as the aggressor in the Middle East....

This taped interview took place with an established media outlet on November 20, 2012. Iran's people have put in place leadership that recognizes an incredible horror that moved the entire world to act to protect the Jewish race and carve out a land for them to call a homeland. This is not a minor change in standard in Iran. This is huge.

Israel has cited the rantings of the former Iranian President to justify it's demands for actions and sanctions and demands against Iran. This is not a minor issue. There are men in the leadership of Iran that seek to allay fears of their nation to prevent aggressions and war.

Iran is asking for reassessment by Israel of it's fears. This is not politics. It demands formal agreements between the nations as well as the international community.

Congress: "I am more important than my nation."

Harry Enten
Thursday 19 September 2013

...The HuffPollster (click here) aggregate has Congress's approval rating up to 20%. It's not just one outlier poll, either. CBS/NY-Times, CNN, Gallup and Reason-Rupe have Congress' approval at its highest this year....

Congress increased their approval rating when they refused to declare another war in Syria. Today they are at a rating lower than only a few weeks ago. They don't care about what the American people value unless it serves their individual political purposes.

10/01/2013 @ 2:45PM
After several years of Congress’ approval rating (click here) slumming in the 20s and the teens, a new CNN/ORC poll places the approval rating for Congress at a record low of 10%.

In a healthy democracy, logic would dictate that a legislature shouldn’t have such low approval ratings over the period of multiple election cycles. So why is this happening?...

The reason the USA Government is not acting as if it were sincerely a democracy is because Congress gives itself the right to act against the USA Constitution.

Published on Tuesday, October 01 2013 08:25
Written by Zogby 

...1. The Constitution vs. Congressional Rules (click here) – it appears that in an effort to protect the rights of the minority in both houses of Congress, we have forgotten about the rights of a majority. In the Senate, what used to take a simple majority vote to pass now requires a super-majority of 60 members. What was rarely used by members was their cherished right to filibuster. Today filibusters are standard operating procedure. In the House, we now have the so-called “Hastert Rule” which means that no bill passes that body without majority support of the majority party. Congress is supposed to pass legislation not run an obstacle course.

2. National Community vs. Local LOCM 0% Rights – the Founding Fathers knew that the principles of the American Revolution could not be sustained without a central government that fostered a bond among diverse states and cultures. They sought to build a national community out of a temporary coalition of colonies, economies, races, and creeds. But in order for this to work, the states had to give up some functions for the good of the whole. The tension between efforts to build this national community and the rights of states has been a constant in our history from the beginning. We fought a Civil War over it. By and large there has been a successful balance. But today the talk is not about a nation and community but about “my district”. It seems that some would deny legislation passed by Congress, signed by a President elected twice by majorities, and ratified by the Supreme Court on the basis of what “the voters in my district want”. This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

3. Electoral Legitimacy – when Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan were elected, they faced spirited opposition but ultimate acquiescence from the “loyal opposition”. Presidential elections are the ultimate voice of our national community. It doesn’t matter if there is a relatively low voter turnout (as in the 1980 victory of Reagan), a high voter turnout but close result (as in John F. Kennedy’s win in 1960), or the very high voter turnouts in both 2008 and 2012 (which gave Barack Obama majorities). There have been quibbles about voter fraud, losses in the electoral college, elections too close to call. But the point is that in a democracy, someone wins and someone loses. Losers have duties and responsibilities. Opposition is one of them; obstructionism never is.

The USA had the understanding of Libya and Somalia to carry out these raids? Yes? LIMITED raids?

I don't 'get it.' The sovereign government of Libya and Somalia can't send the sheriff?

There is a missing piece here.  See, the guy in Libya was involved in international crime under Gaddafi.

The USA dropped bombs and the French sent in jet fighters, remember that?

The former leader of Libya is dead, BUT, the old international criminals are just fine. And on top of all of it, the USA is sending in OUR military resources 'on the ground' to do what should have been done under Gaddafi. Why is it necessary to do under the new leadership what was necessary under Gaddafi even after the guy is dead and the government replaced with supposedly USA friendly governments?

Call me crazy, but, what the hell is this mess and why when the government is shut down is the USA pulling these stunts in order to attempt to intimidate the international community so they believe 'open for business' is the motto of the USA military? 

Did John McCain arm these rebels in Libya and Somalia so the sheriff isn't as well armed as the criminals?
Luis Ramirez 
October 06, 2013