https://www.forefieldkt.com/kt/htmlnl.aspx?type=fca&id=28&mid=134251&iplf=tv&ciid=512454&emailid=c7aa898d-9722-4276-8e48-258adaf1e5be I guess the 1% starts with a married couple who earn $250,000 I put this up for your info, if you think others may be interested in this information, pass it on. I am not making a political statement here, I am just passing on information that I think other people may be interested in having.
Tag: politics
Paul Krugman’s Comments A Fraud?
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-krugman-paul-ryan-budget-romney-supports-fraud-181245136–abc-news-politics.html Maybe it is not Mr. Krugman’s analysis that is fraud. Maybe it is the reporting. What this article says is that Mr. Krugman’s opinion is that Representative Ryan’s plan is not a plan and that President Obama’s plan is a plan. Now to say that Rep. Ryan’s plan is a fraud is to say that the Ryan plan is based on lies. Mr. Krugman tried to disarm his own biting criticism by saying that he is not personally attacking Mr. Ryan, but that he is just saying that the plan Mr. Ryan put forward is a fraud. I think a fraud is a lie and therefore a person who puts forth a fraud is a liar. Is that reasoning flawed? I am just trying to get to the facts and not the spin. Then we read that Mr. Krugman is in favor of the Obama plan. He says that is a plan he understands. He does not comment on the validity of the Obama plans numbers, approach or process. So, I take it he likes the plan. So, what we have here is a report about Mr. Krugman saying he doesn’t like the Ryan plan and therefore Mr. Ryan’s plan is a fraud and by inference, Mr. Representative Ryan is a liar. And that Krugman likes the President’s plan and therefore Mr. Obama is not a liar. Seems to me that the liar and fraud here is Mr. Krugman, who makes broad accusations against a U.S. Congressman and excuses the President. How to solve this? Take Mr. Obama’s own words to heart and instead of name calling and innuendo just say plainly, I, (Mr. Klugman) do not agreed with the Ryan plan for this and that (specific) reason and I agree with the Obama plan for this and that reason.
Belonging to an Organization on your own terms?
The Nuns agreed to belong to an organization ruled in a monarchial fashion by a top man and administered by his male agents. Their agreement to part of the Roman Catholic Church was not forced on them. It was part of their belief system. They trained not as Presbyterian or Lutheran Nuns but as Roman Catholic. They vowed faithfulness not to the magisterium of the Episcopal Church but to the Roman Catholic. That system has a very clearly defined and easily understood set of rules. These rules are not secret and they are not imposed on adherents by force. The key concept being that the Pope, his Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops are the teachers of the Roman Catholic church and that these persons are entrusted with the duty and responsibility to teach and to protect the universally accepted doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. When the Nuns and their leaders were accepted into the Order of the Church they willingly and publicly accepted this system, its procedures and the oversight of the Magisterial hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Now, in this last days, this magisterial hierarchy has examined the leadership of the Nuns and found it lacking. The Pope and his agents have conducted an open, transparent and public examination of the Leadership Conference and published its findings openly with a recommendation that the Leadership Conference accept a more direct management by a trio of bishops appointed by the President (Pope) of their organization. To this writer, the intention here is to right any wrongs and foster a more collegial decision-making process which by definition will be consonant with the Pope and the whole Church. In conclusion, this writer is not proposing that the Process, procedures or organizational structure of the Roman Catholic Church is the only right or good one. However, when a nun or any other person freely joins such an organization and additionally seeks to be a Nun- teacher of that organization then they should abide by the rules of oversight. Granted, that his Holiness and the bishops have invited a response, however, in the end, the nuns must decide if they will remain in the organization they love or chose to become members of one of the many Protestant organizations. However, it will be intellectually impossible to remain a Roman Catholic Nun in rebellion against the Church. Why? Because of their vows.
BlogTalkRadio Program
This writer also broadcasts a half hour radio broadcast on Blogtalkradio. Granted it is not regularly but I, like you, have to make a living. I like the comment on my blog today that said, “writing is the only work that is not criticized for not making money” Anyway, if you care to tune into the program, it is on Blogtalkradio.com and the title is Considerations. I also broadcast a rock and roll radio program using radionomy. It is a non DJ program so all you hear is music, not even adverts yet because the listenership is low but it is a great station and works real good as background music while you are on the computer. It’s at Radionomy.com and the title is “Uplifting” If you like either program please let me know via the “like” botton. Thanks
What’s With the Gay Thing?
http://news.yahoo.com/jim-parsons-gay-10-relationship-213706907.html First the disclaimer: I do not hate gays, actually, I try not to hate anyone. Second: I do not know the fellow featured in this article and I do not wish him any ill. Third: I do not care what his sexual habits are!
I titled this article as a question because I am getting confused as to the passionate desire of our culture to snoop into other people’s private lives. Why are we fixated on the bedroom? We are not fixated on the potty. At least I do not think we are interested in what this fellow uses to wipe his ass. If he or any heterosexual person engages in sex, I really do not care what lubricant they use or which brand of condom. Yet, we get all hyped up to know that any particular male person engages in anal sex or oral sex with another male and we are thrilled that it is a ten-year long process. At least that is the breathless way this article is written. I read it because I wanted to know what is the fuss? And reading it I felt dirty, as though I was peeking into their bedroom and watching them conjoin. As I write this, there are probably hundreds of people in my town engaging in various forms of sex. So what! I mean really, folks, this fixation with Gays is adolescent.
And just one more thing. Again, the disclaimer, ( it seems we always need to defend ourselves these day), I do not care about the sexual habits of others. Yet, I wonder what it is that our society and its voyeuristic culture wants to promote. You see, I am able to write this blog and this man is able to have a ten-year relationship with another man because we had a father and mother. We were not born because we had father and father. Females are absolutely essential for the continuation of the species. And although Hilary Clinton thinks that it takes a village to raise a child, it starts with sex between a man and women and then a family. Yes, the family is faulty but so is the community. It is time to stop acting like twelve-year-old with binoculars peering into this handsome man’ or that beautiful woman’s bedchamber. And in so doing, let’s get away from the grunt and sweat of sex and pay attention to things that enhance our communities, like Art, Science, Literature, and even Religion and Philosophy.
Senators Are Old and Wealthy
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/lautenberg_frelinghuysen_among.html This article points us to two facts, the Senator from New Jersey is very wealthy and 88 years old. I am not prejudice against either situation. I want to get old and be healthy as is Senator Lautenberg and I want to be a 48 millionaire like him. To his credit, the Senator made his money by hard work, entrepreneurial acumen and vision. Very good qualities indeed and ones to be held up for imitation. However, the Democrat President Obama has declared class warfare against the wealthy. In his book he speaks forcefully against the avarice and greed of white Americans. In his public statement Democrat Obama has spoken repeatedly against the wealthy saying that they must be taxed a lot more, their tax-free foundations abolished and their tax exemptions closed. But does Senator Lautenberg agree and does it matter if he does. I should think that people like the Senator are needed in the private sector to create companies like ADP and to lead job creation. That is not done by Senators voting on Gay marriage and Pro Abortion and trade bills that make America less competitive in our world. If he agrees with Obama and the so-called Buffet rule then he should voluntarily write very big checks to the US government and I would suggest, renounce his pay, perks, and pension for surely he needs none of them. But does he agree that the wealthy are to be maligned and that a federal policy of “leveling the playing field” would best benefit the nation? Well, let’s just say that as a very liberal Democrat who seems to wholeheartedly support the Obama agenda, Senator Lautenberg writes an additional 20% check to the IRS. So we take 48 million and reduce it by 9.6 million. How much is left? Let’s round it to 38 million. Can Mr. Lautenberg live on that. Yes, he can. So the next year he does it again. This time the check will be for 7.6 million bring him down to 30 million. Next year it is 6 million bring him down to 24 million. Then it is 4.8 million bring him to 19. Then it is 3.8 leaving 15 million. Then to 3 million making him a twelve millionaire. Senator Lautenberg may agree to such a reduction in his wealth but it would still be a private matter and he would end up after a mere six years as only 1/4 of what he had to start. Some readers will say,”good.”! But should that process be applied to all people with over 250 thousand dollars in wealth? Should it be applied to your bank account or stock fund or 401 K or inheritance? If it is good for one, say Senator Lautenberg, then it should be fair to apply it to everybody. So, the question is, Are you willing to be worth only 1/4 of what you are worth today. Now, philosophically, you may say “Yes.”. But remember, Senator Lautenberg still ends up with 12 million. If it is you, what do you end up with? I will not do the math for you but I will suggest that although the formula is the same, you, at 250 thousand, will end up with not enough to pay for you childs junior college in state tuition. So there is a difference.
Sarkozy Under Investigation?
http://news.yahoo.com/sarkozy-faces-slew-probes-immunity-ends-092003356.html As I read this news story, and it is news not commentary, I wonder about all the moral high ground and moral posturing by Sarkozy when he spearheaded the criminal aggression against Libya. Only a few months ago it was Sarkozy the Just against Gaddafi the Vile. Back then, it was the France of Joan of Arc, the Britain of Churchill, and the USA of George Washington against the dirty desert dictator from Tripoli. Back then the contrasts were so stark. It was the tent of Libya against the Versailles of Sarkozy’s France. But reading this article one’s eyesight focuses and the distinctions turn into desert sands which constantly morph into different shapes. This writer has been consistent and is still committed to a “Realpolitic” that holds the self-righteous to the same standards they set for others.
In the USA, which is my county, our leader and his party have denounced terror and terrorism. President Obama was quick to criticize the CIA for “waterboarding” which he called torture. There was constant posturing as the Democratic Congress people like Pelosi and Senator Reid smirked about the terrible George Bush. But today we witness President Obama willingly ordering political murder. I have lost count of the number of assassinations by aerial drone the USA has committed. We are told that the targets of these killings deserve what we deal to them. They are terrorists we are told. They are suspected of terrorism we are told. They must be executed where they are before they have a chance to send terrorists to us. Regularly, we are reading of another pinpoint assassination of some supposed terrorist or other as though the drone kills only the single human and leaves all others unharmed. But we know that a drone is an aerial bomb and the alleged terrorist is joined in his death by all those around him. Are none of the associates innocent or is anyone even standing in the vicinity of the drone’s target to be considered worthy of death?
Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama need to be investigated and also the United Nations and NATO should be called to the Bar, not only for political impropriety but also international criminal aggression.
The reports never mention the opposition forces that seek the overthrow of Assad. Like with Libya, the Nato nations want to interfere and force the government to fall. However, if a group of anarchists, or any other political group sought to overthrow the Obama government by force, it would be deemed treason and it would be suppressed by force and the perpetrators would be liable to execution. So why is it different with Syria? Obviously, the Obama government is already involved in the overthrow of the legal government of Libya by outside force. In former days, the crime against Libya would have been condemned as criminal aggression and under Nuremberg rules it should be treated as a crime against humanity.
In the case of Libya, the Russian and Chinese were promised that UN resolution 1973 was merely to use NATO military force to protect so-called innocent civilians. Once approved by UN, the British and French attacked the legal armed forces of the Legal Libyan government. The excuse was that the army of the government “obviously” must be attacked in order to protect civilians. After the 212 cruise missile strikes and the first two hundred jet fighter attacks against military installations inside of Libya, Vladimir Putin objected. However, it was too late. The drum beats of war had begun and the French and Brits would never accept that they were acting illegally. So they increased their attacks with assistance from USA and the government of Belgium. (It is very noteworthy that all three governments have a dirty colonial history of racial imperialism and genocide. (Belgium in Central Africa under King Leopold) However, the Academic community and the mass audience to Internet and TV reporting allowed themselves to condone criminal and wonton aggression because the “horrible” Gaddafi bombed a civilian aircraft over Lockerbie. (Noteworthy here is that the Brits accepted the actual perpetrator of that crime to gain asylum in Europe.!)
Again Putin objected but to no avail and the military organization known as NATO ferociously attacked the Libyan government . And the world, its response was silence or cheering. Silence because no one really cared about the Libyan people and cheering because of hatred for Gaddafi. By the way, NATO was originally meant to protect against Russian aggression. Amazing double standard that now they are open, obvious and arrogant aggressors.
All of this brings us to the current impasse with Syria. The Russians and Chinese were betrayed with UN resolution 1973 and so far they have vowed not to let that happen again. The NATO nations spent billions to wage war against Libya. They have no taste for that kind of expense again. They have expended their war budgets. And the USA? Carney’s admission of “defeat” is precursor to the coming proposal that the world community again take up war in the region. And don’t forget the Iranians.
Obama is right not to arm the rebels. Our own civil war dealt with the problem of outside forces as the British tried to interfere on the side of the South. However, Carney does not mention if the Brits, French and Belgians are also refraining from funding, and arming the rebel insurrectionists. In the light of NATO’s duplicity in the case of Libya, this writer thinks that they are secretly arming, advising and funding the insurrectionists.
When President Kennedy got involved with the war in Vietnam he decided to back the insurrection against President Diem. The result was the murder of the President of South Vietnam in the back of a truck. Kennedy, a co religionist with Diem, (both were Roman Catholic) intensely regretted the regicide of Diem. Sadly, he was himself assassinated by those who have no respect for law or morality. So far, the Obama government is content with political assassination by drone. And although the Obama government is guilty of complicity to murder Gaddafi, they have not committed to regicide by drone against Syrian President Assad. If they did, the morality would dictate that political assassination of government leaders is righteous and therefore permissible, for anyone who thought the other guy was a so-called dictator and therefore illegitimate. In these times when we express our politics forcefully and opening, I am sure that many individuals regard the government with suspicion. Yet, we do not advocate violent overthrow. What is moral for us should be our guide in dealing with others.
Dick Morris . Com
“The info about the number of fundraisers is interesting. It is also interesting in terms of misuse of power since he rode in Air Force one for all of them. He should not be allowed to pass that off because the SS (Secret Service) insisted. The SEALS took out Osama not Obama. So why is Obama taking credit for Osama? As a former CIA person said on the news yesterday, it is startling to note that the Obama administration thinks that waterboarding live prisonerss is inferior to killing them outright. I guess the reasoning is that intentional murder is preferred to intentional torture! I write a lot about this on my WordPress blog, Progressivepolitics.com”
I wrote the foregoing in answer to Dick Morris’ video concerning the deal between President Obama and former President Clinton. I wholeheartedly agree that the deal is dirty, but for a difference reason. I believe that former President Clinton has never been able to adjust to life away from the center of power. That is why he stays around Washington and is actively engaged in politics. He liked the position of power and the perks that went with the Presidency. He thought he owned the White House when he lived there and has never gotten over the fact that President Bush had it for eight and now President Obama four years. I believe he yearns for those days when he was the main man at the big house. I also think he realizes how foolish he was to squander those days by an affair with Monica L. As for Hilary, she settled for Secretary of State for the same reasons. She missed the White House, and the tremendous array of personal services offered to the First lady by obsequious political functionaries. A Senator? In that position she never approached the luxury and power afforded her as wife of the President. Sad to see her guzzling down a beer at the bar in South America! So, we have the persons who formerly were fielders of power cutting a deal with the currently powerful in order thereby to win an election that presents them with continued power and access to personal services that would make a king blush. Maybe it is better to have a five-year Presidency with no opportunity for re-election. Ford went home, as did Carter. Bush 41 and Bush 43 also relinquished the reins of government with ‘Elan. But it looks from here like the Clinton’s and the Obama’s want to hold on so bad that they will put up with each other to achieve it. Elect Romney and let the new broom sweep the house clean.
Gingrich Expected Fox to favor Him.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-cnn-less-biased-fox-news-141511492.html In this article Speaker Gingrich plays loose with facts in favor of “…Callista and I…” Spouses are always very protective and defensive of their partner. I can imagine how difficult it is for the spouses, who are not running for office, to see their partner trashed in the news. However, this writer has exactly the opposite evaluation of Fox. I have wondered why Fox is against Romney and consistently, in my view, worked to give everyone other than Romney an opportunity to destroy Romney. Strange and filled with wonder, how two or more people can look at facts and come to completely different conclusions.
Progressive Politics 