Not long ago, I was in contact with a gentleman who wrote a controversial homosexuals are not born, but chose this way of life. However, in most cases, may be scientific, I believe that there are exceptions. In fact, his argument is the most solid, I think his motive may be the basis of some religion. For me personally, I'm straight, no religious reasoning or parameters of a good book, can not draw me to this line of reasoning.
However, I would like to discuss some of the exceptions, the argument of the gentleman, because I believe that some people may be born this homosexual tendencies is absolutely no through no fault of their own. So, let's talk about, and realize this is just a philosophical and scientific discussion, then, I have no agenda, nor should not assume anything, from my opinion, reasoning, or the Intellectual Discourse this article.
So now, I'm a gentleman, I liked to read his article, agrees, even in most cases, I will discuss other than these exceptions. You see, we know that, from 1% to 1.5%, almost all species, not necessarily human, I think less than 1% human hormones and sexual identity issues. Have this type of research, there are many kinds, one of the most significant, and often the city is a butterfly.
When we observe the behavior of chimpanzees and other primates, we have noticed the the alpha male primates advantage and male male leader of the pecking order team, tribe, or any learning behavior - but this is not a parameter passed to me reference. You see, about 1% of the population has screwed up sexual organs, missing parts, and a combination of parts, and hormone production, we know this from science. Hermaphrodite real, usually sexual organ malformations at birth and developed too early, too late, not at all, or various combinations.
Just as some people are born with albinism, it still happened. Unfortunately, these things can be chemicals in the environment or other issues caused. I have often speculated that plastic in the ocean messed similar aspects of fish stocks - No, I am not an environmentalist by any imagination, but if this happens, this is not good.
Whatever the reason, we see this happening, birds, insects, fish and mammals. Perhaps, marsupials, reptiles, invertebrates and arthropods; although I can not guarantee the ladder, I would make that assumption.
In addition, studies have shown that a third or more son with a mother's uterine wall has been depleted. There have been studies. So all that, it is possible that some people are born hormonal challenges, physical and chemical (psychologically) is gay or inclination.
It does not rain any party in this debate anyone's parade, but these are some of the scientific exception. Of course, not all of the people who marked their own homosexuality is innate, so that only a very small percentage, of course, which is also possible to determine that they are straight, even if they are susceptible. Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify some of the endless debate on this topic? Please consider all this, I feel it.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Stop Complaining About No Job - This Is Your Big Government At Work In The Big Apple?
Sometimes I laugh when Democrats claim that Americans want jobs, and that these politicians are going to get in there, change economic policies, fixed everything, and get Americans back to work. These politicians can't do that, and they certainly can't do it with their left-leaning socialist policies. Oh, but they like to make big promises, as it helps them get reelected.
You see, everyone is now complaining that they don't have a job, but I would submit to you that many of these folks don't really want to work, they kind of like the idea of having an excuse not to, now they want the government to send them money. They know if they complain enough, jump up and down, occupy the park, and protest now and again they can get a continuous stream of podium pushing politicians to continue the promises. They don't really care as long as they get a check in the mail or better yet direct deposit, who has time to go to the bank when you are watching The View?
Then there are people who do have jobs, and when some disruption comes along they figure out that without a job they don't have any money. In other words they have to work so they can eat, realizing that there are people who are not working and eating on the government dole via their taxes. In other words, the folks who receive the services and get food stamps can't understand why everyone who isn't working is complaining.
Further, they get very angry when they find out that people who are working are losing their jobs, because they know that there will be less tax base coming to the government, and they may stop getting their free check in the mail. That just scares the crap out of them, and therefore they do whatever they can to make sure they vote in the next election for which ever politician continues to promise them whatever they want.
There was an interesting piece in the New York Times on November 3, 2012 titled; "For Some After Storm, No Work Means No Pay," by Shaila Dewan and Andrew Martin which noted; "Thousands of hourly workers took extreme measures to get to work following Hurricane Sandy with the fear that if they did not go to work, they probably would not be paid." Really, amazing now, you mean if you don't work you don't get paid, who'd have thought?
Well, this isn't news for anyone who is self-employed, anyone who works their butt off, and then has to deal with those same big government politicians making their life hell every time they turn around with more and more regulations, and more rules to appease the unruly masses who complain about discrimination, working hours, benefits, or free time off for such things as stress. Maybe it's time for everyone to stop complaining about having no job, and stop voting for politicians who believe in big government. You think?
You see, everyone is now complaining that they don't have a job, but I would submit to you that many of these folks don't really want to work, they kind of like the idea of having an excuse not to, now they want the government to send them money. They know if they complain enough, jump up and down, occupy the park, and protest now and again they can get a continuous stream of podium pushing politicians to continue the promises. They don't really care as long as they get a check in the mail or better yet direct deposit, who has time to go to the bank when you are watching The View?
Then there are people who do have jobs, and when some disruption comes along they figure out that without a job they don't have any money. In other words they have to work so they can eat, realizing that there are people who are not working and eating on the government dole via their taxes. In other words, the folks who receive the services and get food stamps can't understand why everyone who isn't working is complaining.
Further, they get very angry when they find out that people who are working are losing their jobs, because they know that there will be less tax base coming to the government, and they may stop getting their free check in the mail. That just scares the crap out of them, and therefore they do whatever they can to make sure they vote in the next election for which ever politician continues to promise them whatever they want.
There was an interesting piece in the New York Times on November 3, 2012 titled; "For Some After Storm, No Work Means No Pay," by Shaila Dewan and Andrew Martin which noted; "Thousands of hourly workers took extreme measures to get to work following Hurricane Sandy with the fear that if they did not go to work, they probably would not be paid." Really, amazing now, you mean if you don't work you don't get paid, who'd have thought?
Well, this isn't news for anyone who is self-employed, anyone who works their butt off, and then has to deal with those same big government politicians making their life hell every time they turn around with more and more regulations, and more rules to appease the unruly masses who complain about discrimination, working hours, benefits, or free time off for such things as stress. Maybe it's time for everyone to stop complaining about having no job, and stop voting for politicians who believe in big government. You think?
Yes, Mr Socialist Mayor and President, Thank You For Your Low Cost Housing?
As an economic advisor for a think tank which happens to operate online, I've always been an advocate for free-market capitalism. This is because I know it will solve all the challenges of human in our society and civilization. I cringe when I hear left-wing socialist concepts in our cities and towns as the way forward, or the progressive and intelligent way to do things. It simply isn't so. Take low income housing and rent control districts for instance.
When you put low income housing in a specific area, and allow people to move in without paying very much in rent, next thing you know the place is totally trashed as no one takes ownership type responsibility. Then they complain of slum landlords, and government agencies that don't care about them. Obviously, the government cared enough to put in rules, restrictions, and regulations as well as putting up housing for poor people. It's amazing so many folks that live there are the first to complain when anything goes wrong.
The New York times had an interesting piece on November 3, 2012 titled; "In New York's Public Housing, Fear Creeps in With the Dark" by Cara Buckley and Michael Wilson, which stated; "Perhaps more so than in any other place in the city, the loss of power for people living in public housing projects has forced a return to a basic existence."
Another article the same day in the NYTs was "Anger Grows at Response by Red Cross" by David M. Halbfinger which stated; "The American Red Cross struggled on Friday to reassure beleaguered New York City residents that its disaster-relief efforts were at last getting up to speed."
You see, all of these folks voted for government officials that promised them they could get free housing, low income housing, or that the government would step in with rent control. But still, when the government did all that it wasn't enough. Along comes a big hurricane, and everyone is complaining. They're upset as they are in the dark and the power isn't on yet, and because it's cold, and quite frankly they are sick and tired of being soggy.
After all, what good is a roof over your head if you can't recharge your free cell phone, iPad, or watch your large screen TV? No wonder those people are so upset, the power isn't on, and it's the government's fault. Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama promised that they would do everything in the power of the government to ensure that everyone was okay in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy.
Well, this is your big government at work, how do you like it now? Aren't you glad you voted for these big government, left-leaning, socialist policy politicians? Please consider all this and think on it.
When you put low income housing in a specific area, and allow people to move in without paying very much in rent, next thing you know the place is totally trashed as no one takes ownership type responsibility. Then they complain of slum landlords, and government agencies that don't care about them. Obviously, the government cared enough to put in rules, restrictions, and regulations as well as putting up housing for poor people. It's amazing so many folks that live there are the first to complain when anything goes wrong.
The New York times had an interesting piece on November 3, 2012 titled; "In New York's Public Housing, Fear Creeps in With the Dark" by Cara Buckley and Michael Wilson, which stated; "Perhaps more so than in any other place in the city, the loss of power for people living in public housing projects has forced a return to a basic existence."
Another article the same day in the NYTs was "Anger Grows at Response by Red Cross" by David M. Halbfinger which stated; "The American Red Cross struggled on Friday to reassure beleaguered New York City residents that its disaster-relief efforts were at last getting up to speed."
You see, all of these folks voted for government officials that promised them they could get free housing, low income housing, or that the government would step in with rent control. But still, when the government did all that it wasn't enough. Along comes a big hurricane, and everyone is complaining. They're upset as they are in the dark and the power isn't on yet, and because it's cold, and quite frankly they are sick and tired of being soggy.
After all, what good is a roof over your head if you can't recharge your free cell phone, iPad, or watch your large screen TV? No wonder those people are so upset, the power isn't on, and it's the government's fault. Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama promised that they would do everything in the power of the government to ensure that everyone was okay in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy.
Well, this is your big government at work, how do you like it now? Aren't you glad you voted for these big government, left-leaning, socialist policy politicians? Please consider all this and think on it.
Monday, October 29, 2012
UK Austerity Or US Stimulus Under Obama - Let's Talk
In Europe right now the people are getting angry, they don't like what has happened. They feel as if it wasn't their fault. However, I have a different opinion of the matter. I do think it was the citizen's fault for allowing deficit spending, and socialist economic strategies in their country. I think it's their fault because they allowed leaders to promise them things which were impossible telling them that they could get free stuff, so they continued to vote these gentlemen into office.
Now, it's time to pay the piper, and they don't want to pay, so they are rioting in the streets. The same thing could happen here in the United States as well. If the Obama administration and the government keep spending money at this rate, eventually it's going to come time to pay, and the government will not be able to give all those free services they were giving away to buy votes. Then the people will be very angry and they will rebel and protest. When it comes time for austerity, and time to cut back on the spending, they are not going to like what happens.
Not long ago, I was talking to someone in the UK about this, and they told me that the US was smart for doing the huge and ongoing stimulus under Obama, whereas, the UK had gone through austerity, and no one was happy there. Well, a lot of folks aren't happy here because they still don't have jobs, and the Obama stimulus was wasted, but we still have to pay all that money back in the future.
Some would say that "the US has done better than the UK where austerity has had little if any benefit" but that is a backwards view of things. You see, we didn't have austerity in the US, but it's coming, further the Obama Administration's stimulus money was channeled and funneled to pet projects of crony capitalist friends, essentially it was wasted.
The US has not done well as there was NO net gain in jobs, actually considering the real unemployment numbers we are still over 9 million jobs short, and now we need austerity, so it was a double hit and we are still at no growth, but we will get inflation, stagflation, dis-deflation, or whatever the Nobel Prize socialist economic winner of 2013 wants to call it, and it's not going to be pretty.
If we are to compare the UK austerity with the Obama stimulus, I would contend that they are both the unintended consequences of socialist economic theory. We don't need socialism in the United States, we need free-market economics, a reality check, and we need to teach people how to fish, not give them fish each and every day at the taxpayer's expense, or with money that our children will have to pay back in the future. Please consider all this and think on it.
Now, it's time to pay the piper, and they don't want to pay, so they are rioting in the streets. The same thing could happen here in the United States as well. If the Obama administration and the government keep spending money at this rate, eventually it's going to come time to pay, and the government will not be able to give all those free services they were giving away to buy votes. Then the people will be very angry and they will rebel and protest. When it comes time for austerity, and time to cut back on the spending, they are not going to like what happens.
Not long ago, I was talking to someone in the UK about this, and they told me that the US was smart for doing the huge and ongoing stimulus under Obama, whereas, the UK had gone through austerity, and no one was happy there. Well, a lot of folks aren't happy here because they still don't have jobs, and the Obama stimulus was wasted, but we still have to pay all that money back in the future.
Some would say that "the US has done better than the UK where austerity has had little if any benefit" but that is a backwards view of things. You see, we didn't have austerity in the US, but it's coming, further the Obama Administration's stimulus money was channeled and funneled to pet projects of crony capitalist friends, essentially it was wasted.
The US has not done well as there was NO net gain in jobs, actually considering the real unemployment numbers we are still over 9 million jobs short, and now we need austerity, so it was a double hit and we are still at no growth, but we will get inflation, stagflation, dis-deflation, or whatever the Nobel Prize socialist economic winner of 2013 wants to call it, and it's not going to be pretty.
If we are to compare the UK austerity with the Obama stimulus, I would contend that they are both the unintended consequences of socialist economic theory. We don't need socialism in the United States, we need free-market economics, a reality check, and we need to teach people how to fish, not give them fish each and every day at the taxpayer's expense, or with money that our children will have to pay back in the future. Please consider all this and think on it.
Did Obama Save GM - No Actually He Isn't the One Who Pulled That Trigger, It Was Bush
Obama routinely takes credit for the "Stimulus" he supposedly passed saving the auto industry; no Bush did that, as it was the first stimulus. But Obama was involved in negotiating the debt of GM where he unilaterally dismissed 100-years of bankruptcy law, and 50-years of franchising law, so he could bailout the unions, not the company which went bankrupt but still managed to bypass law and soak the bond holders and cause 700 small business auto dealerships to go out of business, how many jobs do you think that was.
In true free-markets stodgy old companies don't get a free-ride, that only hurts the consumer by preventing competition, which would have kept the industry healthy guaranteeing it could compete in global markets thus supplying more jobs, rather than protect inefficient jobs or unions - again this is all about socialism and labor parties. There is NO honor in what Obama did for the unions in bailing out the auto industry.
Now I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who have never had an economics class and don't understand how this all works, and when these old companies do come crashing down due to its inability to compete then the autoworkers all lose their jobs. I don't want to see anyone lose their job either, but do you know how many autoworkers, and small companies that make parts lost their businesses and jobs even with the GM and Chrysler bailout - millions. Little Joey, as his aunty used to call him, Joe Biden and President Obama routinely used the same quote in campaign speeches; "Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive." What's interesting is they are taking credit for both of those activities. The old GM is dead, and a new GM was formed.
The reality is we can thank President Bush for upgrading our intelligence agencies, and our military for getting Osama bin Laden. We should also note that it was President Bush that initiated the General Motors bailout. But it was later president Obama, who is supposedly a constitutional lawyer, seemed to break ranks with the rule of law using heavy handedly handed tactics for the unions, and taxpayer's money was used for their pensions, Cadillac healthcare benefits, and even buyout packages, while he let the company go bankrupt.
Of course, if you say something enough times, people start believing it. Apparently people have a shorter attention span and memory due to the Internet, and well, it's just amazing what you can get people to believe using those strategies. But that doesn't make it the truth. If we are to engage in free-market capitalism and get this economy back where it needs to be, we should not turn our backs on reality, by fostering a myth and a view of a created reality which never had existed in the first place.
This will only doom us to repeat our history because we won't be able to study the true history of what actually happened. That's sets a really bad precedent. And that's why I'm not voting for President Obama. If you live in the State of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania then you shouldn't either. He's making a mockery out of the free-market economy that built these states into the powerhouses they are today. Please consider all this and think on it.
In true free-markets stodgy old companies don't get a free-ride, that only hurts the consumer by preventing competition, which would have kept the industry healthy guaranteeing it could compete in global markets thus supplying more jobs, rather than protect inefficient jobs or unions - again this is all about socialism and labor parties. There is NO honor in what Obama did for the unions in bailing out the auto industry.
Now I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there who have never had an economics class and don't understand how this all works, and when these old companies do come crashing down due to its inability to compete then the autoworkers all lose their jobs. I don't want to see anyone lose their job either, but do you know how many autoworkers, and small companies that make parts lost their businesses and jobs even with the GM and Chrysler bailout - millions. Little Joey, as his aunty used to call him, Joe Biden and President Obama routinely used the same quote in campaign speeches; "Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive." What's interesting is they are taking credit for both of those activities. The old GM is dead, and a new GM was formed.
The reality is we can thank President Bush for upgrading our intelligence agencies, and our military for getting Osama bin Laden. We should also note that it was President Bush that initiated the General Motors bailout. But it was later president Obama, who is supposedly a constitutional lawyer, seemed to break ranks with the rule of law using heavy handedly handed tactics for the unions, and taxpayer's money was used for their pensions, Cadillac healthcare benefits, and even buyout packages, while he let the company go bankrupt.
Of course, if you say something enough times, people start believing it. Apparently people have a shorter attention span and memory due to the Internet, and well, it's just amazing what you can get people to believe using those strategies. But that doesn't make it the truth. If we are to engage in free-market capitalism and get this economy back where it needs to be, we should not turn our backs on reality, by fostering a myth and a view of a created reality which never had existed in the first place.
This will only doom us to repeat our history because we won't be able to study the true history of what actually happened. That's sets a really bad precedent. And that's why I'm not voting for President Obama. If you live in the State of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, or Pennsylvania then you shouldn't either. He's making a mockery out of the free-market economy that built these states into the powerhouses they are today. Please consider all this and think on it.
Obama Wants More Regulations On Wall Street - Why The Problem Was Lack of Enforcement
We had some pretty serious economic pain in 2008, but it was the culmination of so many things really. We keep listening to President Obama, and VP Joe Biden run around the country claiming that we need more regulations on Wall Street. But we had plenty of regulations prior to the crash, they just were not being enforced. Overregulation isn't the answer, and attempting to regulate morality doesn't work either. Further, I would submit to you that if we want more regulation on Wall Street, maybe we should start with more regulation against insider trading in Congress, and crony capitalism of the executive branch.
You see, it was not a lack of regulation on Wall Street which caused the banking crisis rather it was failure to enforce the rules already on the books. It was also the incestuous relationship of Washington DC with regards to Freddie and Fannie, plus the attacks on AIG and Hank Greenberg by Elliot Spitzer. Hank who built the company would never have let a small AIG office in London sell insurance policies for those mortgage bundles of credit default swaps at that level of risk, that's just too much exposure.
Further, Treasury Secretary Snow and President Bush told Congress that the Freddie and Fannie thing was out of control, but it seems everyone wanted an "ownership society" and we made rules for credit lending to ensure "equality" - oh so, there we go again, that socialist motif of; Equality and Sustainability.
Next for those who say that we need Obama in office to keep an eye on Wall Street - well that's just ridiculous because it was the banks and their lobbyists and lawyers who wrote the Dodd Frank Bill, which now sets big banks up for big advantages over smaller banks and community banks who are generally the ones who lend money to small businesses, and there isn't a lot of lending going on for smaller companies who provide 2/3rds of the jobs in this great nation. Look, I was a founder of a franchise company, so this point is just un-debatable, if Obama had run a business at any time in his adult life or teen years, he'd know this already.
It seems that every time we put more regulation on Wall Street, all that happens is they are engaged in the lawmaking, and those laws turn out to put barriers to entry for any smaller companies which wish to compete with them. Meanwhile, under the backdrop of anger from the population, Congress is able to pass these bills on the fast track to getting signed into law, and all the congressmen are able to get tons of campaign contributions to stave off their political competitors at home. This just means the same Congressman which are taking campaign contributions to create laws favoring the very Wall Street keep getting reelected to do even more damage later on.
If we would have been enforcing the regulations already on the books, the 2008 economic crisis wouldn't have happened. Who's to blame for this crony capitalism? Both sides of the aisle, but president Obama keeps blaming President Bush. I'd say that's rather hypocritical, and although it makes for nice debating points and political rhetoric, it simply isn't so.
Further, if President Obama and his administration were so good the economy, we'd be recovered by now, but as you've guessed; we're not. Yes, I realize that we as Americans know that all the promises that he made were false realities, it's just that I don't think we should fall for it again the second time, not after the performance we've seen. Please consider all this and think on it.
You see, it was not a lack of regulation on Wall Street which caused the banking crisis rather it was failure to enforce the rules already on the books. It was also the incestuous relationship of Washington DC with regards to Freddie and Fannie, plus the attacks on AIG and Hank Greenberg by Elliot Spitzer. Hank who built the company would never have let a small AIG office in London sell insurance policies for those mortgage bundles of credit default swaps at that level of risk, that's just too much exposure.
Further, Treasury Secretary Snow and President Bush told Congress that the Freddie and Fannie thing was out of control, but it seems everyone wanted an "ownership society" and we made rules for credit lending to ensure "equality" - oh so, there we go again, that socialist motif of; Equality and Sustainability.
Next for those who say that we need Obama in office to keep an eye on Wall Street - well that's just ridiculous because it was the banks and their lobbyists and lawyers who wrote the Dodd Frank Bill, which now sets big banks up for big advantages over smaller banks and community banks who are generally the ones who lend money to small businesses, and there isn't a lot of lending going on for smaller companies who provide 2/3rds of the jobs in this great nation. Look, I was a founder of a franchise company, so this point is just un-debatable, if Obama had run a business at any time in his adult life or teen years, he'd know this already.
It seems that every time we put more regulation on Wall Street, all that happens is they are engaged in the lawmaking, and those laws turn out to put barriers to entry for any smaller companies which wish to compete with them. Meanwhile, under the backdrop of anger from the population, Congress is able to pass these bills on the fast track to getting signed into law, and all the congressmen are able to get tons of campaign contributions to stave off their political competitors at home. This just means the same Congressman which are taking campaign contributions to create laws favoring the very Wall Street keep getting reelected to do even more damage later on.
If we would have been enforcing the regulations already on the books, the 2008 economic crisis wouldn't have happened. Who's to blame for this crony capitalism? Both sides of the aisle, but president Obama keeps blaming President Bush. I'd say that's rather hypocritical, and although it makes for nice debating points and political rhetoric, it simply isn't so.
Further, if President Obama and his administration were so good the economy, we'd be recovered by now, but as you've guessed; we're not. Yes, I realize that we as Americans know that all the promises that he made were false realities, it's just that I don't think we should fall for it again the second time, not after the performance we've seen. Please consider all this and think on it.
The Crony Capitalism Culture and Cancer of Washington DC Discussed
Whereas, crony capitalism is part of the cancer of Washington DC and their culture that doesn't make it right, regardless of which party. But Obama promised to stop that nonsense and hasn't in his first four years in office. In fact he's been far worse than other administrations. The other day, I was discussing this with they left-leaning politically inclined Obama campaign operative. He told me that we shouldn't turn a blind side to the fact that crony capitalism goes on in Washington on both sides of the aisle. Okay so, let's discuss this shall we?
You see, no one's turning a blind's eye on this issue for either party, and I'm certainly not, nor is our think tank, but Obama has abused the system, and it hard to make the claim that we need criminal penalties after the election and a full investigation of everyone in his cabinet, all of the czars, and any advisors he has, but that might be wise. If he wins, we'd still need an investigation. I can recall that many Democrats who despised President Bush's politics demanded investigations and criminal proceedings against his administration. Fair is fair, right; or left?
Why should it be any different from the other side? Why shouldn't those who are Republicans, tea party members, or anyone on the other side of the political fence not demand those same types of investigations now of the Obama administration, their staff, and everyone involved with her operations? If they are innocent of any of these charges, accusations, or innuendos, then they should feel free to open up their e-mails, contacts, and records for all the see - after all, wasn't it Obama who promised to be transparent president?
It's time for President Obama to lead by example, to stop crony capitalism and not to engage in it for political campaign contributions for a second term. Nor should he be paying back his contributors with the gravy train lucrative government contracts which seem to befall all of his top corporate, investment banker, and deal-making donators. And like I said, it's not that Republican senators in the past haven't done dirty deals, or engaged in outrageous lobbyists contributions for a vote, it's just that we were promised by President Obama that he would be better than that.
Judging from some of these alternative energy contracts, the deals with ACCORN, and the handing-out of quasi-intelligence information to Hollywood - we just have far too many questions, questions which have gone unanswered, and that are far too coincidences for us to look the other way. If we are ever going to fix Washington DC, we need to start at the top, and follow the money. Isn't that exactly what the Democrats said during the Bush-Cheney administration? Well, look what Obama's Team has done, look what the Democrats have done, the hypocrisy in my opinion has gone on too long, and it's time that it stopped.
We can change all that on November 6, 2012 by reelecting a new president, and then going after anyone who engaged in illegal activity associated with the Obama administration, or allow them to prove themselves through transparency that they are innocent. They have every right to prove their innocence; I say we let them do it. Please consider all this and think on it.
You see, no one's turning a blind's eye on this issue for either party, and I'm certainly not, nor is our think tank, but Obama has abused the system, and it hard to make the claim that we need criminal penalties after the election and a full investigation of everyone in his cabinet, all of the czars, and any advisors he has, but that might be wise. If he wins, we'd still need an investigation. I can recall that many Democrats who despised President Bush's politics demanded investigations and criminal proceedings against his administration. Fair is fair, right; or left?
Why should it be any different from the other side? Why shouldn't those who are Republicans, tea party members, or anyone on the other side of the political fence not demand those same types of investigations now of the Obama administration, their staff, and everyone involved with her operations? If they are innocent of any of these charges, accusations, or innuendos, then they should feel free to open up their e-mails, contacts, and records for all the see - after all, wasn't it Obama who promised to be transparent president?
It's time for President Obama to lead by example, to stop crony capitalism and not to engage in it for political campaign contributions for a second term. Nor should he be paying back his contributors with the gravy train lucrative government contracts which seem to befall all of his top corporate, investment banker, and deal-making donators. And like I said, it's not that Republican senators in the past haven't done dirty deals, or engaged in outrageous lobbyists contributions for a vote, it's just that we were promised by President Obama that he would be better than that.
Judging from some of these alternative energy contracts, the deals with ACCORN, and the handing-out of quasi-intelligence information to Hollywood - we just have far too many questions, questions which have gone unanswered, and that are far too coincidences for us to look the other way. If we are ever going to fix Washington DC, we need to start at the top, and follow the money. Isn't that exactly what the Democrats said during the Bush-Cheney administration? Well, look what Obama's Team has done, look what the Democrats have done, the hypocrisy in my opinion has gone on too long, and it's time that it stopped.
We can change all that on November 6, 2012 by reelecting a new president, and then going after anyone who engaged in illegal activity associated with the Obama administration, or allow them to prove themselves through transparency that they are innocent. They have every right to prove their innocence; I say we let them do it. Please consider all this and think on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)