Opportunists seeks to merge the global investments boards.

Wall Street never cease to provide audacity to reality.

Nathaniel Popper

January 11, 2012, 9:19 a.m.

Reporting from New York— (click title to entry - thank you)

...European regulators appear set to shoot down a controversial deal that would have seen Germany's largest stock exchange buy the New York Stock Exchange.
In a video message sent to employees of the Big Board on Wednesday, the chief executive of NYSE Euronext, Duncan Niederauer, acknowledged the growing rumors that European regulators are preparing to reject the deal due to fears that the new company would violate antitrust laws.
NYSE Euronext and the German exchange, the Deutsche Boerse, announced in February that the German company would acquire the New York exchange and its web of global subsidiaries in an exchange of stock.
Niederauer said Wednesday morning that he and his counterpart at the Deutsche Boerse had not received a final decision from the European Commission, but he expressed his disappointment that the combined company is being viewed as a monopoly threat....

There is so much 'liquidity' in the global financial sector they are trying to create a giant monopoly of the financial markets.  Every global market has been approached about a consolidation.  The monopolies have been denied for the most part. 

The global financial crisis is not about envy.  It is not about class warfare.  It is about the power of the global plutocracy that would like to dissolve the sovereignty of every country in their way.

The serious imbalance between the wealthy and the poor is globally profound.  If Wall Streets were to own the entire global financial network under a single Board of Trustees or ownership there would be no removing the poor standard anywhere.  Their power would be all inclusive, including the ability to manipulate monetary policy.

If anyone believes for one minute Romney doesn't know this is a goal for his 'equity industry' they believe in the magic of Frosty the Snowman, too.

Romney is not a nice man.  He is ruthless and he is typical of Republicans that hide behind their godliness and holier than thou attitude.

Mr. Romney continues to prove he is not a nice man.

...ROMNEY: You know, (click title to entry - thank you) I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it....

The word is used to close the debate.  It is an emotional word designed in its use in this context to intimidate the discussion.  In other words, Romney is 'the man' that 'knows' what the real problem is and it is that man in the White House and his rhetoric victimizing the entire country.  Romney 'knows' the nation will come to see it his way, so he continues to use the word to victimize the people that have decided about 99% of estrangement in economic prosperity.

Allow me to prove to you how completely "W"rong Romney is in his politics without facts, but, simple emotional attacks of intimidation.  See next entry.  Thank you. 

I heard a mention of a 'magnet bomb' on the radio and didn't catch all the details at first. I thought it was a rebirth of Herman Cain.

Pokemon Magnet Bomb (click here)

The bomb could have been planted by anyone.  Al Qaeda usually are the ones on motorcycles.

It could have been anyone.  Was his wife happy? 

Maybe Iran hasn't scanned the horizon lately but they are in the Middle East where turbulence has become a daily diet.

There are many, many countries that do not approve of the Iranian nuclear ambitions.  There is no way of knowing.  The neighbors to Iran in the entire region are not happy and feel it is a threat to any peace and stability.  Those neighbors have friends that stretch around the globe. 

Iran needs to get over it and change its ways.
\
Iran is always trying to focus its anger and inappropriate nuclear status on The West.  I don't know of any nation in the region that believes Iran should have nuclear weapons or wants a nuclear Iran.  To be honest, for the expediency it took place after Iran made their announcement about enrichment, it was probably implemented within the region if not the country itself.

The other bizarre possibilty is that this is to bolster the 'idea' that an American visiting family in Iran is actually CIA.  Would that be quite a show, for Iran to execute an American after the professor was killed as if this was a CIA plot the Iranian government was trying to stop the entire time.  Such a 'story' would give greater justification to confronting The West, especially in Homuz.  It sort of sounds more like a Bush/Cheney stunt to justify escalation to the Iranian people.  Is there a Radio Free Iran?  There should be.

The West didn't do this.  Nope.

January 11, 2012
...Iranian media (click title to entry - thank you) said Wednesday two unidentified people on a motorcycle attached a magnetic bomb to Roshan's car, killing him and his driver and wounding a passer-by....

With lack of private equity investment in the USA and the high unemployment among construction workers, President Obama sought a solution.

June 30, 2011 (click title to entry - thank you)


...The initial partners in the Better Buildings Challenge include private sector companies, financial institutions and local governments.... 


The Republicans believe "Making Business Better" means layoffs and outsourcing. 


The only defense Romney has on job creation is that he made business better according to Former New Hampshire Governor Judd Gregg.  Gregg states in his support of Romney, it is necessary to layoff employees to make business better. 


When will outsourcing and layoffs of employees be viewed as a failed business? 


Laying off employees reduces the market for any product.  Yet, Republicans see this 'relief from labor cost' as a genius move to make a business better.  Amazing. 


For CEOs to achieve poor stock returns and ultimately restructuring of the company and its labor force means the CEOs never knew what they were doing in the first place. 


Boom or bust and riding the bubble, that is the Republican business model. 


Historically, USA fisheries implode  with Republican administrations (example: implosion of the Pacific fisheries under Bush) because deregulation of the industry.  With deregulation there is a large increase in 'take from the fisheries' and the 'number of boats fishing.' 


The same strategy is allowed of Wall Street when deregulated.  There is a bubble and implosion.  That is not a business model for sustained markets and employment, that is 'wealth greed' with complete disregard for a stable economy whjch leads to greater national security.


January 11, 2012


President Obama Hosts "Insourcing American Jobs" Forum at the White House (click here)

The Recovery Act influence is fairly obvious as the number of jobs saved and created.  During the first year of the Obama administration job loss was completely halted and reversed.  The jobs saved would not even show up on this graph.

The only ideas Republicans have, are the next set of rhetorical lies.

A rhetorical lie is most sought that activiates all the senses of power, like, the Donald Trump wannabe rhetoric "I love to fire people."

One (click title to entry - thank you) of the toughest things about being a Democrat is that the Republican values sound really neat -- individual liberty! personal responsibility! a small government! low taxes! not much bureaucracy! entrepreneurial spirit!...

...Yet they sound really attractive. So here's what young Democrats need to do -- build up a habit of CHALLENGING it whenever Republicans ooze about "personal responsibility" and all the others. If you get into an argument that consists mostly of you chanting some Democratic values and their chanting the Republican ones, you won't win more than 50% of the time....
 
...So you have to move the arguments from ABSTRACT VALUES to ACTUAL FACTS....

The dreaded European socialism is not the problem, Wall Street continues to be.

Where have I heard this before?  When the USA bailed out the banks in 2008 and 2009 the same exact methods occurred.  The monies were never reinfused into the USA economy to stabilize it or produce growth.  I'll be darn.  The stagnation in the Euro-Zone is directly a result of the methods of Wall Street, there is not any austerity methods that is going to improve this outcomes.  Quite the opposite, it will make it worse!

...Almost all of the money (click title to entry - thank you) loaned to 523 euro-area lenders last month wound up back on deposit at the Frankfurt-based central bank instead of pouring into the financial system, according to estimates by Barclays Capital based on ECB data. Banks will use most of the money from the three-year loans to meet their refinancing needs for this year and next, analysts at Morgan Stanley and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc estimate.

“It’s illusory to think that the measure will translate into credit generation,” Philippe Waechter, chief economist at Natixis Asset Management in Paris, said in an interview. “It will assuage some of the anxiety banks have regarding their liquidity needs. But they’ve engaged into a massive overhaul of their strategy and shrinkage of their balance sheets, which is, coupled with the deteriorating economy, not compatible with increasing credit.”

Governments are urging European banks to keep lending to companies and individuals while requiring them to raise an additional 114.7 billion euros of core capital by June to weather a deepening sovereign-debt crisis. Instead of raising equity, most lenders across Europe have vowed to meet capital rules by trimming at least 950 billion euros from their balance sheets over the next two years, either by selling assets or not renewing credit lines, according to data compiled by Bloomberg....

Is Wildard Mitt Romney the next Dick Cheney? More than likely, yes.

I don't trust Wall Street in the White House.  Do we want a CEO from a liquidity bank leading the USA?  I sure don't.  I would never vote for the man.  It has nothing to do with anything except the USA has been worked over the coals since Bush's administration took office in January 2001. 

NO, THANK YOU.  I learned my lesson the first time!

Bain is simply the next Halliburton and don't tell me for one minute that Romney won't bring his money management skills with him to the Executive Branch.  There is a big difference between Bedtime for Bonzo and Bain Capital.  Romney was once the President of the Actor's Guild. 

Romney is nothing like Reagan.  Nope. 

The Democrats have had a diffcult time warming up to Secretary Geithner, just think what it is going to be like with a Wall Street CEO in the Oval Office.  Romney has never had a treasury like the one of the USA.  He never had the borrowing power either.  He never had the clout and I guarantee he'll sidle up to China, India and Iraq like Paulson never did.

He'll never be able to compare his 'job creation' rate to that of President Obama.  No comparison.  Romney took no prisoners.  That ruthlessness was never a priority with the President.  It will be Wisconsin from Sea to Shining Sea.

The Republican War Mongers regarding the MIddle East really are way off base.

IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz (click title to entry - thank you) with Defense Minister Ehud Barak in the Golan Heights.

Photo by: Defense Ministry Israel is accepting refugees from Syria.  Israel has been and always will be interested in PEACE between itself and its neighbors.  It would be wise for Iran to realize exactly how interested in peace Israel actually is and has always been. Assad had to realize that once the Syrian people reached their tolerance of his regime it was going to be met with a strong effort to remove him and his military.  Hezbollah has been entrenched in resistence for a long time in Syria, much of that time its efforts were aimed at Lebanon and Israel.  But, the really it neither Israel or Lebanon had oppressed them, their own government did.  The reason Hezbollah has been displacing their efforts against neighbors to Syria is because that was always Assad's focus.  Assad was always over reaching his authority across borders.  With the Arab Spring giving new reality to the citizens of the MIddle East, there was a new focus for and they removed themselves from the 'violent old ways' and seek change through passive resistence.  When Assad met their passive resistence and their civil disobedience with violence against his own people, there was no holding back a populous now aware of their real enemy.  Israel has always been tolerant.  It has sometimes over reacted to threats at its borders.  Israel at times has been unjust within its borders with Palestinians.  But, with the Middle East moving their focus off Israel to realize their oppressors far exceed a simple scapegoat, Israel may find a greater opportunity for humanitarian connections to Arabs in need. ...Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said Tuesday that Israel is preparing to absorb Alawite refugees once Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime collapses, which he expects to happen in the coming months. Speaking at a Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs committee meeting, Gantz said Assad's turmoil could cause him to seek a military confrontation with Israel.... I would never expect Israel to change its defensive approach to their national security.  It is not prudent for Israel to lower their expectations of defending their autonomy, but, I would not expect Israel to become an aggressor nation in the MIddle East.  Quite the contrary, I would expect Israel to eventually move into a movement toward peace with a newly resolved Arab League.  In many ways the Arab Spring is 'too good to be true' for Israel and there are still questions as the 'intent' of newly elected governments. ..."Assad cannot continue holding on to power and his downfall is expected to cause a crack in the radical axis," Gantz said. "Assad and the Syrian regime may have a hard time acting against us in the short-term, but we also need to take into account that Syria has advanced weapons systems. They have advanced Russian arms such as Yakhont missiles." The IDF chief said that he was not sure whether the Golan Heights, which border with Syria, will remain quiet in the near future. "Assad is not the same type as [Former Libyan leader Muammar] Gahdafi, who fights until the last bullet down in the sewer. The day that the Syrian regime will fall, it will issue a blow to the Alawites, and we are preparing to absorb those refugees." Gantz also discussed other threats the IDF perceives.... It would be a folly for the Arab League to allow Israel to wonder as to its own security with such dynamic shifts in power in many of its member countries.  The Arab League is proving to be a guiding force in the Middle East, I would think its ultimate challenge would be to bring all its member nations to the table with Israel to hammer out a sustainable peace and a permanent Palestine Nation. I would not expect a 'perfect start' to such efforts, but, I believe all parties are capable of ending the turmoil of the Middle East and establish a stable region. I believe the Arab Spring is bringing a new savviness to the Arab League.  I have been impressed with their resolve and willingness to work with the people.  Their initiatives in Syria cannot be denied as one of the more brave approaches I have witnessed among members of the Arab League in all its existence.  They are working to secure the people against violence to allow representative governments to grow.  That is not only impressive, it is historical for this region.  Quite amazing actually.  Good allies and trade partners are growing.

I hear Republicans are waking up to the prospect of having an atypical QUALIFIED candidate as a nominee.

Republican (click title to entry - thank you) presidential candidate, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and his wife Mary Kaye turns and gestures to the crowd after doing a television interview prior to a campaign rally in Exeter, N.H., Monday, Jan. 9, 2012. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

Mr. Lew is a very familiar face. Thank you, Mr. Lew.

The best part of Mr. Lew's acceptance for Chief of Staff is that Congress has a one stop place for cooperation.  Mr. Lew is from the Office of Management and Budget.  Congress can now rely on the White House to be completely accurate in their assessment of any bills costs and REVENUES.

..."Over the past year he has helped strengthen our economy and streamline the government at a time when we need to do everything we can to keep our recovery going," Obama said. "Jack's economic advice has been invaluable and he has my complete trust, both because of his mastery of the numbers but because of the values behind those numbers."

Lew is well-regarded by Republicans, though he is likely to be perceived as more of a partisan than Daley, who had a close relationship with the corporate community.

Former Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, who worked with Lew on appropriations and budget matters, called Lew's appointment a "solid choice."

"He's a very professional guy, he's a straight shooter, he's obviously partisan, but he knows his stuff," Gregg said. "He always told you what he thought. He was very straightforward. He has a lot of credibility on the Hill."...

I thank Mr. Daley for staying at the White House over the past year after Rahm was elected Mayor of Chicago.

By Christi Parsons and Peter Nicholas, Washington Bureau

January 9, 2012, 6:47 p.m.

Reporting from Washington — (click title to entry - thank you)

After a frustrating year of setbacks and bruising fights with Republicans, President Obama accepted the resignation of Chief of Staff William Daley and turned to a Washington veteran in an attempt to improve White House operations and the administration's dealings with Congress....

It is absolutely astounding to realize the length President Obama has gone to in trying to find a way to welcome Republicans home.  It hasn't worked, it is not going to work because the Tea Party folks have a real chip on their shoulder.  They didn't come to Washington DC to cooperate for the best interest of the country, they went to Washington DC to take control.  There is quite a difference.  The Tea Party members of the US House have literally set up a parrallel governing body whereby they assigned Speaker Boner as President and relished their own Congressional Christmas Tree Lighting VS The White House Christmas Tree.

The US House has disconnected from governing and is literally under seige.  That is my point of view. 

So, I am sure the required 'tensile strength' needed in the Oval Office and with its staff is more than anyone can imagine with the country having a 'fingertip hold' on a recovering economy.  Although in all honesty, this recovery is different than others, in that Americans are taking up the call and growing their local economies without relying on Wall Street.  The 'opportunity gap' is closing with focus on local economies, but, the shift to success is slower as it was stymied by events in 2009 that left Small Business start ups without bank loans.  It took awhile for the Recovery Act to make its progress through the USA states and into the economy.  So, while the economic recovery was lethargic, it was due to external forces no one could see coming.  Wall Street literally picked up their money and left the country. 

I wish Mr. Daley a great deal of success in Chicago and I appreciate all his efforts in DC.  If his efforts to bridge a relationship from the Executive Branch to Congress were lackluster it was not for the trying.

Laura Ingram and the media hasn't got anything.

Evidently, the 'gossip' this week is there was an 'over the top' Halloween Party at the White House.

 

As far as I am concerned, if a friend wanted to bring 'to die for' guests to a party, I am all about it.

 

I am quite confident the children at the party had the time of their lives.  The strongest drink at the party was fruit punch and even that is supposed to be scandalous. 

 

The fact of the matter is, there were new staffers that, while incredibly talented, didn't hold back or carry out security details.  I find it even more interesting that President Obama came to the party as himself.

 

Party Hardy Kids.  I mean really.  Evidently, Laura Ingram is seeking character assassination rather than 'talking points' of the Republican Nomination Race.  I guess it just isn't interesting enough for her listeners.

 

BY KENNETH R. BAZINET

DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Friday, February 26, 2010

WASHINGTON - White House (click here) social secretary Desiree Rogers is quitting, but the Obama administration insisted Friday she wasn't forced out over the embarrassing party-crasher security farce.
A close confidant of the Obamas, Rogers failed to provide staff to help Secret Service double-check a White House guest list last November....

Breathalyzer at the voting booth !!!!!!!

Sound like a strange idea?  There was a right wing political commentator today advocating a drink before voting for Republicans by Independents.

No lie.

Traveling is wonderful, I get to listen to a lot of radio.  Today, it blew me away.  No, no, not the storm, the female right wing commentator.

She was speaking to an Independent voter while on the air.  She wanted to know whom he was going to vote for.  He stated he wasn't sure, but, he thought it would be a Republican.  He voted for President Obama last time.

She stated he absolutely could not vote for President Obama this.  This Independent Voter was an African American Man.  She stated if the voter looked around the area at the voting place, there had to be a bar within walking distance and rather than back sliding, he needed to go to the bar and take a shot of courage.

She advocated that voting for a Republican in 2012 would require an African American man to have his senses dulled in order to prevent him from voting his conscience. 

That was a new one on me and it made me realize, while Republicans were demanding Photo IDs for balloting, they thought it was okay to be inebritated.  Not only okay to be inebriated, but, the 'choice' for voting for Republicans in 2012.  She was NOT joking.  She was making the point that taking a drink before balloting would make it easy to vote Republican.

I could not believe my ears, so I thought it most appropriate to not only expect people to provide photo IDs, but, to be sure they weren't drunk.

Dead serious.  The truth.  Right Wing Commentators are suggesting a drink to change an Independent's vote for a Republican.  You can't make this stuff up.

Now, if a minority heard HER commentL, it would have a special meaning as there sometimes is cited as an unnecessary evil in the inner city many bars and liquor stores.  Seriously.  It is a racist comment.  She probably knew it, but, didn't care.  If she didn't know it, then what is she doing on the air?

"The Dream Act"

Pro-Life

Anti-Abortion

There are many babies born within the USA and want their dream, too!

If this is showing on the blog it is because I haven't finish my traveling for the day.

Until later.

The story is incredible, but, the reality is so very difficult to accept.

What is even more difficult to accept is the fact there has been little to nothing done to stop the thriving gun culture of the USA that allows them to find their way into the hands of drug dealers that kill and wound the finest police officers in the world.  There is something very, very wrong with that.  

Gabrielle Giffords: An example for all of us (click title to entry - thank you)

by reneeschaferhorton on Jan. 06, 2012, under Life

I was late going to my birthday brunch on Jan. 8 last year because my youngest daughter wanted to play me some songs on her guitar. Because of that, I hopped in my car about 30 minutes late to meet friends at the just-opened Beyond Bread at the corner of Ina and Oracle roads. I picked up one of my friends along the way, explaining my tardiness and telling her about my two resolutions for 2011: Make more time for girlfriends and accept that my life as a newspaper reporter was over. The birthday brunch was a celebration of new beginnings.

Driving toward the sandwich shop, we discussed how only cool people are born on Jan. 8 (The King, for instance), and the great weather. I was explaining my new teaching assignment when my phone rang. It was about 10:45 a.m. and the other friend we were meeting explained that she was detoured away from Beyond Bread by police surrounding the intersection.

“They’re saying someone was shot,” she said. To which I replied, “A few weeks ago they said there was a bomb threat or something and it turned out to be nothing.” We moved the birthday celebration to another restaurant.

Fewer than 5 minutes later, sitting at the stoplight across the street from the newly chosen venue, my phone buzzed. I flipped it open to see a message from a local priest: “There are reports that Gabrielle Giffords has been shot up where you live. Do you know anything?” I handed the phone to my friend, a volunteer with the local Democratic Party. “Oh my God,” she said, “this can’t be right.”...

Representative Ron Paul is a statesman. I can't say the of other candidates for the Republican nomination.

His problem is his past.  We have witnessed newsletters blatantly bigoted coming from his political camp.  The question with an older statesman that sincerely expresses concern for the country is, did he ever act on those bigoted statements or did he ONLY use those opportunities to win over an electorate?  A man with a vision if you will.


If citizens want to overlook the past; or maybe overlook is not a good word; but, forgive the past of an ambitious man that once elected did no harm and instead found a great deal of loyalty among his constituents using his methodology, how much do we forgive?  Do we now consider him a leader enough to give his point of view brevity?


I believe there is a legitimate stand to take with Paul's former political rant and what his approach to his constituent and indeed a nation as a federal representative has been.  He is one of the only candidates, if not the only candidate, I remember willingly and openly stated he is concerned about the huge discrepancy of incarceration and death penalties involved with the African American community in the USA.  That is a huge statement.  Is it redeeming?  If it brings about a solid resolve to seek justice for our minorities it can be that redeeming.


Ron Paul is one of the steadfast candidates with a track record that has not varied.  He has impressed me in his answers being founded in 'the law.'  Not rhetoric.  Not unrealistic social resolves, but, sincere law and government.  His answer about contraceptives is rock solid.  Rock solid is what the citizens of the USA are looking for and not simply rant after rant to win faux favor.  Ron Paul does not play 'the carrot and stick' politics the others do.  He makes his expertise known and lives with it.


The real danger in allowing redemption of a former bigoted dialogue is that others will see it as an opportunity to win favor and not sincerely be reformed.  There is a real danger to allow the same to happen again.  Is it realistic it will happen again?  Will the American electorate allow the hatred, that status quo exist for existence sake rather than sincerely do 'the hard work' of destroying bigotry, racism and bias when it is inconvenient or the 'dollars' are working in the 'right' direction.


Ron Paul should carry brevity and if he is not to be President he needs to address his leadership after he leaves the House.  I don't blame him for leaving the House, it has become silly and irrelevant.  I would like to see him continue his dialogues and work for sincere justice in this country.  I believe the model he brings to the debates should carry brevity as well.  


Decisions to make and discussions to have.  How do we stop the racism, the hatred, the phobias, the stigmatizing and sincerely have a country where people care about and for each other?  He could be pivotal.  


Paul exhibits the difference between a statesman and a politician. That is worth exploring if nothing else is.  He never needed 'the job,' he chose it.

I am somewhat bothered by Governor Romney's statement about religious bigotry regarding abortion.

...The debate prompted (click title to entry - thank you) by the childern minister's views on white adopters and black children is misleading and unhelpful (Inter-racial adoption should be promoted – minister, G2, , 3 November). European and UK legislation requires adoption agencies to take into account a child's ethnicity, culture, religion and language. Adoption agencies have long recognised the importance of promoting and supporting a child's identity in all its aspects when a child is placed for adoption. For most children from minority ethnic backgrounds, successful placements have been made with families which have reflected the child's background – and that achievement should be celebrated. But the profiles of children have changed over the past 10 years, as has the demography of certain ethnic groups in the population, affecting the chances of them being successfully placed for adoption....


He speaks too quickly and in bias to his own point of view.  The article above is from the Guardian, a British paper.


I didn't know Catholic Charities didn't offer adoptions in Massachusetts because they will not adopt into same sex relationships.  Quite surprised, actually.  


See, the State of Massachusetts legislated very simple language about adoption that did not discriminate.  The law has definitions as all good laws do.  The definitions below in very simple terms defines the parents of adopted children.

Adoptive Parent.  (click here) An individual who has been approved by the licensee to adopt a child.


Adoptive Parent Applicant.  An individual who has applied to be an adoptive parent


No forced Catholic Charities to close its doors.  That was not the goal of any law, but, due to the religious affiliation of the organization it 'self-determined' to stop those services to perspective parents.  So. let's get that much straight.


This is a country where all people are considered to be equal.  I think that is a Constitutional provision.


With that comes the question as to where do religious organizations fall when laws are clear and decisive and what legitimate problems will they cause if they are noted to be exempt from the state laws.


If Catholics are allowed special provisions to allow discrimination based in 'faith' then will other agencies be allowed special provisions based in race?  When exemptions are provided to religious organization to conduct a PUBLIC SERVICE, should there not be a clear understanding that THE PUBLIC applies to all the people and not just the religious people.  


Then there is the idea that the church conducts legislation without being elected.  If there are exceptions to the rule for religious organization, what other organizations get exceptions and how can a state legislature make exceptions if they were elected to office to treat all people equally.


If same sex couples cannot adopt, then why would a SINGLE PARENT of a single gender be allowed to adopt?  What if the adoptive parents complete there adoption and either the husband or wife dies for some reason, does that mean that is no longer a family and they have to give the child back?


The questions that arise for exceptions to any law can become bizarre and burdensome.  I am quite surprised that Governor Romney could not discern the problem with exclusive language in a State law, one especially sensitive law concerning children.


I think Gingrick brought up this fact, but, Romney expanded the discussion.  Gingrick blamed the media for bias and religious bigotry.  He might think that through once more actually.  The decision of Catholic Charities did receive newsprint.  It was no secret.


Is the Catholic Church a private club?  Can it conduct business in a closed manner that would allow it to only service Catholics?  If it were a private club whereby they only had contact and services for Catholics I could envision Catholics giving children to adoption for other Catholics to adopt.  But, the religion is not a private club.  They minister to the pubic and IN THE USA that means all the people.  


This is the same problem the Catholic Church runs into in criticizing their flock that serve in office for allowing abortion.  The Catholic Church DOES NOT 'GET IT.'  They have congregations in a free country, where every person has equal rights under the law.  The Catholic Church never 'got it.'  They never 'got it' because Freedom of Speech allows them to say anything they want to without retribution, so they over step their authority and try to impose religious doctrine into the public rhelm. 


The Catholic Church owns this problem, not the people of the USA.  Their very competent services to adoptive parents are dearly missed, but, if they insist on carrying out their religious doctrine to over ride state law, they are not seeking a democracy to live in, they are seeking a theocracy.  That is not allowed in the USA.  Someone needs to clue them in and maybe, just maybe, they will finally 'get it.'  


Not all children are born to Catholics.  Not all adoptive parents are Catholic.  Not all adoptive parents want white children and if I understand children for adoption the ONLY quality they are seeking is LOVE.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, a Supreme Court Judge has a 'special demand' before they can recuse themselves.

It would seem as though the calls from the political left and right for two Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves regarding the Affordable Care Act is such that Chief Justice Roberts needed to speak about the fact neither Justice would be asked to recuse themselves.

By JOANNE KENEN 

11/30/11 11:44 PM EST

From the right and left, (click here) Washington is awash in demands that two Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from this spring’s review of the health law....

JUDICIAL ETHICS AND REGULATION (click here)

Below is a paragraph from the 2011 report.

2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary  (click here)

...Although a Justice’s process for considering recusal is similar to that of the lower court judges, the Justice must consider an important factor that is not present in the lower courts. Lower court judges can freely substitute for one another. If an appeals court or district court judge withdraws from a case, there is another federal judge who can serve in that recused judge’s place. But the Supreme Court consists of nine Members who always sit together, and if a Justice withdraws from a case, the Court must sit without its full membership.  A Justice accordingly cannot withdraw from a case as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy.  Rather, each Justice has an obligation to the Court to be sure of the need to recuse before deciding to withdraw from a case....

While I believe it is highly unlikely the decision regarding The Affordable Care Act will result in any recusals by the simple fact 'opinions' should be as broadly based as possible to bring insight, it is more than sad to realize a report of the Federal Judiciary is relying on a 1920 precedent to begin the approach to Supreme Court Recusal.  Here as in most modern day dilemmas regarding ethics and legal standing these precedent occurred before computers and especially before a powerful plutocracy dominates American life.  While precedent is always helpful, the dynamics of such can only be a guide post to the modern era we now live.

In 1920, American baseball fans were jolted by allegations that Chicago White Sox players had participated in a scheme to fix the outcome of the 1919 World Series.  The team owners responded to the infamous “Black Sox Scandal” by selecting a federal district judge, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to serve as Commissioner of Baseball and restore confidence in the sport....

...Judge Landis resolved his situation by resigning his judicial commission in 1922 to focus all his efforts on the national past-time.  The controversy, however, prompted organized efforts to develop more guidance for judges.  That same year, the American Bar Association asked the Nation’s new Chief Justice, former President William Howard Taft, to chair a Commission on Judicial Ethics. 

In the 21st Century of the USA there are problems with 'power over the people' that cause gross distortions to the citizens of this country by a plutocratic principle alive within the Supreme Court.  I hardly find myself resolved regarding divided political loyalties among the Supreme Court Justices when such ancient precedent is called upon to inhibit legitimate concerns 'of the people' now faced with oppression of First Amendment Rights due to the disparity of wealth among citizens and corporations.  The USA's Justice System is supposed to be where all social and political pressures are nullified to bring about 'justice,' but, considering the poor outcomes of The Citizen United decision the quality of 'leveling the playing field' is absent.  It is my opinion, not The Courts opinion, there is profound loss of justice for the citizen invoked by one person majorities that side with Commerce vs Justice.

A citizen has the power to cast a vote and where corporations and currency are viewed to stand equally with citizens there is literally dual representations at the ballot box.  One for the actual vote of 'a superpac player' and one for those influencing that vote with heavy handed monetary pressure brought about through 'faux' rights established by Supreme Court precedent.  Money doesn't vote.  Corporations don't cast votes.  The influence by The Court is warped that causes democratic processes to be nullified by plutocratic influence.  I propose The Robert's Court is unable to discern what Democratized Freedom of Speech of a 'citizen vote' actually is in the digital age of power married to money.  

If a citizen has one vote, why does money and corporate officers and employees have more than one?  And why does 'unknown sources' of money become influential in sovereign elections.  I sincerely believe there is a compromise of the nation's sovereignty by the Citizens United decision.

...Roberts released his 16-page report (click title to entry - thank you) Saturday. It is his seventh since he was appointed as the nation's top justice in September 2005.

The chief justice uses most of his report to address the issue of judicial recusal, in hopes of dispelling "some common misconceptions."

Though Roberts does not cite specific cases or names, he could be addressing partisan urgings that Kagan and Thomas not hear the health care lawsuit....