Governor Romney was seen in some camps as almost getting a free ride to the White House as a result of putrid jobless numbers, mixed Real Estate outlook, and a generally poor view of the overall economy this spring.
All that is old news now that President Obama essentially won both the Arizona Immigration Law 1070 and the Affordable care Act rulings by the Supreme Court this past week.
Both rulings are late in the term and come after Romney began a roll; several polls had Romney passing the president and pulling away as recently as middle May.
The Supreme Court released the ruling on it's last day in session, before summer break.
Both the timing of the ruling's this week and the nature of them must have the Romney camp sleeping little this week. The Arizona immigration ruling favors Obama because it was his Justice Department that brought lawsuit against the Southwestern State on four counts - and won three of them.
The heart of the law that still allows Arizona law enforcement officials to ask for immigration papers during a stop for another offense was upheld, but Obama should still hold onto his large lead in the polls among Latino voters. And the huge difference in Latino support was already seen as a major problem for Romney in the fall.
But it was the ACA ruling by a 5-4 measure, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the dissenting vote and writing the majority opinion that matters so much for the fall election.
One one hand, you can view this as a major win for Obama because his major legislative accomplishment during his first term stands as law, and he can essentially start a victory lap to explain to the public what is in it for them.
And since Romney's whole message thus far in campaigning has been a weak legislative record for Obama during his first term, the ACA ruling leaves little meat on the bone for him to chew on in campaign speeches now.
On the other hand, it is clear that Romney will turn heels and run full stride into a daily message that will center around the "repeal of Obamacare on day one," as he said yesterday following the ruling release, seen here at The Blaze.
And why shouldn't he? Before yesterday's ruling, Rasmussen had voters favoring a repeal of the controversial law by a margin of 54% to 39%.
The squeaky hinge in this election is going to be Obama communication team. If they can convince the American voters that the ACA is good for them, if they can keep hammering the point about how the wealthiest nation on earth shouldn't have a health care system that forces Americans into bankruptcy at an increasing alarming rate, then he'll win.
But, I don't see it happening. The backbone provisions in the bill won't hit until 2014, after the election. Americans won't see the bulk of the best bits and pieces of this law for themselves until it's too late.
I like the law. I think it's good for Americans. I think it provides for a more stable generation for my children.
But I'm not betting the horse and stable on Obama's media team to be able to pull it off. They've continually put the hoof in the mouth for three plus years - a trend that won't break in the fall when the kitchen gets a whole lot hotter.
Romney wins the election by pounding the American people with promises of what they want, a repeal of the ACA. Now, will he actually get that done when he takes office is a whole other tale yet to be told.
As for the Brown vs. Mandel race, I sill see Brown winning, and maybe by an even larger margin.
One thing voters don't like is when the candidates are caught in lies, as Mandel was by Cleveland.com.
By saying things that just aren't true, coupled with media reports about Brown's personal life that center around the Senator's nasty divorce 26 years ago, I see it as a desperate, last ditch effort to smear Brown enough to gain a few points to win.
Brown is too savvy for that and will survive. In fact, if the junk keeps coming out of the Mandel camp the way it has for the last few months, I'll take it as a sign that Mandel truly is a too-young babe for Washington war and that he is in over his head.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Immigration reform uncertainty most important news of week
The Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the controversial Arizona Immigration Law is the most important news event of the past week because it essentially changes nothing with regard to illegal immigration - and that's good news for Americans and our economy.
Usually when the Supreme Court issues a ruling that plays fiddle-faddle with a law, leaving some parts in while striking down others, I get upset because the net result is nothing is decided. Rulings like this one reported by The New York Times show America's great weakness, collaboration and inclusion for all. When everyone wins, usually no one does at all.
However, I am beginning to see a muddled future for immigration reform as a positive for the American economy in light of the systemic world economic failures.
Word is leaking lately of serious economic downturns in the east, as reported here by Bloomberg yesterday. China is swallowing the same poison pill Europe and America already has by lowering intrabank borrowing rates to facilitate a stronger borrowing wave, which they hope will in turn spark consumer spending.
Why on earth would they think that? Quite literally, it has failed everywhere else.
India is slowing down as well. So, the nations with the two largest populations are starting to see the tide of unemployment swell.
The rub for America is this: when the tide reaches full crest in a year or two, or five for these eastern nations, and manufacturing imports to and from America lessen even more, it will be helpful if we haven't completely closed off ourselves from our North American neighbors, north or south.
People seem to forget that if America sends 12 million people home, they aren't all going to go to Mexico. According to the Department of Homeland Security's Annual Flow Report published in April, yes, many of the legal immigrants to America from 2009-2011 did in fact come from Mexico, 14 percent actually. But Asia sent over a third of all immigrants to America during the same time period, dwarfing our southern brethren's import significantly.
Canada, too, is an important and often forgotten part of the border equation. We share the worlds largest geographical country-to-country border with the maple syrup crowd, an important fact when coupled with the fact that over seventy-five percent of the Canadian population live within a hundred miles of our border. (Come to think of it, if the American dream is alive and well - even if the Dream Act isn't - why aren't we being swallowed whole by Canadian defectors on a daily basis? Only 12K Canadian citizens immigrated to America over the same time period that Mexico sent 140K.)
I know, it's the economy stupid. It sure as hell can't be the health benefits, right?
For all the lip service journalists have given the war/oil/Middle East love triangle, it should come as a shock to come find out that we import 20 percent of our oil from our northern neighbors; that's more than twice the amount we receive from Saudi Arabia on annual basis, who by the way, also lags our second favorite oil exporter - Mexico!
The point is, when the swell of trade dies in parts of the world where it's always been more profitable to open factories based on numbers (quantity, and not quality), I'm guessing many companies will throw in the towel on the whole social quality of life for developing nations (wink, wink) thing rubbed in our nose when NAFTA was signed nearly twenty years ago, and American companies begin making things again in, well, America.
And when that happens, it sure will be nice not to have built up our riverbanks so high that neither workers, nor products, can pass through from Mexico and Canada.
Yes, we need to get the books straight about who is here, doing what, and why. And I know we have enough of our own citizens out of work who would gladly line up for Black anyday, like it was Christmas in July for gainful employment.
But shuttering the borders now, and the relationships with our neighboring governments ahead of worldwide economic uncertainty would be a mistake. It would shut us in and leave us out of the game at precisely the moment America should be wanting to play again.
Usually when the Supreme Court issues a ruling that plays fiddle-faddle with a law, leaving some parts in while striking down others, I get upset because the net result is nothing is decided. Rulings like this one reported by The New York Times show America's great weakness, collaboration and inclusion for all. When everyone wins, usually no one does at all.
However, I am beginning to see a muddled future for immigration reform as a positive for the American economy in light of the systemic world economic failures.
Word is leaking lately of serious economic downturns in the east, as reported here by Bloomberg yesterday. China is swallowing the same poison pill Europe and America already has by lowering intrabank borrowing rates to facilitate a stronger borrowing wave, which they hope will in turn spark consumer spending.
Why on earth would they think that? Quite literally, it has failed everywhere else.
India is slowing down as well. So, the nations with the two largest populations are starting to see the tide of unemployment swell.
The rub for America is this: when the tide reaches full crest in a year or two, or five for these eastern nations, and manufacturing imports to and from America lessen even more, it will be helpful if we haven't completely closed off ourselves from our North American neighbors, north or south.
People seem to forget that if America sends 12 million people home, they aren't all going to go to Mexico. According to the Department of Homeland Security's Annual Flow Report published in April, yes, many of the legal immigrants to America from 2009-2011 did in fact come from Mexico, 14 percent actually. But Asia sent over a third of all immigrants to America during the same time period, dwarfing our southern brethren's import significantly.
Canada, too, is an important and often forgotten part of the border equation. We share the worlds largest geographical country-to-country border with the maple syrup crowd, an important fact when coupled with the fact that over seventy-five percent of the Canadian population live within a hundred miles of our border. (Come to think of it, if the American dream is alive and well - even if the Dream Act isn't - why aren't we being swallowed whole by Canadian defectors on a daily basis? Only 12K Canadian citizens immigrated to America over the same time period that Mexico sent 140K.)
I know, it's the economy stupid. It sure as hell can't be the health benefits, right?
For all the lip service journalists have given the war/oil/Middle East love triangle, it should come as a shock to come find out that we import 20 percent of our oil from our northern neighbors; that's more than twice the amount we receive from Saudi Arabia on annual basis, who by the way, also lags our second favorite oil exporter - Mexico!
The point is, when the swell of trade dies in parts of the world where it's always been more profitable to open factories based on numbers (quantity, and not quality), I'm guessing many companies will throw in the towel on the whole social quality of life for developing nations (wink, wink) thing rubbed in our nose when NAFTA was signed nearly twenty years ago, and American companies begin making things again in, well, America.
And when that happens, it sure will be nice not to have built up our riverbanks so high that neither workers, nor products, can pass through from Mexico and Canada.
Yes, we need to get the books straight about who is here, doing what, and why. And I know we have enough of our own citizens out of work who would gladly line up for Black anyday, like it was Christmas in July for gainful employment.
But shuttering the borders now, and the relationships with our neighboring governments ahead of worldwide economic uncertainty would be a mistake. It would shut us in and leave us out of the game at precisely the moment America should be wanting to play again.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
War games most important event this week
Straight News:
In light of the news today of coming war games among Russia, China, Syria, and Iran, the meeting between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Mexico yesterday is the most important news event of the week.
President's Obama and Putin met yesterday for over two hours during the summit, in what was described by most news reports as contentious and containing only one subject: Syria.
Afterword, the two leaders took questions and issued a joint press release announcing the countries agreement that regime change in Syria was of the utmost importance to that countries citizens.
However, the mood was grim for Obama during the meeting with the press, and the two leaders "did not even look at each other," reported CBS news. The article can be seen here at The Weekly Standard.
And while the joint press release said the two countries agree on regime change, it was not reported exactly how the U.S. and Russia plan to carry out that change with involvement from the United Nations.
"It is clear," CBS news reported, "that President Obama did not get an agreement from president Putin."
News broken earlier today by Gabe Fisher , of The Times of Israel, has to be seen as disturbing sign to the Obama administration that the U.S. will not be able to dictate the circumstances surrounding the presumed ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The news report cites an unofficial news site out of Iran for information about the maneuvers planned for later this month, which is said to include over 90,000 troops, 400 aircraft, and 1,000 tanks.
My Take: That is quite a dance card the East has lined up
I'm tired of the U.S. playing nice with Russia, but I'm not sure the U.S. is in position to do anything about it anymore.
As a result of the announcement of the war games, I think the cards are on the table and this is the first clear intent of Russia and China, at least diplomatically, to tell the rest of the world that they plan on calling the shots in Syria.
I don't know if the U.S. told Israel to cool it a month ago when rhetoric for an attack on Iran was getting hot and heavy, but I think now those events are being seen by the east as a sign of weakness on the part of the U.S..
I think the East sees the Middle East as the last bastion of hope for world economies going forward and they will do whatever it takes to make sure they control at least a part of the oil rich region as a hedge against the fear of collapsing global markets.
And I fear this officially could mark the end of the U.S., militarily at least, as the worlds premier super power.
It is clear the U.S. was tested heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rest of the world sees that. They also see a country drowning in debt and a citizenry not even close to being interested in more defense spending or engaging in another major conflict.
It's clear that Britain, forever the U.S.'s major ally on world affairs, has an identity crisis on their hands with regard to military action in the Middle East. An ever increasing number of their population is Muslim, and while it is not yet an overwhelming majority by any means, it is clear the British government's attitude towards any U.S. call to action in the Middle East is surely to be tepid at best going forward.
Could this be one of the first major party's the U.S. goes to without a dance partner? I'd doubt it. When the music starts, America will escort someone to the floor, and it may well be Britain.
However, the fuss in the Middle East now begs the question: Does America know the right moves anymore?
In light of the news today of coming war games among Russia, China, Syria, and Iran, the meeting between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Mexico yesterday is the most important news event of the week.
President's Obama and Putin met yesterday for over two hours during the summit, in what was described by most news reports as contentious and containing only one subject: Syria.
Afterword, the two leaders took questions and issued a joint press release announcing the countries agreement that regime change in Syria was of the utmost importance to that countries citizens.
However, the mood was grim for Obama during the meeting with the press, and the two leaders "did not even look at each other," reported CBS news. The article can be seen here at The Weekly Standard.
And while the joint press release said the two countries agree on regime change, it was not reported exactly how the U.S. and Russia plan to carry out that change with involvement from the United Nations.
"It is clear," CBS news reported, "that President Obama did not get an agreement from president Putin."
News broken earlier today by Gabe Fisher , of The Times of Israel, has to be seen as disturbing sign to the Obama administration that the U.S. will not be able to dictate the circumstances surrounding the presumed ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The news report cites an unofficial news site out of Iran for information about the maneuvers planned for later this month, which is said to include over 90,000 troops, 400 aircraft, and 1,000 tanks.
My Take: That is quite a dance card the East has lined up
I'm tired of the U.S. playing nice with Russia, but I'm not sure the U.S. is in position to do anything about it anymore.
As a result of the announcement of the war games, I think the cards are on the table and this is the first clear intent of Russia and China, at least diplomatically, to tell the rest of the world that they plan on calling the shots in Syria.
I don't know if the U.S. told Israel to cool it a month ago when rhetoric for an attack on Iran was getting hot and heavy, but I think now those events are being seen by the east as a sign of weakness on the part of the U.S..
I think the East sees the Middle East as the last bastion of hope for world economies going forward and they will do whatever it takes to make sure they control at least a part of the oil rich region as a hedge against the fear of collapsing global markets.
And I fear this officially could mark the end of the U.S., militarily at least, as the worlds premier super power.
It is clear the U.S. was tested heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the rest of the world sees that. They also see a country drowning in debt and a citizenry not even close to being interested in more defense spending or engaging in another major conflict.
It's clear that Britain, forever the U.S.'s major ally on world affairs, has an identity crisis on their hands with regard to military action in the Middle East. An ever increasing number of their population is Muslim, and while it is not yet an overwhelming majority by any means, it is clear the British government's attitude towards any U.S. call to action in the Middle East is surely to be tepid at best going forward.
Could this be one of the first major party's the U.S. goes to without a dance partner? I'd doubt it. When the music starts, America will escort someone to the floor, and it may well be Britain.
However, the fuss in the Middle East now begs the question: Does America know the right moves anymore?
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Troubling economic news most important news of week
In general, the most important political events of the past week have are linked to poor economic news. It just keeps coming, and coming, and coming.
A news story posted earlier today at Fox News business says the U.S. posted a $125 million budget deficit in May, more than twice than was measured last year.
The more ominous economic news report from today however is this one from Irish Times, which told of EU officials who have at least discussed contingency plans that include limiting ATM withdrawals, should Greece decide to leave the Euro. The general mood has been grim in Europe this past week, and many now see a complete breakup of the connecting currency as a very real possibility.
But the most troubling news report of the day is that International Monetary Fund Chairwomen, Christina Legarde, issued her "clearest backing yet," for green, or what some have termed, worldwide carbon taxes.
I was fairly sure for a few months that Americans had cleared that hurdle and avoided notions of carbon taxes and one-world markets, but Legarde's comments today are striking. In this article posted at the Guardian, Lagarde forwards notion that makes Americans bristle, "The idea that different economic, environmental and social objectives can be seen as distinct aspects of a single vision, essential parts of a connected whole."
I can't even begin to wrap my head around the fact that she chose today to make her remarks during a speech in Washington, in light of the downright putrid report by the Fox News website about border checks in Europe to make sure folks aren't moving money from one country to another, which followed a report yesterday about an Italian bank holiday.
It seems there is no end in sight with regard to negative economic news, especially for nations such as the U.S. who (are supposed to) value their sovereignty.
That Legarde takes into account that Europe is broke, America is broke, Japan is broke, and China is already beginning it's own money printing escapades ahead of a real estate bubble of their own, and she still sees a need to ask for green taxes is repulsive.
A news story posted earlier today at Fox News business says the U.S. posted a $125 million budget deficit in May, more than twice than was measured last year.
The more ominous economic news report from today however is this one from Irish Times, which told of EU officials who have at least discussed contingency plans that include limiting ATM withdrawals, should Greece decide to leave the Euro. The general mood has been grim in Europe this past week, and many now see a complete breakup of the connecting currency as a very real possibility.
But the most troubling news report of the day is that International Monetary Fund Chairwomen, Christina Legarde, issued her "clearest backing yet," for green, or what some have termed, worldwide carbon taxes.
I was fairly sure for a few months that Americans had cleared that hurdle and avoided notions of carbon taxes and one-world markets, but Legarde's comments today are striking. In this article posted at the Guardian, Lagarde forwards notion that makes Americans bristle, "The idea that different economic, environmental and social objectives can be seen as distinct aspects of a single vision, essential parts of a connected whole."
I can't even begin to wrap my head around the fact that she chose today to make her remarks during a speech in Washington, in light of the downright putrid report by the Fox News website about border checks in Europe to make sure folks aren't moving money from one country to another, which followed a report yesterday about an Italian bank holiday.
It seems there is no end in sight with regard to negative economic news, especially for nations such as the U.S. who (are supposed to) value their sovereignty.
That Legarde takes into account that Europe is broke, America is broke, Japan is broke, and China is already beginning it's own money printing escapades ahead of a real estate bubble of their own, and she still sees a need to ask for green taxes is repulsive.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Election predictions: Obama and Brown still win
Not much has changed from my opinion three weeks ago that Barack Obama and Sherrod Brown will win re-election in November.
That might surprise some people with regard to Obama, given the amount of negative media attention he has received lately, especially from within the Democratic Party, but view these reports as nothing more than banter in the lead-up to the actual race. As a result of relatively quiet times on the national security front directly involving U.S. militarily conflict, I think Obama is in an interestingly powerful situation.
Obama will win because he essentially owns the argument of safety, whether we go to war with Iran, Syria and anybody else, or not.
If something provokes the U.S. into a confrontation militarily with Iran or Syria, you know damn well the public will support it and he'll garner a ton of support and votes. The reason is because it will be viewed as we were in danger, and this president (finally) proved he can handle foreign policy with the best of them, by waging war and protecting Americans.
If we don't go to war, he'll be able to ask Americans: Are ye safe? The answer is yes. In a way, for as much criticism he has taken lately for his unabashed use of drone strikes to assassinate terrorist leaders (this blog included), he amazingly can use this powerful little question to justify his actions.
Should I be using drone strikes to kill bad people? Answer: no.
But, are ye safe? Answer: yes.
Want me to stop? Answer: no thank you.
Obama: I'll take my re-election votes now, please.
As for Sherrod Brown, I still think this election has more to do with Josh Mandel having too little experience to handle the job of Ohio Senator. In recent interviews, such as this one at Newsmax.com, he has now fully embraced this notion and is trying to use the idea of him being a Washington outsider to gain election.
I'm not sure it'll work. I see him as a too young for the big-time politician who needs more experience at the state level before going to Washington. I view Washington as a town where politicians can really start to get things accomplished after they've been around a while and think that being a Washington insider only helps Sherrod Brown.
I realize that Mandel is an up-and-comer within the Republican Party, however - even in light of the Wisconsin recall vote - I still do not feel as if the Democrats are going to let the conversation be all about the economy riding right into the elections. I think at some point here the Democrats are gong to pull out national security from under the blanket and aren't going to lose so many seats as it looked. Democrats just can't be that stupid to continue to get beat up on the economy -- and in Obama's case, continue to blame Bush for it -- and it let it ride on.
Mandel is running hard right now on being a Washington outsider who will go to Washington to shake things up and on blaming Ohio's job losses on Sherrod Brown.
Problem for him is that Ohio's job losses aren't Brown's fault and if you are going to fix Ohio's economic problems, you're going to need to be a savvy Washington insider to do so. It might be close, but Brown will prevail.
I'm not sure it'll work. I see him as a too young for the big-time politician who needs more experience at the state level before going to Washington. I view Washington as a town where politicians can really start to get things accomplished after they've been around a while and think that being a Washington insider only helps Sherrod Brown.
I realize that Mandel is an up-and-comer within the Republican Party, however - even in light of the Wisconsin recall vote - I still do not feel as if the Democrats are going to let the conversation be all about the economy riding right into the elections. I think at some point here the Democrats are gong to pull out national security from under the blanket and aren't going to lose so many seats as it looked. Democrats just can't be that stupid to continue to get beat up on the economy -- and in Obama's case, continue to blame Bush for it -- and it let it ride on.
Mandel is running hard right now on being a Washington outsider who will go to Washington to shake things up and on blaming Ohio's job losses on Sherrod Brown.
Problem for him is that Ohio's job losses aren't Brown's fault and if you are going to fix Ohio's economic problems, you're going to need to be a savvy Washington insider to do so. It might be close, but Brown will prevail.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Obama as the executioner: Most important event(s)
I'm looking at three newspaper articles from the past week that represent both the tip of the iceberg and the top of the food chain regarding drones.
The first is a piece published in The New York Times last Tuesday, by Joe Becker and Scott Shane. It depicts President Obama shuffling Al-Queda intelligence briefings "like baseball cards"while deciding who to drone strike.
The second is an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer, impressively picked up and run by the Plain Dealer on Sunday. In it, Krauthammer questions the legitimacy of placing the Times story on the front page, and also Obama's foreign policy legacy. Krauthammer argues, "The Obama-slayer card having been vastly overplayed [with reference to Osama Bin Laden], what to do? A new card: Obama-drone warrior."
The third is a CNN web page from three hours ago. CNN claims "Abu Yahya al-Libi's death is one of the biggest blows to al Qaeda since Osama bin Laden was killed."
The first is a piece published in The New York Times last Tuesday, by Joe Becker and Scott Shane. It depicts President Obama shuffling Al-Queda intelligence briefings "like baseball cards"while deciding who to drone strike.
The second is an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer, impressively picked up and run by the Plain Dealer on Sunday. In it, Krauthammer questions the legitimacy of placing the Times story on the front page, and also Obama's foreign policy legacy. Krauthammer argues, "The Obama-slayer card having been vastly overplayed [with reference to Osama Bin Laden], what to do? A new card: Obama-drone warrior."
The third is a CNN web page from three hours ago. CNN claims "Abu Yahya al-Libi's death is one of the biggest blows to al Qaeda since Osama bin Laden was killed."
The last few year's, we've heard the word "drone" introduced seamlessly into the media sphere. Drone's have gone from a little known secret intelligence weapon on the Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield, to an impressively precise stealth weapon overseas, to backyard barbeque paparazzi.
George Lucas must be wondering what could have been. Drone Wars, anyone?
As baffled as Obama backers have been the past fours years while accepting his about face on foreign policy and terrorism, they must really be scratching their heads now.
He's somehow managed to go from the likes of Luke Skywalker battling to save (he Hoped) the Empire, to...the Empire.
It's been coming on longer then this week, but in the span of just seven days, the right wing media has managed to paint their nemesis as Dark Vader. Imagine that. Romney, the evil slasher of jobs ("I kinda like being able to fire people"), has become Old Ben Kenobi - while somehow still being seen as tougher on foreign policy!
But the worst part of this week's White House staff gaffe is the fact that this word - drone - is increasing being pumped into the media alongside the word's "invasion of privacy."
The recent revelation that drone manufacturers are pumping up production to sell perhaps as many as 18,000 of these remote controlled units to small town police departments is disturbing. New Yorkers want to catch the bad guys, for sure. But they also want to do so knowing that Mayor Bloomberg isn't watching from above to see if they are serving 22 ounce sodas to their friends at a picnic on Memorial Day.
Obama has had an image problem since the first few months in office when he ordered more troops overseas in order to facilitate the end of the wars more quickly. That one one still makes me wonder.
I don't know who this guy is anymore. The bad part for Democrats, neither do they.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Reasoning
The reason for the significance of the U.S.'s probable action in Syria
There are plenty of reasons why this is significant. Most of them revolve around the fact that I'd doubt most of the people want to be involved in an altercation in the Middle East - or anywhere.
We have reached a point now at home where it no longer comes across as shallow minded ignorance to say America should only worry about what happens within our own borders. That kind of talk used to be reserved for your crazy Libertarian uncle before. Not so anymore.
The Real Estate market is trashed. The job market bunks with it. American education is continually ranked outside of the top twenty in any way, shape or form.
We don't make anything in this country anymore, and we can't even guard the borders that leak illegals who work in the jobs that still do.
We are fat and can not even agree on plan of action to make us not (fat)-so. Obama's Health Care Reform Act was already trashed in April, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments; it's June release will only serve to smear the ink with which it's pages were written. Nothing clear will come of it.
I just can't help but think that if we take all those billions of dollars our federal government spends on national defense and uses abroad, and bring them home to build a factory, or pay for a doctor's visit, or build a forty foot wall across the Southwestern border with Mexico, our dollars will be better spent.
This event in Syria is important because it's not just flag wearing hippie's talking about fixing America anymore. It's a whole lot of other people doing the talking, and it's swelling. The more American leaders continue to ignore the issues of the people who give them their power in Congress - and ignore the people - more swollen the tide of discontent will rise.
In France once, Parisan mothers took to the capital to demand their bread.
I can only imagine what American's will ask for.
There are plenty of reasons why this is significant. Most of them revolve around the fact that I'd doubt most of the people want to be involved in an altercation in the Middle East - or anywhere.
We have reached a point now at home where it no longer comes across as shallow minded ignorance to say America should only worry about what happens within our own borders. That kind of talk used to be reserved for your crazy Libertarian uncle before. Not so anymore.
The Real Estate market is trashed. The job market bunks with it. American education is continually ranked outside of the top twenty in any way, shape or form.
We don't make anything in this country anymore, and we can't even guard the borders that leak illegals who work in the jobs that still do.
We are fat and can not even agree on plan of action to make us not (fat)-so. Obama's Health Care Reform Act was already trashed in April, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments; it's June release will only serve to smear the ink with which it's pages were written. Nothing clear will come of it.
I just can't help but think that if we take all those billions of dollars our federal government spends on national defense and uses abroad, and bring them home to build a factory, or pay for a doctor's visit, or build a forty foot wall across the Southwestern border with Mexico, our dollars will be better spent.
This event in Syria is important because it's not just flag wearing hippie's talking about fixing America anymore. It's a whole lot of other people doing the talking, and it's swelling. The more American leaders continue to ignore the issues of the people who give them their power in Congress - and ignore the people - more swollen the tide of discontent will rise.
In France once, Parisan mothers took to the capital to demand their bread.
I can only imagine what American's will ask for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)