There is no such thing as severely conservative. Hello, Democrats. Are you listening?

October 29, 2014
By Allegra Kirkland

...In order to determine (click here) which cities are most conservative, researchers analyzed large-scale surveys that questioned residents of over 1,600 towns and cities about a range of policy areas, from education to healthcare. Study authors Chris Tausanovitch of UCLA and Christopher Warshaw of MIT created an ideological score for each city based on these responses. The final study looks at the 51 U.S. cities that have at least 250,000 residents....

The survey doesn't really surprise me. Being politically conservative is very different than living conservatively. The political tone of the USA has grown more and more right wing because the GOP has manufactured their own "moral high ground." No one lives there, but, their politics are there because it serves the purpose of that feel good feeling. This survey proves it.

Americans are mostly left of center, not right of center. I wish the Democrats would rally to that reality. The more right wing ideologies claim to be the higher ground of politics the more it will attract interest. The reality is very clear, right wing politics is anti-American. It demands no gay community, seeks to control every woman's uterus, believes education is unimportant, wants all government services privatized and wants to burden the USA with a general sales tax rather than income tax. They are crazy, no one other than political extremists carry those views.

The Democrats have always moved the country forward. Why is that not appreciated? The Democrats have never shouted NO YOU DIDN'T DO THAT REPUBLICANS! 

President Kennedy saw the beginnings of the space program and now it is considered a Wall Street investment venue. The list of Democratic contributions to our country is very long, but, never are they credited with any of it once it is mainstream. 

Social Security is always denigrated by the GOP, but, it also serves as the baseline economy for the USA. That is never appreciated by Republicans until the economy crashes, which always occurs under Republicans,

SSI, along with Medicare has given new meaning to retirement. Retirement is a very viable part of the service industry sector. Today, with so many Baby Boomers entering retirement they are demanding healthy lives that allow them a great deal of freedom. In that is an economic boom for many areas of the country. Our very health is impacted by the most senior in our country when they step out of stereotypes to recognize that life is good even in the age of 80 something.

Medicaid brought health care to the impoverished. 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has changed healthcare for the better. People have enormous right to their records, in a new Patient Bill of Rights, to the point where hospitals are now allowing patients to access their personnel records online.

The ACA has saved tens of thousands of American lives with over 30 million finding health care insurance through the new exchanges.

An entire state, namely Kentucky, have made healthcare a priority. It is improving the lives of Kentuckians. How many were entrenched in poor health and unable to qualify for work?

The demand for healthcare jobs has not decreased due to the ACA. Hospitals have been receiving payment for services to finally balance their budgets. People can now be treated by a physician rather than seek care through emergency rooms across the country.

One might note the crying of Republicans in 2014 elections was about jobs and the ACA to the point where McConnell had to divide the idea Kentucky's health care insurance access, Kynect was far different from Obamacare. Americans are living a diluted reality.

The Democrats have always prioritized the needs of the Middle Class and Poor. Where would these people be if they were allowed to be disenfranchised, not only from voting, but from the priorities of their own government.

The list to the right is from a study conducted by Northwestern University and published in March 2013. It states the priorities of the wealthy as compared to the lack of importance of Middle Class and Poor to the same exact issues. The title of the study article "Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans," by Benjamin I. Paige, Larry M. Bartels and Jason Seawright. (click here) 

If the Democrats weren't at the forefront to carry the message of the Middle Class and Poor who then would? Certainly not Republicans, they disdain these people and while their strategy has turned towards the methods of local canvasing for political gain, the policies they carry are not at all beneficial to changing the peril of Americans born out of privilege. The Republican success lies within wealth and the allegiance of power to cronys. That is their standard bearer.

The study above was included in an article at "Demos, An Equal Say and An Equal Chance for All." The article is titled "Stacked Deck." (click here)

There is every indication and I won't get into it at the moment, the brave new world the Democrats so fervently embraced as their own waits around a corner. President Obama is overseeing some of the most incredible change both domestically and abroad, with allies and without; a change by Democrats in priorities in reaction to recent elections would be imprudent. 

The problem with the 2014 elections is the vats of money spent by the RNC. The Democrats were out spent by $100 million dollars. The values the Democrats hold is correct. Those values are wise and necessary. What would be said about the Democrats if they were elected under faux ideals and then pivoted to the much needed change in the USA? The Democrats find the truth and decency too burdensome to have it as it's core?

The problem is having their electorate realize the truth of the message and the deception of advertising. The truth about the country is something no one can deny, personal attacks of opposition candidates has pitfalls. The issues are still the best way forward.

The next two years will prove interesting as to the priorities of the two parties and how committed each party is dedicated to the best outcomes of the entire country and not special interests. There is a truth and President Obama knows what it is. The Democrats need to trust the man they elected in 2008 and 2012 and stop second guessing the changes in dialogue the Republicans demand. They are the wrong message and they are wrong for the country.

The Democrats have two brilliant men within their ranks, namely Former President Bill Clinton and current President Barak Obama. What seems to be the problem? The truth? The message? The overwhelming qualifications of candidates? Or is it something far more destructive? Something like, deception of the electorate to win elections that never deliver for them. The message is still clear. Truth and justice still matter.

The former President of Egypt needs to be given asylum upon his release.

November 29, 2014
By Jack Khoury

An Egyptian court on Saturday (click here) dismissed murder charges against former President Hosni Mubarak in connection with the killing of hundreds of protesters in the 2011 uprising that ended his nearly three-decade rule, citing the "inadmissibility" of the case due to a technicality.

The court further cleared Mubarak and a former oil minister of graft charges related to gas exports to Israel.

In a separate corruption case, charges were dropped against Mubarak and his sons Alaa and Gamal, with Judge Mahmoud Kamel al-Rashidi saying too much time had elapsed since the alleged crime took place for the court to rule on the matter....

He is no different than the Shah of Iran when he was provided asylum in his later years. He will be a target and if here were ever to return to leadership, which Sisi might have in mind, it would create more tensions and not less in Egypt.

This is a study conducted by the Pew Research Organization. I don't really value their opinions that much because there is a 'chance for profits' in their content when they write their surveys, but, there are few conducted like it. 

...Moreover, (click here) Muslims are not equally comfortable with all aspects of sharia: While most favor using religious law in family and property disputes, fewer support the application of severe punishments – such as whippings or cutting off hands – in criminal cases. The survey also shows that Muslims differ widely in how they interpret certain aspects of sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable....


What PEW is stating is there is strong existence of Sharia in the Muslim faith in many countries, however, the idea the old punishments are a popular method of enforcing Sharia is not favored.

I suggest one look to Saudi Arabia for the modern TONE of Sharia incorporated into it's laws. Saudi Arabia is a long standing leadership that favors the practice of incorporating faith with governing. Saudi Arabia is the most progressive leadership, along with Jordan and Lebanon, in the Middle East Arab countries. They value new world modernism and seeks to mitigate law breakers rather than rendering physical punishment and death as is described in Sharia. 

The countries that have peaceful relationships with The West also do not favor funding for extremists. It is that funding that continues to cause the Middle East such turmoil between 'new world' applications of Arab governance in a tug of war over 'old world' methods of governance that can be employed by any madman among them.

Make no mistake the Islamic State has taken the power of faith and again exploited it to form a war governance in Syria and part of Iraq. I know this will go over like a fart in church, but, the truth is Assad is a leader that had been accepted by other Arab leaders, a Shi'ite and one that was attracted to the modern paradigm of Muslim governance. I am not saying he was always fair or civilized (ie: chemical weapons), but, he was a power structure that found success in governance.  When compared to the Islamic State, Assad seems the best alternative.

Saudi Arabia does not fund extremists. It seeks intelligence in it's governance of extremists within the sovereign borders of the country and jails them for their willingness to entertain and sometimes actually killing the citizens of Saudi Arabia or of those people outside the country of Saudi Arabia. Has that form of governance been the best outcome for Saudi Arabia? Yes, absolutely.

Saudi Arabia's stability is unquestioned in it's ability to MINIMIZE the influence of extremists within the country. It now has an average of 30 or so arrests annually of known extremists. At least half are found and jailed and sent to rehabilitation providing they have not killed others. Saudi Arabia honors 'the family system' in valuing human life and it's strength found within families to enforce rehabilitation. Family is also elevated as the ultimate authority within Sharia and the Quran. It is not surprising Saudi Arabia is success in governance considering that families are to be honored within the governance by the King and Princes.

Women are respected with Saudi Arabian's governance. Albeit the women wear the Hijab but that dies not mean the women are not respected. Women have opportunity with the educational system in Saudi Arabia. The Hijab is a matter of the practice of the faith and a strong cultural icon. There is gender differences within the country as to privileges such as driving a car, etc., but none of that leads to torture of women such as stoning, etc. 

Women in Saudi Arabia are respected, provided opportunity and can inherit a family's wealth. They can seek work and use their paychecks to their own priorities. I do believe the Saudis are always open to discussion about the rights of women and recently they were provided the privilege of seeking a driver's license. How the Hijab might effect safe operation of a car might also come under discussion fairly quickly and there may have to be modification in the 'Driving Hijab.' 

As to Mubarak, was there any question he would eventually be returned to freedom. The real question is where is he best to spend his later years in life at home or in another country where he will be safe, along with his family.

I have a suggestion.

Saying that "time is of the essence," (click here) Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon called on state legislators Friday night, asking for a special state legislative session to address "critical funding" needs, CNN reports.

Nixon has deployed National Guard troops, along with state police, to the city of Ferguson following the August fatal police shooting of Michael Brown. This week's decision by a grand jury not to indict police officer Darren Wilson has spurred more violent protests in Ferguson and beyond.

Missouri's budget allots $4 million for its National Guard emergency response, along with another $3.4 million for the state's emergency response (which includes state troopers). Nixon did not detail how much more money is needed, but he asked state legislators to meet quickly so that Guard members can be paid on Dec. 15.

 - - Sarah Eberspacher

Call for a state bond to fund the continuing unrest in Missouri. AND. Hold elections to bring about change for Ferguson. A new mayor and council in Ferguson will result in a new balancing of the police force. There is a very good chance the fear that grips African American communities today can be mitigated through a change in their governments.

Here we go, the majority Republican have caused a yellow streak down Democrats backs.

Was health care reform right to do AFTER the Recover Act? Absolutely.

Why? Because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has it's own revenue stream and creates jobs. The law has not caused DEFICIT spending, in reality, it's revenue stream has assisted in rebolstering the USA Treasury.

In California alone the ACA is estimated to have started 100,000 new jobs.

A new study by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute (click here) suggests that if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act, it may have a negative impact on the California economy.

The study, The Economic Impact of the Affordable Care Act on California. concludes that the federal health care law would create almost 100,000 new jobs across California and boost economic output by $4.4 billion. The biggest expected job gains occur in Southern California, with almost 58,000 new jobs, followed by the Sacramento Valley with almost 13,500 new jobs, the Bay Area with 7,600 jobs, San Diego County with almost 6,500 jobs and the remaining 10,000 jobs spread throughout other counties.

“In the debate over the federal health care law, this study shows there has been more heat than light when it comes to understanding economic and jobs impacts,” said Jon Haveman, study co-author and chief economist for the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, the research arm of the Bay Area Council. “By focusing on expanding health insurance coverage, making our health care system more efficient and making our workforce healthier, we can realize important employment and economic gains.”...

There was a 'wise guy' comment made on one of the blogs stating, "The ACA hasn't created anymore professions except the people working with the public to assist in the choice of health care plans." All of that is DOUBLE talk. 

Immediately upon implementation of course there weren't any new PROFESSIONS and there isn't going to be new PROFESSIONS. What occurred after the ACE was implemented was a job creation of people teaching the public about the choices in health care under the ACA.

But, the PROFESSIONS in health care won't increase, the numbers within EVERY health care profession will increase. Adding new members to health care plans will drive a demand for health care and it is that demand that will increase jobs of every health care profession.

This is not rocket science. The ACA is self-sustaining. The new law really isn't that new. Massachusetts had a start up health care for all program long before the federal program was begun. Not only that, but, the law when first voted on AFTER the Recovery Act, was already written. It had been researched and written long before THE DEBATE ever ensued.

The reason this dialogue exists is because of morons that no nothing about the process this law endured before it was introduced to the US House in 2009 and those that are scared of having a President in chronic VETO mode when the US House and Senate vote 55, 56, 57 and 58 times to repeal the ACA over the next two years. The next two years with the Republican majorities will be a joke. The entire country knows that. The next session of Congress will be nothing but rhetorical leading up to the 2016 elections. 

I thought McConnell might have enough respect for the country to seek a good relationship with President Obama, but, with the Democrats suffering from PTSD and squealing like little pigs on their way to castration the Republicans will take advantage of their numbers in government for the 2016 federal elections. The Republicans like squealing piglets, don't the Democrats know that?

In Iowa, it is their favorite pastime.