Coalition For Economic Equality
About the Author
In his 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul wrote, "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality." The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the United States during the second quarter of this fiscal year was more than $14,256.5 billion. That is more than $15,000 a month for every man, woman, and child in the United States. This at time when we are in the midst of a foreclosure crisis because people cannot afford to pay their mortgages. At a time when people cannot afford to purchase food for their families or gasoline for their vehicles so that they can go to work. The corporate greed which is enslaving the people of the United States and of the other nations of the world must not be allowed to continue. Please join with us in opposing greed by championing economic equality.
...Also, let me put to you another simple question: Have you as an individual paid too high a price for these gains? Plausible self-seekers and theoretical die-hards will tell you of the loss of individual liberty. Answer this question also out of the facts of your own life. Have you lost any of your rights or liberty or constitutional freedom of action and choice? Turn to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, which I have solemnly sworn to maintain and under which your freedom rests secure. Read each provision of that Bill of Rights and ask yourself whether you personally have suffered the impairment of a single jot of these great assurances. I have no question in my mind as to what your answer will be. The record is written in the experiences of your own personal lives.
In other words, it is not the overwhelming majority of the farmers or manufacturers or workers who deny the substantial gains of the past year. The most vociferous of the doubting Thomases may be divided roughly into two groups: First, those who seek special political privilege and, second, those who seek special financial privilege. About a year ago I used as an illustration the 90% of the cotton manufacturers of the United States who wanted to do the right thing by their employees and by the public but were prevented from doing so by the 10% who undercut them by unfair practices and un-American standards. It is well for us to remember that humanity is a long way from being perfect and that a selfish minority in every walk of life -- farming, business, finance and even Government service itself -- will always continue to think of themselves first and their fellow-being second.
In the working out of a great national program which seeks the primary good of the greater number, it is true that the toes of some people are being stepped on and are going to be stepped on. But these toes belong to the comparative few who seek to retain or to gain position or riches or both by some short cut which is harmful to the greater good. In the execution of the powers conferred on it by Congress, the Administration needs and will tirelessly seek the best ability that the country affords. Public service offers better rewards in the opportunity for service than ever before in our history -- not great salaries, but enough to live on. In the building of this service there are coming to us men and women with ability and courage from every part of the Union. The days of the seeking of mere party advantage through the misuse of public power are drawing to a close. We are increasingly demanding and getting devotion to the public service on the part of every member of the Administration, high and low...
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html
The conservatives have been using the same tactics for over seventy years. They attempt to scare the sheeple into believing their rights are being stripped away when, in fact, they're not. Over the past decade and a half, conservatives have stripped away more rights and protections of the every day working person than even the most savvy of politicos realize.
The comments from above are from an address made by the great Franklin D. Roosevelt on 28JUN34. Isn't ironic how they ring true today? Once again, the conservative money worshippers in the Republican Party have attempted to divide us by spreading malicious, untrue statements about our liberties. They're trying to convince the sheeple President Obama is turning our great nation into a socialist or communist form of government. They were lying seventy-five years ago and they're lying again.
So we are called to once again defend this great nation of ours against all enemies foreign and domestic. We know who our foreign enemies are. Fortunately, we know who our domestic enemies are as well. Recognize them for what they are; Americans in name only. A real American cares about what happens to their neighbor, their state or commonwealth, their fellow Americans.
Does the rhetoric from the political right reflect those traditional American values? Does a Republican and\or a conservative hollering, "Get a job", to a handicapped person attempting to ask a question at a town hall meeting instill a sense of pride in your fellow citizens? Does a person carrying a firearm to an event where the first African-American POTUS is speaking instill a sense of security? There can be only one logical answer to that question. Isn't it ironic that the modern day Republican Party has been nicknamed the party of no because that is the answer to those questions.
I am, in no way, as elequent a speaker or writer as the great FDR nor do I presume to be. I wish I were. But I cannot sit idly by while nefarious right wing forces attempt to overthrow the duly elected U.S. government with talk of coups and insurrections. Is this what the Republican Party has devolved to now that they've, once again, been cast into the political wilderness where they belong? Sadly, the answer would appear to be yes.
Be prepared my fellow Americans. Be prepared to use rheotric, or any other tool at our disposal, to beat back those who measure a man's worth simply by the contents of his checkbook, not his character. Be prepared to defend your country, your way of life, and your POTUS from the forces of darkness.
In closing, I quote from the Holy Bible, Ecclesiastes 3:7-13.
7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
9 What profit hath he that worketh in that for which he laboreth?
10 I have seen the travail which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time. Also He hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
12 I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice and to do good in his life,
13 and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor: it is the gift of God.
Claim your gift from God. But prepare yourselves for the evils conservatives would wrought upon us especially those who claim to come in the name of God. And the next time some conservative and\or Republican says that every American does not deserve the basic rights of food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, do not be afraid to call a spade a spade or, in this case, an evildoer and evildoer. Shout it from the rooftops. Arm yourselves with intelligence, wit, and guile. And if all else fails, arm yourselves in the traditional sense for their rhetoric indicates those on the radical right are doing such. Put the proverbial spotlight on this person, or group of people, and let sunlight be the best antiseptic. We can rid ourselves of the cancer of conservatism. Like any medical procedure that any American should be entitled to, it may hurt at first but it'll be well worth it in the end.
It is obvious that Obama has lost control of health care reform. Max Baucus is controlling the health care reform process now - NOT Obama.
This is obvious as shown by his voting record . It can also be seen in his golf and fishing outings with health care executives as well as all the contributions he has received. Obama has no control over this. He will get what Max Baucus allows him to have whether it is good for the people or not.
Does Max Baucus realize where this puts him in the history books? On the side of greed.
Where's the change?
This is obvious as shown by his voting record . It can also be seen in his golf and fishing outings with health care executives as well as all the contributions he has received. Obama has no control over this. He will get what Max Baucus allows him to have whether it is good for the people or not.
Does Max Baucus realize where this puts him in the history books? On the side of greed.
Where's the change?
Does anyone else think it is possible that Obama has scrapped the missile defense system in exchange for Russian cooperation against Iran? I was thinking about the secret agreemnets made by the U.S.-USSR during the Cuban missile crisis. I would like to hear what others think about this possible backroom deal.
Evidently even his own distric wants the public option more than he does. He has received almost $1 million from USA Drug (plus a personal contribution to his campaign from the owner in 2007).
So what does this mean? It means he is obviously actively using his position in the government to push policies in USA Drug’s favor. This is why he is against the public option.
Arkansas can say enough is enough and vote him out in the next election. After all, I’m sure they didn’t vote for Mr. Ross to protect USA Drug.
So what does this mean? It means he is obviously actively using his position in the government to push policies in USA Drug’s favor. This is why he is against the public option.
Arkansas can say enough is enough and vote him out in the next election. After all, I’m sure they didn’t vote for Mr. Ross to protect USA Drug.
After the Bush years there was a feeling that things needed to change and the Republican ideals were wrong. The elections showed this and many areas that were central leaning went to the left. The republicans left in power are now from the extreme right end of the political spectrum which also have strong far right bases to appeal to.
You can never have 100% support and I hope the president does not try to gain buy in from the far right republican remainder on issues that they would never agree to.
You can never have 100% support and I hope the president does not try to gain buy in from the far right republican remainder on issues that they would never agree to.
While much of the talk centering around health care reform one area that should be given special attention is that of health care regulation. One of the reasons that people are unable to get efficient and quality health care coverage is because the insurance companies, along with the drug companies, have run free for far too long. For decades these companies have been allowed to run up prices and wrongfully deny people the care that they deserve. This has to change.
We must also seek ways to lower the costs of health care. President Obama has found one creative way to cut health care costs by simply using electronic record keeping instead of the old and outdated system of filing paperwork. This is the things we must examine in order to cut costs where they can be cut.
During President Obama's speech to Congress and the American people we witnessed an important political moment. There have been times when there has been the battle of the public interests vs the interests of corporations and business. Wednesday was one of those moments. Obama and the Democrats could simply cave to the special interests and the big money lobbyists but instead they stood with the American people. Now we must see if they can get something done for the American people.
We must also seek ways to lower the costs of health care. President Obama has found one creative way to cut health care costs by simply using electronic record keeping instead of the old and outdated system of filing paperwork. This is the things we must examine in order to cut costs where they can be cut.
During President Obama's speech to Congress and the American people we witnessed an important political moment. There have been times when there has been the battle of the public interests vs the interests of corporations and business. Wednesday was one of those moments. Obama and the Democrats could simply cave to the special interests and the big money lobbyists but instead they stood with the American people. Now we must see if they can get something done for the American people.
President Obama... Push the moral imperative for health care reform and a public option. Don't focus on the policy and economic arguments. Without the public option aren't we essentially subsidizing health insurance companies?
Are we really capitalists before helpful human beings? Does being a productive individual really correlate to whether someone can afford health care? I say no. People can be productive all their lives, lose a job, and be without healthcare. It happened to my father who was stricken with a deadly cancer in between jobs. Ultimately my father passed away and left my mother with a huge debt. Is that his fault?
The Republicans have a "Blame the victim" mentality. Many of the elders republican arguments along the line "I don’t want to pay for your healthcare!". I could same the same thing regarding Medicare, but I am not like that. In reality we are paying for it anyway. I say we are people first, capitalists second.
From a previous post of mine: Read More »
Are we really capitalists before helpful human beings? Does being a productive individual really correlate to whether someone can afford health care? I say no. People can be productive all their lives, lose a job, and be without healthcare. It happened to my father who was stricken with a deadly cancer in between jobs. Ultimately my father passed away and left my mother with a huge debt. Is that his fault?
The Republicans have a "Blame the victim" mentality. Many of the elders republican arguments along the line "I don’t want to pay for your healthcare!". I could same the same thing regarding Medicare, but I am not like that. In reality we are paying for it anyway. I say we are people first, capitalists second.
From a previous post of mine: Read More »
During his Presidential campaign and as he entered office President Obama stated that he would refocus on Afghanistan, which some had called “the forgotten war”. after the Bush administration began to focus primarily on the war in Iraq. Now we find a rise in violence in Afghanistan and a resurgent Taliban. With the costs of war rising many have began to question the future of Afghanistan and America’s role in that country.
Can America win in Afghanistan and if so at what costs? This is a legitimate question. America has spent billions in Afghanistan fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as billions trying to rebuild the country and establish a stable government capable of one day handling its own security issues. The financial costs of this war and that of Iraq has undoubtedly been a factor in the American economic collapse. There is, of course, the costs of American lives. If our objective was to eliminate Al-Qaeda many question if American lives should be put at risk for the security of Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Al-Qaeda has not been wiped out and completely defeated. Most in the military and the U.S. intelligence community agree that Al-Qaeda is still attempting to regroup in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region and that they are still plotting against America. With this knowledge we must ask if we can really consider a quick exit from Afghanistan.
History paints a picture of Afghanistan as a region that has been controlled or heavily influenced by many outside governments and rulers. Afghanistan has also shown to fight and outlast these influential powers, most notably in the 1980’s when the Afghans, led by the mujahideen and assisted by the U.S, forced the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan. Many feel that the U.S. could suffer the same humiliating defeat as the Soviet Union. Many feel that despite the resources that might be pumped into Afghanistan that no clear and certain victory can be attained.
The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has declared that despite Afghanistan’s bleak outlook that victory is possible. Many have expected General McChrystal would ask for more American troops, even with around 68,000 American troops already stationed in Afghanistan. General McChrystal has also reportedly recommended placing more troops in populated areas as opposed to pursuing insurgents into remote regions of the country. The newly revised strategy is also believed to call for expanded efforts to train the Afghan military and security forces, better methods to counter opium poppy cultivation, and a rise in civilian commitments.
Violence thus far in 2009 exceeds previous reports and with recent reports of election fraud in Afghanistan sectarian violence could grow. Recently Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Admiral mike Mullen claims that the enemy (or the Taliban in particular) is doing a better job than coalition forces in providing stability and support to the Afghan people. This assessment has led many to the opinion that America is not at war with Al-Qaeda and not the Taliban. It is true that the Taliban that harbored Al-Qaeda has been somewhat broken. The resurgence of the Taliban has even caused some to ask if America and NATO should seek to cooperate with the Taliban and to allow them some rule over the country. While the Taliban has likely come under new leadership, with former leaders in hiding, one still has to question the idea of allow the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan. The Taliban, while in control of Afghanistan, did stabilize a country that had been wrecked by fighting and corruption. Despite this positive spin on Taliban leadership the organization was strict in its Islamic rule and was oppressive against women’s rights. With America serving as a beacon of freedom and liberty can we afford to be seen as accepting and even cooperating with a regime that suppresses the rights of women?
Since the end of Taliban rule more and more Afghan children have been given the opportunity to attend school for the first time. This will provide a brighter future for Afghanistan. Without education and liberty the future of Afghanistan seems to be bleak and likely to continue down the violent and bloody path it has been on for several decades.
There are ways in which Taliban strength can be curbed. One of the factors that has led to the resurrection of the Taliban is the fact that Pakistan has not only allowed the Taliban a safe haven along its border regions but elements within the Pakistani government and society have provided support to the Taliban. It is obvious that Pakistani intelligence often aided the Taliban prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and still continues to do so. Now the Pakistani government faces Taliban forces looking to destabilize Pakistan itself. Pakistan seems unable or unwilling to stand against the Taliban which has allowed the Taliban to rebuild its organization. The U.S. and its allies must seek to help and persuade the Pakistani government to stand up against the Taliban.
The Taliban has also been able to regroup in part to the rise in opium production. The Taliban had once been against the cultivation of opium production in Afghanistan now uses funding from opium sales in order to fund its militia groups. Coalition forces have been fighting a losing battle against opium cultivation since the invasion in 2001. Many claim that opium production accounts for as much as half of the Afghan economy. In a land with few resources and little technology opium is one of the few reliable sources of income for many Afghan farmers. Instead of wasting resources in attempts to destroy opium production in Afghanistan in may be more efficient for the U.S. and its allies to redirect where the cash flow of opium production. For many years most of the opium used for medical purposes, like morphine and other drugs used to treat patients, has come from India and Turkey. The U.S and the World Health Organization should seek to incorporate Afghan opium into medical uses. This would allow Afghan opium farmers to continue to profit from the only product they are good at cultivating and still keep the money from flowing into the hands of the Taliban and other insurgents.
Many have already began to name the war in Afghanistan as “Obama’s Vietnam”. This war has lasted for several years and the end to American occupation is unlikely to end in the next twelve to eighteen months. What is clear is that a new strategy must be implemented and goals for withdraw must be met. I would agree with those who call for the accelerated training of Afghan military and police forces who can take on most of the security issues upon themselves. I also agree with those who call for the withdraw of most American ground troops while leaving behind special ops units that can quickly strike at threats posed by Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups as well as leaving offshore forces in the event that a larger force might become needed to assist Afghan military forces. No matter what strategy the administration might come to take, Afghanistan is no doubt at a critical point and the future of the country hangs in the balance.
Can America win in Afghanistan and if so at what costs? This is a legitimate question. America has spent billions in Afghanistan fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as well as billions trying to rebuild the country and establish a stable government capable of one day handling its own security issues. The financial costs of this war and that of Iraq has undoubtedly been a factor in the American economic collapse. There is, of course, the costs of American lives. If our objective was to eliminate Al-Qaeda many question if American lives should be put at risk for the security of Afghanistan. There is no doubt that Al-Qaeda has not been wiped out and completely defeated. Most in the military and the U.S. intelligence community agree that Al-Qaeda is still attempting to regroup in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region and that they are still plotting against America. With this knowledge we must ask if we can really consider a quick exit from Afghanistan.
History paints a picture of Afghanistan as a region that has been controlled or heavily influenced by many outside governments and rulers. Afghanistan has also shown to fight and outlast these influential powers, most notably in the 1980’s when the Afghans, led by the mujahideen and assisted by the U.S, forced the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan. Many feel that the U.S. could suffer the same humiliating defeat as the Soviet Union. Many feel that despite the resources that might be pumped into Afghanistan that no clear and certain victory can be attained.
The U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has declared that despite Afghanistan’s bleak outlook that victory is possible. Many have expected General McChrystal would ask for more American troops, even with around 68,000 American troops already stationed in Afghanistan. General McChrystal has also reportedly recommended placing more troops in populated areas as opposed to pursuing insurgents into remote regions of the country. The newly revised strategy is also believed to call for expanded efforts to train the Afghan military and security forces, better methods to counter opium poppy cultivation, and a rise in civilian commitments.
Violence thus far in 2009 exceeds previous reports and with recent reports of election fraud in Afghanistan sectarian violence could grow. Recently Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Admiral mike Mullen claims that the enemy (or the Taliban in particular) is doing a better job than coalition forces in providing stability and support to the Afghan people. This assessment has led many to the opinion that America is not at war with Al-Qaeda and not the Taliban. It is true that the Taliban that harbored Al-Qaeda has been somewhat broken. The resurgence of the Taliban has even caused some to ask if America and NATO should seek to cooperate with the Taliban and to allow them some rule over the country. While the Taliban has likely come under new leadership, with former leaders in hiding, one still has to question the idea of allow the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan. The Taliban, while in control of Afghanistan, did stabilize a country that had been wrecked by fighting and corruption. Despite this positive spin on Taliban leadership the organization was strict in its Islamic rule and was oppressive against women’s rights. With America serving as a beacon of freedom and liberty can we afford to be seen as accepting and even cooperating with a regime that suppresses the rights of women?
Since the end of Taliban rule more and more Afghan children have been given the opportunity to attend school for the first time. This will provide a brighter future for Afghanistan. Without education and liberty the future of Afghanistan seems to be bleak and likely to continue down the violent and bloody path it has been on for several decades.
There are ways in which Taliban strength can be curbed. One of the factors that has led to the resurrection of the Taliban is the fact that Pakistan has not only allowed the Taliban a safe haven along its border regions but elements within the Pakistani government and society have provided support to the Taliban. It is obvious that Pakistani intelligence often aided the Taliban prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and still continues to do so. Now the Pakistani government faces Taliban forces looking to destabilize Pakistan itself. Pakistan seems unable or unwilling to stand against the Taliban which has allowed the Taliban to rebuild its organization. The U.S. and its allies must seek to help and persuade the Pakistani government to stand up against the Taliban.
The Taliban has also been able to regroup in part to the rise in opium production. The Taliban had once been against the cultivation of opium production in Afghanistan now uses funding from opium sales in order to fund its militia groups. Coalition forces have been fighting a losing battle against opium cultivation since the invasion in 2001. Many claim that opium production accounts for as much as half of the Afghan economy. In a land with few resources and little technology opium is one of the few reliable sources of income for many Afghan farmers. Instead of wasting resources in attempts to destroy opium production in Afghanistan in may be more efficient for the U.S. and its allies to redirect where the cash flow of opium production. For many years most of the opium used for medical purposes, like morphine and other drugs used to treat patients, has come from India and Turkey. The U.S and the World Health Organization should seek to incorporate Afghan opium into medical uses. This would allow Afghan opium farmers to continue to profit from the only product they are good at cultivating and still keep the money from flowing into the hands of the Taliban and other insurgents.
Many have already began to name the war in Afghanistan as “Obama’s Vietnam”. This war has lasted for several years and the end to American occupation is unlikely to end in the next twelve to eighteen months. What is clear is that a new strategy must be implemented and goals for withdraw must be met. I would agree with those who call for the accelerated training of Afghan military and police forces who can take on most of the security issues upon themselves. I also agree with those who call for the withdraw of most American ground troops while leaving behind special ops units that can quickly strike at threats posed by Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups as well as leaving offshore forces in the event that a larger force might become needed to assist Afghan military forces. No matter what strategy the administration might come to take, Afghanistan is no doubt at a critical point and the future of the country hangs in the balance.
Why are we worried about insurance companies going out of business? If there is a better alternative for the U.S. to take care of its citizens aren't we obligated to choose that option?
Choosing insurance companies and capitalism over taking care of the sick and injured is not a very moral path.
Obama should be direct in his argument for the public option and throw the question back on the questioners. Is capitalism more important than taking care of people? Why has capitalism become this glorious thing that is more important than taking care of people and other things like the environment?
Maybe if the insurance companies go out of business those minds can be put to use in other business areas. If the governement can provide healthcare for all better then insurance companies then they should. Change is hard, but it must start somewhere.
Choosing insurance companies and capitalism over taking care of the sick and injured is not a very moral path.
Obama should be direct in his argument for the public option and throw the question back on the questioners. Is capitalism more important than taking care of people? Why has capitalism become this glorious thing that is more important than taking care of people and other things like the environment?
Maybe if the insurance companies go out of business those minds can be put to use in other business areas. If the governement can provide healthcare for all better then insurance companies then they should. Change is hard, but it must start somewhere.
I'm getting tired of right wingers saying that we have the best health care system in the world. They need to qualify that statement. In what way is it best?
According to the World Health Organization the U.S. does not have the best health care system... France does. The United States ranks 37 which is pretty poor given our size, GDP, and military prowess. See http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html. Also http://www.who.int/whr/en/.
Obama needs to get tough on the Democrats for us. Charm doesn't work against special interests.
According to the World Health Organization the U.S. does not have the best health care system... France does. The United States ranks 37 which is pretty poor given our size, GDP, and military prowess. See http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html. Also http://www.who.int/whr/en/.
Obama needs to get tough on the Democrats for us. Charm doesn't work against special interests.
What would Jesus do (WWJD)?
He would NOT say we need to make profits on the backs of the sick and injured. He would NOT place more importance on capitalism than helping the sick and injured. He would NOT require people to show proof of insurance before helping the sick or injured. Health care should be given to everyone... period. People worried about health care companies have their concerns misdirected.
A few points:
1. The U.S should not promote making profits on people's misfortunes (sickness, injuries, etc.) which is exactly what placing concerns on health insurance companies instead of patient needs does.
2. According to the World Health Organization the U.S. does not have the best health care system... France does. The United States ranks 37 which is pretty poor given our size, GDP, and military prowess. See http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html. Also http://www.who.int/whr/en/.
3. The argument that private companies are more efficient does not hold water. Simply put, they are more efficient because they deny coverage.
4. There are no provisions for "Death Panels" in the bill. The idea that government will make decisions on your health care is blatantly false.
It amazes me to see that far right wing Christian conservatives are many times the least likely to be concerned about helping people or other things like global warming. Again... WWJD?
Who are they? Go here: Link
These democrats should be voted out if they ultimately ruin this chance at health care. They are putting the interests of the insurance companies over that of the American public. Let them know how you feel by sending an email to: BlueDog@mail.house.gov.
Here are the members:
Jason Altmire (PA-4)
Mike Arcuri (NY-24)
Joe Baca (CA-43)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Melissa Bean (IL-8)
Marion Berry (AR-1)
Sanford Bishop (GA-2)
Dan Boren (OK-2)
What a bunch of racist thugs:
It 's old news, but you'll see it here: here
Or go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1C_NWMRs8Q
Oh well.. everyone can see what kind of people they are.
Frank Lynch hereby calls upon President Barack Obama to make it illegal to wear burkas in America.
We must immediately stop issuing drivers licenses, passports, immigration papers of any sort, or any government identification or registration instruments to any person who even partially covers their face.
Further, under the hate crime laws, it should be a felony punishable by five years imprisonment at hard labor to refuse to shake hands because a person is a woman.
It is time for our government to stop all this ridiculous political correctness of not wanting to offend muslims. We must grow a spine and stand up to extremists. All people are equal, and we cannot and must not tolerate any practices that demean women in any way.
I am disappointed in our President that European countries are taking action to recognize the sanctity of womanhood before our own President does.
President Obama, please exercise leadership in banning the burka, banning the refusal to shake hands with women, and all other extremist traditions that demean women.
Further, all non-profits must be required to ban burkas from their officers, employees, Boards of Directors or Trustees.
Eveery educational institution, from preschool through graduate school, must ban burkas from their premises.
President Nicolas Sarkozydeclared Monday that the Islamic burqa is not welcome in France, branding the face-covering, body-length gown as a symbol of subservience that suppresses women's identities and turns them into "prisoners behind a screen."
But there was a mixed message in the tough words: an admission that the country's long-held principle of ethnic assimilation -- which insists that newcomers shed their traditions and adapt to French culture -- is failing because it doesn't give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.
In a high-profile speech to lawmakers in the historic chateau at Versailles, Sarkozy said the head-to-toe Muslim body coverings were in disaccord with French values -- some of the strongest language against burqas from a European leader at a time when some Western officials have been seeking to ease tensions with the Muslim world.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause of the lawmakers gathered where French kings once held court.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement -- I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
The Netherlands is about to ban burkas. The country's hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman's face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.
Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other.
She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman. Great lady!
Although Netherlands has the same inane freedom of expression laws passed in America, she plans to make it a matter of public safety.
We must immediately stop issuing drivers licenses, passports, immigration papers of any sort, or any government identification or registration instruments to any person who even partially covers their face.
Further, under the hate crime laws, it should be a felony punishable by five years imprisonment at hard labor to refuse to shake hands because a person is a woman.
It is time for our government to stop all this ridiculous political correctness of not wanting to offend muslims. We must grow a spine and stand up to extremists. All people are equal, and we cannot and must not tolerate any practices that demean women in any way.
I am disappointed in our President that European countries are taking action to recognize the sanctity of womanhood before our own President does.
President Obama, please exercise leadership in banning the burka, banning the refusal to shake hands with women, and all other extremist traditions that demean women.
Further, all non-profits must be required to ban burkas from their officers, employees, Boards of Directors or Trustees.
Eveery educational institution, from preschool through graduate school, must ban burkas from their premises.
President Nicolas Sarkozydeclared Monday that the Islamic burqa is not welcome in France, branding the face-covering, body-length gown as a symbol of subservience that suppresses women's identities and turns them into "prisoners behind a screen."
But there was a mixed message in the tough words: an admission that the country's long-held principle of ethnic assimilation -- which insists that newcomers shed their traditions and adapt to French culture -- is failing because it doesn't give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.
In a high-profile speech to lawmakers in the historic chateau at Versailles, Sarkozy said the head-to-toe Muslim body coverings were in disaccord with French values -- some of the strongest language against burqas from a European leader at a time when some Western officials have been seeking to ease tensions with the Muslim world.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause of the lawmakers gathered where French kings once held court.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement -- I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
The Netherlands is about to ban burkas. The country's hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman's face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.
Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other.
She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman. Great lady!
Although Netherlands has the same inane freedom of expression laws passed in America, she plans to make it a matter of public safety.
Prosecutions in torture cases should go forward. The proponents of this policy are still at it and saying we are less safe because of it. Not only that, but we can not go forward in the eyes of the world until we take responsibility for our actions.
By letting prosecutions go forward we can prove that are laws are upheld and begin to quiet the supporter of such policies. This proof would be especially clear if a court of law were to find the suspects guilty.
By letting prosecutions go forward we can prove that are laws are upheld and begin to quiet the supporter of such policies. This proof would be especially clear if a court of law were to find the suspects guilty.
I haven't said anything about Dick Cheney up to now, but I feel I need to. He was one of the main driving forces of all Bush's failed policies and I believe his view of presidential powers is reflective of a king's. If we give the president unfettered power don't we set up a situation where our country is not really free? I think Cheney is not stupid, yet I feel is either completely misguided, insane, or perhaps he even doesn't truly believe in what our forefathers fought for.
Mr. Dick Cheney, I know terrorism is a bad and scary thing, but I will never give up my freedom just to be safe. I would rather die in a terrorist attack for once we lose our freedom and give a president sole authority (becomes king) then we lose. In my eyes, for all the power you have, you are paranoid and sad. I wouldn't trade places with you for anything. Regardless of what you think history will not look kindly on you, rather, it will be one of the darkest periods of the United States.
You had your chance sir… so sit down and be quiet.
Mr. Dick Cheney, I know terrorism is a bad and scary thing, but I will never give up my freedom just to be safe. I would rather die in a terrorist attack for once we lose our freedom and give a president sole authority (becomes king) then we lose. In my eyes, for all the power you have, you are paranoid and sad. I wouldn't trade places with you for anything. Regardless of what you think history will not look kindly on you, rather, it will be one of the darkest periods of the United States.
You had your chance sir… so sit down and be quiet.
During his interview on CNN Cheney said democrats blocked a previous attempt at regulation during the Bush years. This is misleading. What he was referring to was the S190 bill.
The republicans like to tout their support for the S.190 bill, but in reality it called for dismantling (within 180 days passage) 2 government oversight committees (The OFHEO and the Federal Housing Finance Board) and replacing them with a corporation, in effect, privatizing oversight of banking institutions such as Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Furthermore, a director, appointed by the president, would have sole power and decision making authority. This director would have the solitary power that is currently given to many.
I only hope that we do not make a rash decision that does not resolve our current crisis. Here is a link to the actual S.190 bill text: The S190 bill.
This link explains the credit crisis very well. This video was provided through a link Marsha gave me.
Thanks Marsha!
Link here: Video
Who's to blame? The banks. Did consumers get bigger loans than they could afford? In some cases, Yes, but not all.
The banks were given bailout money to cover the bad debt, but they didn't use it for that. They spent it buying up smaller banks among other things. The decision makers of the banks who decided not to cover the debt should be put in prison in my opinion and those banks should get no more money.
If anything, the money used in any bailout should go towards specific failed mortgages. If people end up having their morgages covered with taxpayer money, then maybe there should be some penalty tax they should incur that is spread out over time.
Let's face it - we either:
1. Give the banks money (which we already did) and trust them with it and they get a free ride.
2. Give aid to people with loans in, or about to go in, default. This may or may not help the individual.
3. Gather up all the bad debt and apply enough money directly to each mortgage in an amount that would keep banks solvent and no more. This would require spreading the amount over all loans, or those that meet specific criteria.
4. Let them all fail. Are we really prepared for this? For people who get scared of socialism, this could be a catalyst for it depending on the results. As long as we can prevent the same actions that caused the current crisis from happening again maybe a one-time bailout is not so bad.
So far it doesn't seem like the banks have paid a price for their failed lending practices (failed to us, not for them). But homeowners and taxpayers will end up footing the bill. I tend to opt for #3, but will accept #2 rather than nothing.
The banks were given bailout money to cover the bad debt, but they didn't use it for that. They spent it buying up smaller banks among other things. The decision makers of the banks who decided not to cover the debt should be put in prison in my opinion and those banks should get no more money.
If anything, the money used in any bailout should go towards specific failed mortgages. If people end up having their morgages covered with taxpayer money, then maybe there should be some penalty tax they should incur that is spread out over time.
Let's face it - we either:
1. Give the banks money (which we already did) and trust them with it and they get a free ride.
2. Give aid to people with loans in, or about to go in, default. This may or may not help the individual.
3. Gather up all the bad debt and apply enough money directly to each mortgage in an amount that would keep banks solvent and no more. This would require spreading the amount over all loans, or those that meet specific criteria.
4. Let them all fail. Are we really prepared for this? For people who get scared of socialism, this could be a catalyst for it depending on the results. As long as we can prevent the same actions that caused the current crisis from happening again maybe a one-time bailout is not so bad.
So far it doesn't seem like the banks have paid a price for their failed lending practices (failed to us, not for them). But homeowners and taxpayers will end up footing the bill. I tend to opt for #3, but will accept #2 rather than nothing.
I incorrectly referred to Rick Santelli as Rick Santorum in my previous post. This is a repost to clarify.
I saw an incident on the Hardball where Rick Santelli was yelling in what looked like a trading room. He was screaming that people shouldn't have to bail out home owners who took bigger loans than they could afford. What he was doing was easy... stirring up resentment towards the government for making them spend our tax dollars. He's an idiot.
1. Loans have been around since man began bartering. People will always try to take out bigger loans than they can afford... so why is it an issue now? Because of the way they have done business recently. It's up to the banks to have sound lending practices. Letting them make poor loans and then bailing them out is bad practice.
2. We bailed out the banks; why not bail out the people. The banks were too big to fail; but the number of bad mortgages is too large as well. Besides, they used the bailout money irresponsibly by buying up smaller banks and incurring more debt and still aren't making loans.
3. Kramer from Mad Money was just on prior to him stating that the greed from all the money that was being made by the traders trading mortgage backed securities was part of the problem.
4. All those people didn’t necessarily take out loans that were too big. Some are simply struggling now because they’ve lost their job in this poor economy. Is this the way we treat those that become victims of the economic situation? This could happen to anybody.
5. This is pure greed. I assume he is a devout Christian. Is that the way Rick's church tells him to treat those in need?
Link: Video
Posts By Month
Posts
