Pages

Friday 30 November 2012

Know Who Your Real Enemies Are

You need to know this.

Regardless of your political beliefs.

Regardless of your race, creed, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or financial situation.

I am a member of your family.

I know very little about North Dakota. I know where it's located but I've never met anyone from there. Don't know if I would like them if I did.

But I know this.

If any outsider, any foreign country or even hostile space aliens invaded North Dakota and attacked its citizens, I would grab my rifle, jump in my truck and take off to help defend them. It wouldn't matter who they supported for president, or whether or not they liked country music or if they are adamantly for or against this or that.

They are Americans and as Americans they are my family and in times of trouble I got their back and have no doubt that if the situation were reversed, they'd have mine.

As the political season grows uglier, we need to remember who we are and what we stand for. Don't let them convince you there are blue and red states. Don't buy into the lies that seek to divide us into conservative and liberals, or rich and poor.

Ever hear the saying, divide and conquer?

E Pluribus Unum-Out of many, One.

That is our country's motto. Remember that.

Over the course of our history hundreds of thousands of our soldiers sacrificed their lives for our protection. The best way to honor that sacrifice is not by having parades, or holding memorials or having big blowout department store sales.

We can honor their sacrifice by taking the time to verify the statements made by the media regarding the people running for elected office. I have seen the most outrageous, villainous and outright treasonous claims made about the presidential candidates as well those campaigning for local office.

It is disgraceful.

I have no idea what your political stance is but I do know this. Even if we were on completely opposite sides of an issue, if we sat down at the table and hashed out our concerns, we would come to a reasonable compromise. It wouldn't be perfect, compromises never are, but our main concern wouldn't be about getting our way. It would be about doing what's best for our fellow Americans.

I have mentioned in a previous post that Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdock, an Australian who had been under investigation for hacking into people's personal cell phones and Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal the nephew of the Saudi King. And on the other side of the spectrum, The Daily News is owned by Canadian born Mortimer Zuckerman, a man with a long association with the Israeli lobby.

Do you think both sides are slanting their news stories to convince you to side with them and to support their issues? Do you think both sides are fanning the fires of derision to make us turn on each other and overlook the fact that they are feathering their own nests at our expense?

I do.

And I will not support or participate.

I believe that as an American you are capable of making up your own mind as to who your elected representative should be. I believe you will take the time and make the effort to research the candidates to find the best one for the job. As for me, I will actively fight against any organization that divides us into categories, or tries to convince me that anyone who disagrees with their position is a traitor, or un-American. And I pledge that I will not post any derogatory clip or statement about any candidate unless I can personally verify its accuracy through various unrelated and reliable sources.

My name is Zackary Richards and I approve this message.

If you agree, share this and let the special interests know that lies, misinformation and malicious propaganda against any candidate will not turn you against the candidate but will instead, turn you against the organization that distributes it.

If you wish to comment you can do so at my blog.

http://zackaryrichards.blogspot.com/


View the original article here

America: Death by a Handgun

Americans really love their guns. The 2nd amendment guarantees the limited right to keep and bear arms. But, our founding fathers didn't think guns would be used in the manner they are used today. The 2nd amendment was intended to provide protection to the citizens against Indians, foreign powers, or the power of the federal government, at a time where there was little or no army. In the 21st century, handguns are used to kill about 30,000 Americans each year.

In the U.S, just about anyone can acquire a firearm. No criminal background checks are required for the buyers and sellers of handguns. Members of the terrorist watch list are not prohibited from acquiring a firearm. Concealed carry permits are sometimes given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors. There is no safety training course required to receive a concealed carry permit. Guns are less regulated than cars and toys in America. This is the reason why guns get into the hands of criminals so often.

There are approximately 175 gun murders in Canada each year. In 2011, there were 58 murders by firearms in Britain. Japan has as few as 2 gun- related murders a year. In America, there are about 24 gun murders every day. That's 24 gun murders every day. How do other countries maintain so little gun violence compared to the U.S? By regulating guns tougher than we do. Japan does it in part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership.

Gun control in Japan is the strictest in the Democratic world. Japan's law states "No-one shall possess a fire- arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords". Yet Japan is not the only country that benefits from strict weapon laws. The majority of UK police officers do not carry handguns at all. As a result of their strict weapon laws not many criminals are armed. In Switzerland, almost every adult male is legally required to possess a firearm. Despite, gun crime in Switzerland is practically non-existent. This is for the reason that Switzerland is a nation with strict gun laws. All guns are registered, and handgun purchases require a background check and a permit.

America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world. With mass murders on the rise our gun laws must become stricter or our body count will rise. There will always be mass murders and there will always be innocent civilians killed by people with guns. However, with stricter gun regulation we will never see another 25,000 people killed in a year by guns.


View the original article here

Thursday 29 November 2012

How and Why Mitt Romney Became Winner in First Presidential Debates 2012

On Wednesday, on the first contest of the 2012 Presidential Election, Romney won, Obama lost.

After the debate, 67% were with Romney, 25% with Obama. How and why the winner won the debate? There may be plentiful reasons, not only one. Let's seek some of vital reasons:

1. He handled the format: For better or worse, moderator Jim Lehrer mostly let the applicants sort out the controversy themselves, basically broaching wide subjects and enabling the applicants fight it out on their own conditions - with almost-endless rebuttals. This structure privileged Mitt Romney. His strategy went into the controversy with an attack attitude (as most applicants who are behind do), and by enabling all those rebuttals, Lehrer provided Mitt a chance to perform. He did. Obama was not as focused on fighting, which works less well when there is so much back-and-forth.

2. Obama appeared frazzled: He did not have an Al-Gore-sighs time, but Obama was clearly not having local plumber on stage. His head was down when Romney was discussing, his reactions were stopping at times, he often nodded her head (as if displaying approval) or smirked when Mitt Romney was discussing, and he even admitted some factors to Mitt Romney on issues like lack reduction and not being a "perfect" president. None of these were by themselves huge minutes (as Gore's sigh was), but the totality recommended an applicant who was not really comfortable. And he was not.

3. The state policies of preemption: Mitt realized going into the controversy that he was going to be assaulted for increasing taxation on the middle-class (according to an oft-cited study) and favoring the rich, so what he did was preemptively guarantee that he would not increase taxation on the middle-class, duplicating that over and over and indicating that it's Obama who would increase taxation on the middle-class. He also made a point to highlight the poor (think: "I'm not worried about the very poor"). By setting the conditions of the tax cut controversy, Mitt Romney balanced out the profits that Obama might have been able to make on a class issue that forms suggest Obama is successful.

4. Obama did not get his big discussion factors in: If you would have informed us before the controversy that Obama would discuss the auto bailout and Osama bin Packed only once and would not discuss Bain Capital or Romney's "47 percent" feedback at all, we would have informed you were insane. Yet that is exactly what occurred. Obama seemed susceptible with not interesting too much with his rival, but the controversy was all about interesting with one another, and Obama did not even sign-up the biggest strikes on Mitt Romney.

5. The Hopes were low: There happens to be reason the strategies spend so a while decreasing aims for the debate; objectives matter. And forms revealed that, going into the controversy, the American public, by a large edge, expected Obama to win. With the bar relatively low for Romney, it was that much easier to clear. It is not to say Romney did not have a excellent controversy. He did. But applicants will always be evaluated on a bend, and Romney defeats the bend.

6. Mitt Romney prevented a stumble: Romney's strategy has been colored by the periodic gaffe which shows the applicant to be out of touch or simply uncomfortable. There were a couple questionable minutes on that depend (Big Fowl, anyone?), but the GOP nominee's performance was mostly gaffe-free. Without a "47 percent" or "I'm not worried about the very poor" time, Mitt allowed for the post-debate research to focus on other things, which is what he needs.

Romney's growing Latino problem: Two new forms launched Wed revealed Obama taking at least 70 % of the Latino elect - strengthening an unpleasant pattern line for Conservatives.


View the original article here

The Machinery of Government in Canada

Canada is made of a democratic parliament and a monarch which is constitutional. The law assumes the most superior authority and government acts on democratic systems. The Canadian government is people driven and acts as a crown deriving its power from the citizens. The British native systems were the sources of its parliamentary system which colonialists and explorers passed on to the continent.

The federal government constitutes of three branches namely the Judiciary, the legislature and the executive. The legislature is three made up of three organs including the House of Commons which comprise elected members, the senate which consists of appointed members and the executive comprising of the bureaucratic government and the cabinet.

Law making in Canada is collective and carried out by the provincial, territorial and federal governments therefore giving rise to a federal nation. In Canada the government and its ministers are held accountable for their actions. This means that the ministers who are the head of departments should be responsible for outcomes of the policies that they make. For them to be responsible they have to involve the House of Commons who are the representatives of the people in decision making.

The ministers are held accountable for the manner in which they use their powers in effective administration of their relevant departments. Opposition members in the caucus and House of Commons act as watchdogs to ensure that the government and its ministers are held accountable for the policies made (Tomlin, 1985). The back benchers are opposition members in house who either may belong to a certain political party or not affiliated to any party. They ensure effective representation of the minority in the house by checking the exercise of power by those in government and effective legislation which should cater for dissenting views. They perform the watch dog functions by making sure that dissenting opinions on cabinet policies are openly conveyed and defended (Myers, 2009).

There are four central agencies in the federal government of Canada namely; Privy Council office, department of Finance, prime minister's office and the Treasury Board. The heads of the agencies are appointed by the prime minister. They help in coordinating the huge and varied organizations forming the government and giving advice to the ministers and prime minister. They perform vital functions in prioritizing the government initiatives by coordination of the line departments, give solutions to problems arising between ministries and appropriate resource allocation (Myers, 2009). Caucus in the parliament of Canada refers to a group of house members affiliated to a certain party and at many instances coming from the same regions. The caucus are important to maintain cohesiveness to ensure proper organization and viability which is to their own mutual advantage and that of their parties (Tomlin, 1985). Merit principle is a guideline used by the Canadian government for appointment to public offices. This replaced patronage ensuring appointments with no political interference. It was adopted to address the need for more technical and specialized skills when promoting and hiring. This was a great concern in appointments to governor in council where some recommendations were made: that appointment should just more than patronage, different degrees of scrutiny are needed for different positions and nomination is the best protocol in search for the best candidate (Myers, 2009). Affirmative action policy is observed in Canada to ensure equity to all appointments to all the citizens especially women and the minority. This policy targets to protect its citizens from discrimination on the following grounds: religion, family status, race, sex, disability, marital status, colour, ethnic or national origin.

The Equity section of the Canada fundamental bill of rights has undergone amendments to accommodate the rising needs. Agenda setting in Canada is important as it gives the insights of the working of its political system and policy formulation process. This enables to avoid any changes in policy outcomes thereby ensuring political attention stability (Tomlin, 1985). The federal government of Canada consists of diverse and huge organizations therefore most of the powers should not be concentrated on the prime minister. The parliament should make some reforms to cut down the powers of the prime minister. This will ensure legitimacy in the legislative process and policy implementation. The judges ought to be appointed by independent bodies for effective protection of the Charter of rights and Freedoms. Full democracy will only prevail on centralizing the powers held by the prime minister.

Works Cited

Maureen Appel Molot, Brian W. Tomlin. Canada Among Nations 1985. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1986.
Patrick Malcolmson, Richard Myers. The Canadian Regime. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009.


View the original article here

Wednesday 28 November 2012

It Must Be Political Season Again - Already?

In the spring of 2012 Bill Clinton was interviewed and stated that the Presidency ought to be 10-years not 4 because in the first-term, you were constantly running for office and too worried about doing the business of the people. I am not sure I want a US President for 10-years, but I do believe it is at least one of the problems with our dysfunctional DC.

Now then, maybe we need a 6-year term, and a second term of 4-years to allow the executive branch to finish what they started or change course if they've not done as promised? Hard to say really, however one thing is certain; these never ending political seasons are dividing us not uniting us.

Personally, I am blown away by the insane Mass Media negative news clips, shows, and attempts by TV, Radio, Newspapers to propel chaos and controversy creating more sound and fury pushing unstable people over the top to violent action. I am equally disturbed by the rudeness online in political topics. An interesting article you might wish to read was in the Wall Street Journal on October 2, 2012 titled; "Why We Are So Rude Online," by Elizabeth Bernstein. She's right of course, and it's both sides really.

Consider the blogosphere, online forums, social networks, Twitter, and of course the viral email distribution is out of control. The behavior is outrageous and I can tell all that anger and banter is finding its way into the real world too. If you doubt this just sit in a coffee shop or hang out at the beach, a park, or even a bus stop and listen to the vitriol (acidic) conversations which are eroding our personal politics.

Indeed, upon review of it all, politics seems to be a terrible way to run society. Unfortunately, as many have stated, people are divided on topics and emotional about it all. When it comes to the online virtual world, well this is the content that web surfers are interested in. It's sometimes unfortunate that the online readers seek the most combative content rather than looking to reason, information, facts, and philosophical debate. It is beginning to remind me of the Jerry Springer Show.

Overall, I'd say the more intellectual articles I've read on a few content websites are for the most part not as bad as what I've read in other Internet venues, which I suppose is just as well. However if 90% of the websites including all the comments on the major media sites are entering "the dark web" then obviously we have a bigger and deeper problem.

Is anything being filtered online? Yes, I believe so, but then again we have a free-speech problem when we do that. You see, I even wonder if some search engines are purposely filtering highly negative content against certain candidates, it seems so. Of course, this helps one candidate over another, which is also a problem, and in a way an abuse of power I'd say. Still, many campaigns are out in full force commenting on news articles to make their candidate look better or the opponent worse.

Yes, it is political season. And in the US at least, it seems we are "all in" when it comes to our politics. Maybe it's time to tone it down a little, not for the sake of political correctness, rather for the sake of the future national dialogue and our great nation. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Political Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


View the original article here

Tuesday 27 November 2012

Why Did They Take Our National Discussion And Turn It Into a Boxing Match?

Whereas it is true that the majority of the voters in the United States really don't know what they're talking about, and they get most of their information from the TV set, still, there are those of us who are very serious about our national politics, and the direction of our nation. You see, those of us that have a vested interest with a long line of Americans who have built this country feel like we have more to lose. We need our national discussions and debates, and we need to know what our current leaders and future leaders are thinking. No voter should go to the polls uninformed.

Now then, it would be very difficult for anyone to convince me that the 2012 October presidential debates contained any substance. Neither of the candidates talked about anything that anyone who reads the newspaper watches the news didn't already know. Nor did their talking points tell us any new about their thinking, most of it was along party lines and did not deviate, perhaps speaking to their base of voters. Further the rest was just outright accusations, innuendos, half-truths, sprinkled with lies. All of this occurs in two-minute increments bantering back and forth in a tit-for-tat catfight fashion.

Suffice it to say that is not a national discussion as it is more like a reality TV series that needs to be pulled off the air. Our nation is too important, and we've come too far to throw it all away. We should not let our presidential candidates, or their vice president running mate's destroy our national discussion or turn it into a miniature boxing match. Some might see debate in politics as a sport, and in many regards it does have all those components of competition involved, nevertheless it's far too serious to throw away with meaningless dribble.

I have to ask; why has our national discussion been turned into a mudslinging wrestling match? Whose idea was that? If they want to turn it into a sparring match, put on the pads, get in there, and duke it out. Personally, I would like to hear in-depth discussion, where each side spoke for 10 or 15 minutes, perhaps 20 or 30 minutes on a meaningful topic about our economy, education, healthcare, military, international diplomacy, infrastructure, taxation, and the running of our government. I'd like to see one of these discussions every evening for a month straight.

If the candidates themselves can't do it, put up their right hand man in charge of that division of government, or who might be appointed in that regard to assist the president. Why can't we have a real national discussion on important topics? These debates have become a joke, they aren't good enough for the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind, there is no respect involved, and quite frankly it is an insult to our intelligence as concerned voters. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


View the original article here

Why Can't We Have a 45-Hour Presidential Debate?

Indeed, I've always said that I want a president who is smarter than me. There are not many topics that I can't speak for 20 hours or more without running out of information and things to say, or insights, innovations, or new concepts in those areas of the human endeavor. If you are going to run the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind you need to be a superhuman with super intellect. You need to be able to reduce very complex topics into very simple and easy to understand layman's terms. You must be a communicator, and an executive leader.

No one ever said running a country with expenditures sometimes exceeding $1 trillion annually was going to be easy. It's a huge undertaking, and there will be no rest for the wicked, therefore we need someone who is wickedly smart, and has a handle on things. I don't think we ought to leave such an important job as running this great nation up to a politician who has no greater skill than perhaps being able to read a Teleprompter, or bully their way through a debate. As I've watched the 2012 debates for president, I've been completely bothered by the rapidly thrown out innuendos, gotcha politics, and Jerry Springer like cat fights.

Indeed, I want a president who can debate for 45 hours with the level of intensity that we normally see in a 90 minute debate speaking to the facts and realities, not the attacks or falsehood personal character assassinations. I want to see who can outlast the other, and never run out of information, and never repeat what they've already said. It's easy to remember one-liners, and a few stump speeches here and there, but I want to see someone that knows the issues backwards and forwards and upside down and every single direction to Sunday. I want someone who can think outside the box, in the box, and reconstruct the box as if it were origami.

Why do I believe this is possible because I could do it - further, as an entrepreneur you must do it. To survive in business and be the best in your industry you must be able to know every single aspect of that business and that industry. Any solid entrepreneur can talk about their line of work, and every aspect of their business and they can do it for 45 hours straight. To be President of the United States you need stamina, you need vision, and you need passion and you shouldn't run out after 90 minutes, nor should we allow them to get away with two-minute answers.

We deserve more than that because we are the greatest nation ever created history of mankind and it took a lot to build this country, and we need not throw away in one generation due to political correctness, political rhetoric, class warfare, socialism, or settle for some sort of "last liar wins" scenario. Why can't we have a 45-hour presidential debate, it takes at least that long to cover all the topics. This country is over 3000 miles wide, and that's just in the continental US.

We have the greatest military ever put together in all of human history. We have the greatest GDP of any nation, and we built the greatest country in just over 200 years. This is no time to rest on our laurels, or settle for a president who quite frankly isn't good enough. This is the time to get tough, get busy, and get the job done. We can do this, we don't need blame games, we don't need to avoid our enemies, nor do we need to sit back and pretend that we are no longer great.

We should not be apologizing for our greatness, we should be standing on our principles, and we should lead the world by example. That's what we've always done before, that doesn't need to change. Sure, there are new strategies to try, new ways of doing things, and we are now in a global economy. All that I grant you, but that doesn't mean we can't stand for justice, liberty, and freedom around the world. We do not need to backtrack, nor do we need to lie to our citizenry to promote a false agenda. We can live with integrity, transparency, and we can show the world what we're made of.

Some would say as the Council on Foreign Relations recently had a debate that America's time for being the world's superpowers is over. To that I say; bull. It's not over friends, that's wishful thinking on the part of those who wish they could be us, but they can't because they aren't as good as we are when we put our mind and focus, along with our vision and will on a goal. Let's keep America number one, and let's get this show on the road. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


View the original article here

Monday 26 November 2012

A View on Politicains and Our Votes

As we all can notice it is voting season and all of the representatives are out there begging us to choose them. They are campaigning from state to state and city to city fighting for the issues they think will make a change and arguing against the opponent and his beliefs. It is the time that they play commercials bantering the other candidate and glorifying themselves. It is the time of year that we all think November can't come soon enough.

Now don't get me wrong here because voting is good and it took a long time for women to even gain that right and every American is grateful to have the opportunity to say " hey wait a minute, this don't seem right". However I am sure we can all agree that we could do with less of the smashing and bashing that each candidate does to the other.

As Americans we have learned not to judge a coat by its color and to never take one's word at face value. So just the same these pointless commercials pinning one against the other tend to be ignored. We know there not the whole truth and that to us they are just simply annoyances.

The candidates really need to step back and think on whether they want to irritate the voters or get their vote. Getting our vote is simple, just tell us what you stand for in layman terms and quit the useless badgering. Let us hear how you can do good for us. Let us hear how you want to change things and the fight you will put up to do so. Tell us what you won't stand for and what you won't do. I would say be honest but, politicians don't usually go there. Basically quit wasting our time and get to the real issues at hand. America is worth more to us Americans then you think.

Contrary to what some may think we care about what the issues are and we care how they get handled. Americans don't vote on looks or where you are from. We vote on the issues that matter. So state the one's you want and don't want. Let us decide if you cover enough of them to get our vote. But, also realize that like said before, slandering get's you nowhere. Average Americans are gonna change the channel or turn it down because we know that not all of the opponents views on the other candidate are valid. We are Americans and we know what we want and frankly it is time the politicians saw that.


View the original article here

How Can a Person Vote for Public Health When He's Afraid to Vote?

Yesterday, while out registering voters in a modest apartment complex in Orlando, Florida, I had an epiphany after talking to a maintenance man named Alfredo. For years, potential voters of modest means, men and women without much education, have been telling me that they don't vote because they think that one vote just doesn't matter, and also that the system is irreversibly stacked against people like them. It was the same old story with Alfredo, whom his friends call Freddie.

Members of minority groups, people like Alfredo, suffer disproportionately from a whole raft of public health problems related to being of lower educational level, low income and from prejudice, among other pressures they face. They stand to benefit greatly from policies like the new healthcare bill and humane, reformed immigration policies. But there was no point in my discussing these political topics and key public health issues with Alfredo until he registered to vote. I had to get past his "I'm checked out" posture before we could even start to talk about the public health issues or any political issues.

I have heard this my-vote-doesn't-matter refrain all over Central Florida -- in Publix parking lots, in the wide and high halls of Home Depots and on the shores of Lake Eola. Hearing it has always frustrated, aggravated and puzzled me. I keep thinking something which a recent poll reported in the New York Times dramatically confirmed: If all the people who could register to vote were registered and did vote, the Democrats would be massively strong right now. With regard to the 2012 presidential race, President Obama would be poised to beat Mitt Romney in a landslide.

My conversation with Alredo yesterday finally helped me understand that many modest folks avoid participation in elections for reasons that run much deeper than cynicism. I learned from Alfredo that avoidance of participation in the electoral process also stems from great fear and confusion.

At first Alfredo told me in a heavy Spanish accent: "I've never voted. I don't bother with that. Why bother? My vote won't matter. It's all rigged... "

To which I replied, "Well it's a great thing for the rich people that a lot of ordinary people feel like you do. Because the rich people NEVER fail to vote in every single election and they always get exactly what they want."

I was tired from having been out knocking on doors in the heat and humidity of late summer in Orlando. I didn't really have the heart left to fuss much with Alfredo.

I told him, Listen, Alfredo, it's your right to sit out the election. You really don't want to vote, don't vote. But please don't complain about the way things are going in this country if you don't vote because people who d don't vote are giving away the power that they do have. And that's what happens all the time. Ordinary people, working people decide to let the guys with five Cadillacs and too many houses to keep track of run the whole show. That can be your choice. It's a free country."

"Okay, okay," Alfredo finally said to me, as I offered him the clip board again and he registered. I didn't have any forms in Spanish so I had to translate the form for him, pointing to each line and telling him what information belonged where; name, address, driver's license number and so on. He filled out the form, and I felt like I'd snagged a tough one.

Then, his defenses lowered quite a bit, he said to me, in pained tones, "But now I have to vote! And it's so confusing! There are so many things they ask. I don't know who all these people are... "

I was really surprised.

It finally hit me that the cynicism probably is, for lots of the "it's-all-rigged" nonvoters, a facade. They are understandably overwhelmed by the deluge of meaningless information and slick, confusing commercials they encounter. Here in Florida, the TV, radio, billboards and our telephone lines are constantly pulsing with bad information in huge amounts. Not to mention the Internet.

I told Alfredo not to worry about the whole long ballot come November. I suggested that he could go into the voting booth and just vote for President Obama, for whom he had already expressed a strong preference, and ignore nearly all of the rest of it. I couldn't resist putting in a plug for Senator Bill Nelson, who I explained was a decent, caring guy from the Panhandle who had once been an astronaut and now works really hard for the folks on the Space Coast. This seemed to reassure Alfredo somewhat.

To really convince him that it was okay to vote for one or two of the people on the ballot and ignore the rest, I said, "Listen, Alfredo, if you have five trees to trim and you only have time to trim two, you don't worry about ignoring the rest that day. Voting is the same. You can vote for Obama for President and for Bill Nelson and call it quits right there. You're done with those two votes and it will still make a huge difference."

Before I left the leasing office for the complex where Alfredo works, I spoke to another employee there whom I had registered to vote a few hours earlier that day.

Her name was Dana. She'd moved from New York to Florida three years ago to work as a salesperson. Both being New Yorkers, we had easily established a sort of natural rapport. "Listen, Dana" I said, "Will you be Alfredo's' voting buddy when early voting starts? Maybe you can see that he goes to vote. Maybe you two can go together one day during lunch or something."

People ought not to fear voting and find the process so daunting.

I know that the public schools are overwhelmed with pressures to educate children in areas that might once have been considered the purview of parents. Still, I think that every school ought to start educating children in civics from elementary school right up through high school graduation. Furthermore, registering teenagers to vote ought to be a part of what high schools do routinely.

Our country is suffering under a wave of highly effective voter suppression laws. These represent reprehensible attempts to keep power firmly in the hands of the already powerful. These powerful actors simply do not care about addressing our nation's public health issues. Ignorance, fear and confusion are proving great allies to the greedy members of 1% as they fight, by any means, to stay on top and climb ever higher. Maybe the schools that these moneyed interests have been hacking away at for so long still have the potential to act as a counterforce. Maybe.

Our country is suffering a wave of voter suppression laws designed to keep power in the hands of the already entrenched. The moneyed, powerful interests behind the Super PACs behind these laws do not care about addressing our nation's public health issues. Ignorance, fear and confusion are proving great allies to these members of 1% as they fight, by any means, to stay on top and climb ever higher. Maybe the schools that these moneyed interests have been hacking away at for so long can still act as a counterforce. Maybe schools can help prepare a new generation of voters to stand up for their own interests and for leaders who will act for the greater good when it comes to seriously addressing pressing public health issues.


View the original article here

Convex or Concave, You Have to Choose - You Can't Choose Both or Vote Present

It is very interesting when you look at economic theory in times of global chaos. Do you push forward to reduce the budget through austerity, or do you work hard with a pro-growth strategy? This is a big debate in Europe right now, and one that we often have here the United States based on Keynesian economic theory. Might I add, that sometimes some of both makes the most sense. It doesn't make sense for governments to spend money unnecessarily, unwisely, and in an inefficient fashion only to tell the people they need more money, and raise taxes. Raising taxes of course takes money out of people's pockets which they would have spent in a very efficient manner, only buying those things they need, want, or desire.

That is the brilliance of free markets of course, and Milton Friedman surely would agree in his book "Free to Choose" because nothing is more efficient than individual buyers and sellers deciding what's in their own best interest and making a deal amongst themselves. Anytime a government, authority, taxing agency, or anyone else comes along to rearrange the flow of those transactions, all they do is distort them. Now then back to the idea of convex or a pro-growth strategy as opposed to concave or an austerity plan - we should philosophically be asking ourselves; do we vote for contraction and continued economic distortion and distraction or solid growth using free-market fundamentals which created this great nation.

Many people are tax adverse, and they don't want the government taking any more money from them. Still, most Americans believe that they should pay their fair share towards the common good, but they disagree on how the government is spending the money. If the government only spent exactly what it needed to provide the services that we desire and want we'd all be okay with it, there wouldn't be anyone complaining at nearly the level they are today. However the reason we have riots in Europe, and why they could actually end up here in the states is because there are philosophical differences in political opinions on how the money should be spent.

In the first presidential debate in October of 2012 President Obama said that Mitt Romney's economic strategy couldn't work because he couldn't do all he said if he didn't raise taxes. Mitt Romney rightfully responded that he wanted to broaden the base, and therefore there would be more people paying in which would make up the difference. The Obama Campaign supporters immediately called him a liar. That's absolutely ridiculous, because it is exactly what has been done in the past, and about the only thing that works.

If you own a company you surely want to make more sales, but you also need to control your expenses. There is no difference between what Romney is saying about broadening the base than a business going out to get more customers first, while controlling expenses, and allowing everything to grow from there. Please consider all this and think on it, because we've got to get the socialists out of their mental blockade on this very easy basic economic theory which is no longer taught in schools.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Politcs and Economics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


View the original article here

Sunday 25 November 2012

Two-Minute Answers In Presidential Debates Are Without Substance - Trite and Canned

It was mid-October in 2012 and the third presidential election debate had taken place, it was the second one amongst those running for president, and following the first and only debate between the vice presidential candidates. One thing I noted was the rules for these debates were very stringent, only 2 minute answers would be allotted to each question. Although on almost all occasions the candidates were plus or minus a few seconds either way, and usually a little bit over, I still felt as if very little real intellectual information was being exchanged. This is a problem, and I'd like to speak to it if I might.

You see, we already have a real challenge with attention spans here the US, and our evening news has been reduced to nothing more than debatable nonsense. The reality is that many of the issues that face us on the political scene, or those challenges we face as a nation moving forward cannot even be summarized in 2 minutes, nor can they be adequately discussed in order to pick a president in this way. These answers because of their brevity are without substance, and they are often trite, canned, and nothing more than the political rhetoric we get in the 30 second ads we see on TV where one candidate is condemned for some ambiguous thing and then the other has the balls to approve this message.

Those aren't messages, and in fact they insult the intelligence of the American people. I would submit to you that these presidential debates are insulting the intelligence of the combined and collective wisdom of Americans. That's not good enough, and we need a national discussion, a serious dialogue and debate on these issues. If all we get are tit-for-tat political rhetoric attacks on personal character, or innuendos many of which have no merit at all, we will never get to the bottom of what our nation needs to. And if we don't people are placing their bets and their votes on hyperbole, hypocrisy, and one line gotcha comments.

If this is the way we choose a president, we do not deserve a great leader, and perhaps that's why we haven't been getting them lately. These debates remind me more of a reality TV series where there are two people left on the island, and one of them has to go, which one will it be, click, ask them another question, see what they say, tell them they are a rotten scoundrel, and see who gets in the last word. That's nothing more than a Jerry Springer Show - it's not even fit for my television, why are they wasting my time. As a swing voter having my intelligence insulted in this way is unacceptable.

We live in the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind, and we deserve more. This isn't good enough, this is not the America I was promised or brought into. If the American people are so naïve to think that these are realistic debates on important topics, or that this is all there is to running the executive branch of the federal government which is spending $1 trillion per year, then no one should vote. How can someone placed their bet, or believe they are getting the facts, or that these candidates are debating the reality? Based on what I've seen I'm disgusted.

The human species has a lot going for it, and the United States is the only superpower. If we are to lead the world into prosperity, liberty, and freedom around the globe we need to walk the talk, and we need to do better than this, and we need to show the world that we can't lead, that we know what we're doing. This has been nothing short of a disgrace, it is unacceptable. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it. I can be reached by e-mail.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


View the original article here

Saturday 24 November 2012

New Political Strategy - Call The Opponent a Liar, If The Candidate Can't Win a Debate

Well sometimes, I just get so upset at the politics in the United States. Sometimes it just drives me nuts, and I'm sure you'll agree regardless of which side of the fence you are on. Personally, I happened to be somewhat of a libertarian leaning right, not due to religious reasons more so because I believe in free-market economies, and I am vehemently opposed to any sort of socialism for the United States of America. After 30 years of studying the politics, news, and being involved in business I have good reason for my observations and political viewpoints.

The other day someone told me that I shouldn't tell anyone that I am a libertarian because they might think I'm crazy. I'm not, not even a little bit. "There's nothing wrong with my politics, it's everyone else I'm worried about," I told them, and they laughed. Doesn't everyone feel the same way? Now then, recently I was watching the first debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama at the University of Colorado. It was clear that Mitt Romney went on the attack demanding the president's explanation for dragging economy, and trillions of dollars of deficit spending in the last four years. Basically Mitt was asking; Mr. President, what do you have saved yourself?

The president didn't have a lot to say that night therefore it was deemed that he lost debate. Because of this the Democratic Party was quite concerned of how to play it. It appears their new strategy was simply to call Mitt Romney their opponent a liar. Perhaps if you say something enough times and keep repeating it, people will believe you. Rather than calling someone else a racist or a liar, or anything else, it might be better to have more legitimate debates at the higher end of the intellectual spectrum. Apparently, that's not happening. It's all about gotcha politics. Still, we cannot have a legitimate national discussion or debate, or maintain positive and respectful dialogue and discourse with all this vitriol.

Calling your opponent a liar is not a viable strategy in American politics, and it just further divides the left and the right. It is dividing our nation, and if we are going to have debates and televise them, then each party should put their best foot forward and make their case to the American people. Calling each other liars doesn't solve the problems or challenges we face as a nation. It turns Americans off towards politics it puts even more distrust of the government. Besides that, one could ask; who's really the liar? If someone calls someone else a liar but they aren't lying, then they are in fact a liar. If someone is a liar and calls someone else a liar, then in that case doesn't it just cancels-out the whole conversation?

If so, why have debates at all? Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Political Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


View the original article here

Joe Biden: Medium Class Was Buried on the Last 4 Years

"How can you justify a tax raise for a medium class that was buried on the last 4 years?" questioned Joe Biden speaking to more than 1 thousand supporters.

The Vice-President didn't wait long to receive an answer from the Republican side "Thank You, vice-president Biden", said Mitt Romney's staff member, John Sununu on a telephonic interview... "For the first time you are right. The American medium class was buried with the failed President Obama's policies", affirmed Sununu.

John Sununu is an ex-governor of New Hampshire. He assured that Joe Biden's commentary sets the base for the first presidential debate that will take place today in Denver, Colorado.

The reactions to Biden's commentary were also fast to be heard from the Democrat side, defending what Democrats call a recurrent vice-president speech... "Another day, another desperate out of context attack from Mitt Romney's campaign", affirmed Lis Smith, the Democrat campaign spokesperson.

Lis added that on the same statement Biden also said "... the medium class was punished by the failed policies of George W. Bush that had a negative impact on the economy, so voting for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would be coming back to those failed policies".

The Republicans are recovering some votes in some states and with statements like these, even if taken out of context, they always represent an opportunity for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to capitalise.

It will be better for Obama that Biden changes this kind of statements as we approach the US Election at a fast pace. All the Democrats have to do is to campaign in a solid and safe way and not try doing anything fancy.

Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice-President candidate, admitted that some mistakes were made by the Republican campaign. Paul Ryan will face Joe Biden on a single vice-presidential debate on October 11th in Kentucky.

The majority of polls point that Paul Ryan is stronger than the Democrat, so the debate will be a chance to confirm the Polls. Could a Vice-President be the "Joker" that the Republicans need to turn around this election? It would be amazing if it did.

It's a fact that at present, people look more and more to the rest of the staff, including the first ladies, where Michelle Obama is also a bit stronger than Ann Romney (not by much), but the main decision is made based on the person that runs for President.

For more info, polls, news and much more check out http://uspresidential2012.blogspot.com/


View the original article here

Friday 23 November 2012

Forgetting How to Compromise

The late historian Shelby Foote made two significant points during his opening comments in Ken Burns' The Civil War. He stated that the war itself defined who we are as a nation and that the decades leading up to the war illustrated how we lost or forgot how to practice the most unique and important aspect of our form of government: COMPROMISE. By entrenching political and economic positions in intransigency, we created the atmosphere for the greatest bloodbath this country has ever endured.

What began as an argument about state's rights evolved into a war over the moral horror show called slavery. The real issues were economic. The South, primarily an agrarian society and culture, was run by relatively few very wealthy land owners who owned and operated over 90% of the slave population. The vast majority of southern whites owned no slaves. When moderates tried to limit the spread of slavery economics to other, new territories, the entrenched southern aristocrats fought it, because they thought it would eventually impact their way of life.

In watching the film I was reminded that hateful rhetoric directed at politicians is nothing new. Lincoln himself was called names like "baboon" and "gorilla" as well as other less complimentary terms. Why? Because he advocated limiting slavery; he did not advocate abolishing it in his campaign or the first years of his presidency. That came after the South showed they were adamant against reforming the union. It wasn't until January 1, 1863 that the Emancipation Proclamation became law.

Few argue that the decades leading up to 1861 weren't the darkest and most divisive in our political history. Intransigence, not compromise, was the order of the day and the nation split apart as a result. Our greatest political "invention", compromise, was replaced with rancor, self-serving hostility and vicious attacks on opposing views to the point that emotions replaced reason and war replaced civilized resolution.

If this sounds familiar, we seem to be in the midst of a similar atmosphere today. The parallels are too obvious to ignore, but we'd better pay attention to fixing them before they once again get out of hand.

With the entry into our political arena of scorched earth operatives like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist, the art and intent of compromise is replaced with ideological certainty, wedge issues that do nothing but inflame emotions and election rigging to ensure victory for a particular party. Compromise, in this environment, is a sign of weakness. Pledges are forced on politicians to ensure funding from political machinery.

Perhaps worst of all is the blatant name-calling and hostility directed at the President. Bill Clinton received a flood of invective the minute his hand came off the Bible. Barack Obama has stimulated an unprecedented avalanche of hatred and invective from the moment he announced his candidacy. New code words like multiculturalism arose to mask the true intent and meaning of those darts.

When the minority mouth of the Senate says that their number one priority is to oust the President, compromise is the victim. The machine of conservatism and compromise has been replaced by the lesser angels of fear, hate, greed, prejudice and power.


View the original article here

Is The Mainstream Media Making a Mistake By Pushing Political Agendas With a Divided Public?

It seems to me rather unfortunate that the mainstream media spends so much time spinning and manipulating what was said and debated at the presidential debates in mid-October 2012. What I see as rather curious is how many left-leaning socialist thinking people have been on TV criticizing Mitt Romney for his strategy and plan to get America back to work. In almost all regards they have misconstrued what he has said, rebranded him as a liar, and completely misstate the facts. Over and over again the American people are being told by the media and political operatives for the Obama campaign that Mitt Romney's plan is unattainable, and that the numbers don't add up. Sure they do, and let me explain.

Mitt Romney wishes to aggressively boost domestic energy development and production. That alone would add a tremendous number of new jobs, and with that more people paying taxes into the system, therefore there would be more revenue for the government. This could add 500,000 high paying jobs and lower our energy costs helping small businesses and consumers, allowing them more money to spend - thus, boosting the economy as well.

He also wishes to complete trade deals with South America which have been on hold therefore increasing the number of products we export. That would provide more jobs at home in manufacturing. Further, on that note he wishes to lean on China for their intellectual property theft, and their currency manipulation. That could easily add another 2 million jobs to our manufacturing sector.

He's also us spoken of allowing the states to administer their own job training programs rather than being dictated by the federal government. This is also quite wise because things should be done locally in the regions where those jobs actually exist, or don't exist. It hardly makes sense to train people for jobs which do not exist in those particular states. This is why centralized control over such things never works, as the so-called economies of scale are lost to mismatching. By allowing the states to do their own retraining that means more jobs, again more people paying taxes into the system.

Mitt Romney also says that he wants to reduce the deficit by eliminating inefficiencies, duplication, and nonsensical agencies. That will reduce the amount the government spends. He doesn't wish to increase taxes, he wishes for more people to be paying into the system because they have new jobs. Lastly, he wishes to reduce the regulatory burden on small companies, our small businesses are being barraged by rules and regulations at every level of government. If we can reduce these regulations small businesses will expand and hire more people. When they hire more people more people will be paying taxes into the system.

With all of these new jobs and all of these new people paying into the system, the government won't have to run a deficit, or as it is working itself out of the budget deficits it will have more money coming in. Those who oppose Mitt Romney are only looking at the cost of the government and where the money is going, without looking at the revenue side of the equation, perhaps because they believe that since Obama couldn't create any jobs, then either can't Mitt Romney. But there is a big difference between a free-market capitalist, and socialist style leadership as they have in Europe.

Europe's way doesn't work, free-market capitalism does, and that's the fundamental difference. If the political opposition doesn't understand this (they hardly teach economics in our schools anymore), or quite frankly doesn't care because all they wish to do is a negative things about Mitt Romney, and if the mainstream media continues making a mistake by pushing this political agenda when 50% of our population is against socialism, then the mainstream media will also suffer in the end, not only because socialism ruins business models, but also because the other 50% which believes in freedom, liberty and free-market capitalism is going to tune them out.

Media companies cannot operate without viewership, and without the ratings as they will not pull in any advertisers after the election. Right now, perhaps they are promoting Barack Obama because the amount of money in advertising the Obama Campaign is currently spending with them, but if that is the case that's just another form of crony capitalism, and therefore their opinions and what is stated on their programming, or who they choose to interview cannot be considered unbiased.

In fact one could say they're part of the problem, therefore maybe it doesn't matter if they go out of business, or turn on the economic reality and basic math of this equation. Romney's right, for the right reasons. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Political Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


View the original article here

Thursday 22 November 2012

The Vindication of Harold Norman

Harold Norman was only twenty six years old on November 22, 1963, the day President John F. Kennedy was shot. The young African-American was an amiable fellow with a ready smile. An order-filler for the Texas School Book Depository, Harold routinely shared a myriad of jokes with fellow employees to help the day go by.

As JFK's motorcade was scheduled to approach the Depository, located at the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets, Harold was joined by co-workers James "Junior" Jarman and Bonnie Ray Williams, all of whom planned on viewing the passing procession from open fifth-floor windows at the southeast corner of the building. In a crouched position, Harold stationed himself at the corner window, while Williams and Jarman knelt at the windows immediately right of him. It was the lunch hour and the three men had the choice of either standing with other employees who had congregated downstairs at the Depository's main entrance, or having the entire upper floor to themselves. The latter option was a way to avoid the crowds below and, as JFK's driver would be required to make a sharp turn from Houston to Elm Street beneath them, the commanding, bird's-eye view each anticipated having of President and Mrs. Kennedy seemed ideal.

The motorcade finally reached Dealey Plaza. Sure enough, Harold, Bonnie Ray, and Junior were exhilarated with the panoramic sight of the handsome JFK and Jackie seated in an open blue Lincoln Continental, smiling and waving to the crowds at curbside.

"The weather," Harold recalled decades later, "was picture-perfect; and I was surprised at how sandy-colored President Kennedy's hair was."

The presidential limousine had no sooner negotiated a slow turn onto Elm Street when, suddenly, three shots rang out!

The Texas School Book Depository had been built as a warehouse in 1901. The ribs in its antiquated wooden floors were wide enough in some areas to detect conversations from co-workers on stories above and below.

The first report was loud - too loud -- followed closely by a second burst, then a brief delay, and finally a third explosion, all approximately ten seconds in duration. The windows trembled with the reverberations. Stunned, Harold was certain someone was shooting directly above him. The upper floors of the building shook as motes of white powdery-like dust descended upon Bonnie Ray's head. What the three men heard overhead was unmistakable. Gunfire! --accompanied by the click-click sounds of a rifle's bolt action. Ejected shell hulls were heard bouncing on the floor above with a ping. To Harold, who was experienced at firing a rifle, the ear-splitting resonance briefly reminded him of a segment from the popular ABC-TV television series "Combat!" He excitedly pointed upward and exclaimed, "Listen!" Bonnie Ray gasped, "No bullshit!" "I can hear the shells being ejected!" Harold urgently shouted.

The trio's senses fired on all cylinders; their pulses, and minds, racing. What villain is on the sixth floor? Why would he want to harm President Kennedy? This can't be happening! Harold, Junior, and Bonnie Ray, all open-mouthed at the unfolding drama, had little idea that the assassin taking beads on the nation's president was one of the Depository's newest employees.

With blaring sirens, screams, and utter confusion erupting in the streets below, the men hoped President Kennedy wasn't wounded. They darted to windows on the west side of the floor in an attempt to catch a glimpse of President Kennedy's vehicle, but the limo had already sped away from Dealey Plaza. Glancing at one another, and realizing full- well the significance of their frightening experience, Harold and Junior sprinted down to the building's main entrance in search of the nearest policeman. The first cop they approached, Officer W. E. Barnett, was already in conversation with Howard Brennan, a construction worker who became the most important eyewitness in the plaza, having watched in horror as Lee Harvey Oswald had taken deliberate aim and fired the final shot that terminated the life of America's thirty-fifth president. As Harold and Junior approached, Brennan recognized both as the men he observed situated in the fifth-floor windows beneath the assassin.

Harold was categorically the closest person to Oswald during the assassination sequence, merely several feet away to be exact. He was the key ear-witness to the crime, while Howard Brennan would prove the most decisive eyewitness. Few know that these men had met only minutes after Kennedy's murder had taken place, and while several spectators in the plaza mistakenly ran in the direction of a grassy incline and railroad overpass, Norman and Brennan both pointed Officer Barnett in the accurate direction of the sniper's nest.

On September 17, 1994, nearly thirty-one years following the tragic events in Dealey Plaza, Harold Norman passed away at Dallas's Baylor Medical Center. He died without fanfare, his modest Dallas Morning News obituary not once mentioning the gentleman's innocent, yet noteworthy bond to John Kennedy's death three decades prior.

Equally unsettling is the fact that, although Harold and his fifth-floor co-workers were interviewed by Warren Commission investigators in March 1964, William Manchester's book, The Death of a President, failed to mention them in its text or index. Manchester was a celebrated author whose 1967 work is today recognized as one of the foremost and authoritative contemporary narratives of the assassination. Why the three young African-Americans, whose testimonies were vitally essential to the most shocking historical event of the latter half of the twentieth century, were omitted, is mind-boggling!

Had today's influx of internet and cable mass media existed in 1963, Harold Norman would not have been neglected, becoming a frequent guest for interviewers desirous of an honest recounting his harrowing experience and historical perspective. Instead, the truth was overshadowed as the American people became enamored with conspiracy theories and fictionalized docudramas promoted by a cottage industry of opportunists - some sincere - others blatant liars for profit. And while several among the latter emboldened Harold to revise his story in an attempt to suit their multi-assassin agendas, he never deviated from the truth. Thankfully, great advances in modern-day forensic computer technology have all but obliterated the ridiculous conspiratorial balderdash, thereby justifying the unfeigned ear-witness and eye-witness testimonies of Harold Normal and Howard Brennan, respectively.

"President Kennedy was a special leader," Harold said, his voice choking with emotion only weeks before his death. "He made us feel good about ourselves."

For anyone old enough to remember the sensation of shock, tears, and anger upon receiving the news that JFK had been shot, the moment is frozen in time. And as America moves closer to the fiftieth anniversary of this inspiring and beloved president's senseless loss, we should also recognize Harold Norman, a good man whose traumatic proximity to the most nightmarish of historic events was, for him, especially sorrowful.

Presidential Historian John Burke Jovich possesses a passion for all things presidential. as the Birmingham (AL) News wrote of him, "Jovich shows the presidents as human beings - as if he as been friends with each one." He is an exemplary speaker, has met nine U. S. presidents, and is the authour of Reflections on JFK's Assassination: 250 Famous Americans Remember November 22, 1963. John's articles satisfy the reader's thirst for the most remote, personal aspects of America's presidents. John was a friend of Harold Norman. A photograph of the two posed together before the former Texas School Book Depository can be found on John's website. Visit his website at http://www.presidentsupclose.com/


View the original article here

Romney and Obama: Election Issues - Who Will Win the Election? - Who Will Be President?

Romney and Obama! This is of primary interest this fall. Who will win the election? Who will be President? What are the main election issues that are involved?

As a lawyer, I know that nailing the issues of a situation is vitally important. We know if we don't win the main issues, we lose our case. It's the same in politics as in the courtroom: the things people are most affected by are the main election issues of the campaign.

We all know that charisma, charm and likeability play too big a role in politics. It's often the one who smiles the most, shakes the most hands, and gives the best speeches who wins the election - national, state or local. Ability often plays a lesser role. But issues don't. Both Romney and Obama must nail the election issues.

America: Back to the Basics

I wrote a book with the above title. I wrote it for the Bush vs. Dukakis election of 1988. My slogan was, "Campaigning for America, not for political office." It was a book about getting back to the basics of a Constitutional, moral, ethical, caring America.

I tried to revive John F. Kennedy's slogan from 1960: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I got on many radio and T.V. talk shows, and lots of people wanted to talk about this. So it was well timed for a political election. People knew we were getting too far away from a moral, Constitutional America.

Romney's 47% Remark

The news is telling us that Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate, made a remark about 47% of the people in the U.S. not paying federal income taxes, and being too dependent on the U.S. government for support.

I feel this will be one of the major issues of the 2012 election.

What Can My Country Do For Me?

Sadly, JFK's words of 1960 have been put into dry-dock, and they have been changed to say, "Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you."

We have a different America today than we had in 1960, or even in 1988 when I wrote my book. Unemployment compensation, and other temporary assistance programs are necessary. People get in hard times and need a helping hand for a period of time.

But sadly, there are many, many people with their hand out trying to grab anything they can get. And I don't just mean beggars on the street corner.

The issues for many people will be, "Which candidate can give me the most?" - "Which candidate will benefit me the most?" It has been said many times that more and more people are tuned into radio station WIIFM: 'what's in it for me?'

This mode of thinking will be a primary issue in the 2012 election. If they get their say, it will drive America further downhill. We will be given more and more assistance, and we'll become addicted to it even more.

What Can I Do For My County?

In case you haven't noticed, America needs help. We are very rapidly heading for a crash we will not be able to recover from. Our founding fathers predicted this if we ever let government get out of control and become too big. This is the situation today.

Many people just what to see it get bigger with their WIIFM thinking.

Those of us who don't subscribe to this must get out and vote in November, and we must urge everyone we know who is like-minded to do the same. There is not much we can do about what is happening, but we can vote. "The power of one" is still the name of the game.

We live in the greatest nation on earth. But she may not remain so if we don't act. Romney and Obama: what are the election issues? Who will win the election? Who will be president? Who will be the best president for America? We are the judge, but we must issue a ruling and vote.

Roger Himes, The Lawyer, Business Coach: http://www.rocksolidbusinesscoach.com/ - and The Gospel Life Coach: http://www.thegospelcoach.com/. Also read daily Tweets on Twitter from the Gospel Coach: Twitter dot com -- /TheGospelCoach


View the original article here

Wednesday 21 November 2012

Who Has the Power?

My mind often wanders as I sit at my desk in the late hours of the night as it did this past evening.. Within the seat of our government from the position of president on into our congressional representatives and concluding our nation's judicial branch we can bear witness to vast amounts of political power. These generous supplies of power work in conjunction with our constitution to support the concept of separation of powers. These checks and balances serve as auxiliary precautions to prevent one division of the government from obtaining too much power.

Since our constitution fails to exploit every detail involved in the various governmental divisions we are provided with a rather broad spectrum of dominance which during certain circumstances may appear to be excessive. Fortunately for us, this is merely a temporary illusion and within a short period of time the status quo quickly balances out one again.

The office of Commander-in-Chief of the United States has been gifted with numerous powers beginning with those provided by Article II of our Constitution. This article of our founding document defines the executive branch of America and establishes the provisions of the President's power. It clearly identifies his responsibilities as that of a representative who is vested with the authority to execute the mandates as set forth by Congress. Although the President can not actually create and introduce his own legislation into the agenda, it is a simple matter for him to locate a trusted member of his party to promote his illicit legislative goals. The president is empowered to enforce those decrees of congress which are deemed necessary for the good of our nation.

The President is widely referred to as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Services. This designation includes not only the active military but the state militias as well. He is afforded the consent to grant reprieves or pardons for offenses committed against our country. It is within his realm of control to establish treaties with the consent of the Senate. He has the right to assign foreign ambassadors to represent our country and Judges who will sit before the Supreme Court with the approval of our Senate members.

He acts as our head of state entertaining and welcoming foreign dignitaries to America. At the same time he is empowered to offer such diplomatic recognition to any nation he so chooses. It is his responsibility to manage the national affairs of America while he occupies the chair as president and to oversee the workings of our government, all for the good of the people. The president can issue what is known as Executive Orders which have the same force of the law but simply does not require congressional approval. His financial obligation is to prepare the annual budget and present it to congress for approval along with occasionally presenting a State of the Union report to the people.

It is apparent that those powers provided to the president are carefully scrutinized by those of the other two divisions of government so it appears that the president does not have an opportunity to abuse the power he is vested with, as was Hamilton's intent.

We are all familiar with the actions associated with our Legislative Branch of government. Article 1, of our Constitution established the legislative branch consisting of 435 member of the House along with another 100 from the US Senate. Congress serves as our nation's lawmaking body and is responsible for a number of federal level operations. It is congress which has been given the most prominent details of their powers within the lines of our constitution.

However, when the words in our constitution state "We the people" it's intend is directed towards our legislative branch of government. It is the people's voices which are heard in the halls of the House and of the Senate. Within our governing authorities the powers are limited as granted by the people and with these powers is justification that they will be employed exclusively for the benefit of the people. Abuse of those sovereign powers will not be permitted and they could be recalled if necessary.

It is our House of Representatives which possess the solo power to impeach the president of the United States, after which the final authority rests squarely upon the shoulders of the Senate members. It has been left up to the powers within congress to collect the necessary taxes and to pay the Debts accumulated for our country. They are responsible for the Defense of the United States and the equipment used in the task. They may authorize our nation to borrow money as necessary on behalf of the United States. They are commission to regulate commerce between America and any foreign countries, various national states and among the various Native American Tribes. They are expected to establish uniform codes relating to naturalization and the laws relevant to financial bankruptcies. It is Congress, who is authorized to coin money and to regulate its intended value while maintaining a fixed Standard of Weights and Measurements,

Our congress has established and maintains a Postal system which reaches the far corners of the world. They promote progress in the Sciences and in the various arts by way of patents and copyrights. Congress is the only authority in the nation that can declare war upon another country.

In short the major task for the legislative branch of our government is that of creating laws. It is their calling to create the bills which we live by and subsequently pass them into law. They are the only branch of government that can not only create new laws but change existing ones when they no longer serve their purpose. They are responsible for the federal finances as they approve or disapprove the president's annual budget. The legislative branch is also accountable for creating and maintaining an active military.

Congress may hold hearings and establish investigative committees as it deems necessary. During these sessions of these investigations they have the power to compel testimony when necessary. As you can see this branch of government also waves some awesome power but it too falls under the checks and balances system the same as the other two.

The Judicial Branch of our government is composed of courts and judges. Within this branch we encounter three separate court levels being the district courts, the court of appeals and the highest court in the nation - the Supreme Court.

The powers delivered to the courts are essentially and necessary to interpret our laws. We must keep in mind that the jurisdiction contracted to our judicial branch is limited in scope to the constitutional and federally directed laws. These types of court cases are usually consistent in nature to those of a constitutional preeminence, violations involving treaties or crimes committed while on federal property. Since often it is the lower courts which determine any sort of precedent of a case those lower court judges must provide valid, legal reasons in support of their decisions which they have handed down. Oftentimes it is these decisions which affect the American citizens the most.

At first one would suspect that the judiciary branch would hold the honor of having the most power from the three branches however, I do not believe this to be true. They may in fact have the power to change and modify laws through their judicial review process but other courts with similar powers may annul the laws if they happen to find them incompatible from the accepted constitutional standards. The judges selected to hold a seat in the courts are by and large of high moral character and accept their positions and responsibilities in a solemn manner.

I can not with any certainty establish one branch to have more power than the others. I think that the smooth operating capabilities of our government depend upon all three having defined limits along with the established checks and balances. Examples of this would be if the courts sentenced an individual to life in prison for a crime. If the president felt that the judge's decision was a trifle too harsh or that the issues presented in the court case appeared to be other than what was displayed, he could commute the sentence. In this respect the executive branch is balancing the power of the judicial branch.

Another example would be if the president presents his annual budget to congress for approval and our representatives viewed the compounded figures as excessive. In this case they may refuse to validate the request and cause the process to start all over again. This also works in reverse as well since the president has been gifted by our forefathers with the right of "veto". So, I must honestly say that no one branch has the most power to gain the upper hand.

The primary mechanism used to separate the dominance of the three branches rests upon the execution of the various checks on the powers vested in the other two. Even congress, which is traditionally viewed within the constitution as the most powerful branch is divided into several chambers to encourage this division of powers. These chambers serve as effective checks on our legislative powers. Is it considered to be the most powerful due to its dominant characteristics? Is its power for handling the nation's monetary supplies and its legislative power the reason it is rallied as the most powerful? Based upon these potential factors the question of power within the separate branches of our government must be examined amidst the context of the individual issues or concerns. Occasionally an issue will dictate that congress show more power while at other time the topics may point to the president as the power holder. Each branch has some powerful tools and can often conjure up some prevailing results but all in all I feel the power is generally divided up equally.

Copyright @2012 Joseph Parish

For more information relating to survival visit us at http://www.survival-training.info/


View the original article here

Tuesday 20 November 2012

Political Change? Think Bigger

Two primary sentiments are in play this election season: 1) entrenched interests promoting the status quo of easy money (printing and borrowing) and resource redistribution; and 2) a troubled recognition that the easy money and redistribution course is a direct road to disaster. People in the former group don't want substantive change; they've got too much to lose. They find solace with the "steady as she goes, keep the something for nothing train rolling" choices democrats and republicans offer. This election seeks only to determine which special interests are to benefit most. The men and women in the latter group however, realize a major sea change is required to right the course of a once proud and prosperous nation, and real change is nowhere in sight.

America's situation is nothing short of a travesty and a tragedy. Americans are so enamored with a modicum of personal economic security (read entitlements) and so easily persuaded by groundless but attractive sounding promises they willingly cede their personal power to a host of would-be benefactors and rulers: professional politicians and financial and industrial elite. Circumstances have become so unhinged a significant political change is needed to alter our course. We are headed in the wrong direction. It's time to think bigger. It's time to reform the system.

The real problem, which leaders of neither political party will admit to because it serves the parties' interests, is we have concentrated wealth and power in the hands of a few. The system, developed painstakingly over generations, automatically draws resources from the productive core and funnels them to the connected rich to fund lavish lifestyles and the easily manipulated masses to ensure votes. No amount of economic stimulus, no amount of money printing, or ever more gargantuan fiscally irresponsible spending can overcome these two drains on creative, productive enterprise. The special interests have a death grip on the economy. Releasing this hold is the only option to give Americans a fighting chance at prosperity.

This corrupt system has generated a cultural malaise which must be peeled back for real progress to ensue. Power must return to the people - this means freedoms and responsibilities. We must shatter the resource transfer philosophy (unearned shift of wealth to the wealthy and unsecured entitlements to the masses) which is financially and morally bankrupting this nation.

This reform can and must be done by means of three measures: first depose the career politicians and eliminate the burgeoning political class (dismantle gerrymandering and establish term limits); second establish a sound currency and a responsible financial system (disassemble too big to fail financial institutions and end Wall Street's financial shenanigans); and finally get the federal government out the benefits and entitlements businesses (healthcare, education, and welfare).

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. As much as we would like to believe this isn't true - that every day is a holiday and every meal a feast - it just isn't so. Politicians simply cannot handle power. So the less power the people give them, the better.

If you are one of the people who realize the something for nothing philosophy cannot endure, think bigger. Advocate for systemic reform. A major overhaul is the only way to give our children any chance at a healthy, thriving, and productive future. If you want political change, don't buy into the baseless and shallow promises the current slate of political candidates endorse. Think bigger.

Scott F. Paradis, author of "Success 101 How Life Works - Know the Rules, Play to Win" and "Warriors, Diplomats, Heroes, Why America's Army Succeeds - Lessons for Business and Life" focuses on the fundamental principles of leadership and success; http://success101workshop.com/


View the original article here

The Pandering to Women Voters in US Presidential Elections - Observations From the 2012 Election

Apparently, the pollsters for the 2012 presidential election had noted that many women voters are still undecided, and a good many of them are leaning left, rather than right. Therefore there is a big fight and charge to pander to these women voters, and address all the issues they feel important. Now then, you must understand that women voters make up half of our country, so they are the largest and most important group for these candidates. Nevertheless the amount of pandering going on between the candidates and their women voters is getting to be laughable. Let's look at some examples shall we?

We noted on the first debate that President Obama came right out and stated it was his anniversary and he'd rather be spending it with his wife, rather than in front of 45 million people, which was the assumed number of people who would be watching the debates, it turned out it was quite a bit more. Nevertheless, that was a planned statement, and it was geared towards speaking to the women voters, it was a political strategy. I find that a little unnerving, even though it is plausibly deniable that the Obama reelection campaign strategists didn't plan it, but sure they did and we all know it.

There were several other attempts to pander to women during the debates, and it is quite evident in all of their stump speeches. It is as evident as the 10s of millions of dollars being spent on advertising to purely Spanish-speaking Hispanic news outlets by the Obama campaign. If we really are a great melting pot, and we are all considered equal, we should all be spoken to as adults, and this pandering needs to stop, it's getting to be pathetic. Indeed, in many regards it's happening on both sides so we shouldn't just pick on the Obama campaign, although they are ahead with the women voters currently due to their focus on this voting demographic segment.

Another thing we notice is many of the commentators on TV who are women and the women anchors are saying that they were offended by the belligerent attitude and debating style that they had witnessed. That's interesting because women in politics have always been rather hard-hitting, and all the women I know who are involved in politics are pretty intense themselves. Are the TV news commentators trying to mold the election and the process, or are they just as tired as I am about turning our national discussion on very important matters into nothing more than a two-minute tit-for-tat cat fight? Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.


View the original article here

Monday 19 November 2012

7 Political Campaign Website Screwups

Having worked on a large number of campaign websites over the years, we've found that the same problems tend to crop up again and again. If you are creating or maintaining a political campaign website, be sure to avoid these screwups.

1) Missing Critical Information - This includes the candidate's name, elected position, election date and so on... You would be surprised how often this information is left out of a website - even on the contact page. And if you want people to vote for you, please, please tell them the election date.

2) Not Enough Quality Content - You may not be running for the biggest position in the land, but you still need to convince enough voters to support you. At a minimum, a candidate should include a bio, reasons why they are qualified for the position, and a request for support.

3) Not Adding Personality - You want your site to be professional, but that doesn't mean that each page of your website copy needs to read like a marketing-department-vetted press release. Personal quotes and stories can help voters get to know and like a candidate.

4) Adding Too MUCH Personality - On the other hand, providing too much character can turn off voters. Being too personal or colloquial can be a negative. Have an unaffiliated outsider read your material in order to provide an unbiased opinion.

5) Not Making the 'Ask' - Every page should have some call to action. Usually, it's a request for a vote on a certain date. On a donation page, it's a request for money. On a volunteer page, it's a request for support. Don't assume people know what you want them to do. Tell them! Also, don't be afraid to ask people to Like your Facebook page or Follow your campaign via Twitter. This can help increase your social activity.

6) Not Linking Out - Websites are not islands unto themselves. If you are engaged in social media, be sure to link out to your profiles. Embed widgets into your site to show online social activity. Cite and link to outside resources and make your site a hub of all your online activity.

7) Spelling and Grammar Errors - This is pretty basic, but pretty important. Would U vot for somone who spell like this? Always have your campaign material double and triple-checked by outsiders for spelling and grammar.

A campaign website should not be a static thing. A site should grow and evolve along with the campaign. If you make your site interesting and informative, you will create more traffic, more interest and more support that will carry through to Election Day.

Online Candidate provides campaign websites for candidates running for local office. For one low price, you can have a quality campaign website designed to help win your election!


View the original article here

Romney Beats Obama 55-36 in Physician Election Poll

Physicians overwhelmingly support Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 19 points over President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, according to a new poll.

In a 3,600-physician survey that was administered last month, 55% of respondents said they'd vote for Romney, whereas just 36% said they'd choose Obama, according to a poll from physician staffing firm Jackson & Coker.

Doctors who preferred Romney are more likely to be male and retain an ownership stake in their practices. Specialties that skewed toward Romney include anesthesiology, ophthalmology, surgery, and radiology.

Not surprisingly, dissatisfaction with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) - one of Obama's signature legislative achievements - ran high among physician supporters of Romney. Romney supporters were more likely to favor a "repeal-and-replace" approach to the ACA, according to the survey.

"The ACA without tort reform... is discriminatory to doctors," said one respondent. "If we are going to be governed by consumer laws, then we should have all the protection that any business and free enterprise receives including unionization, collective bargaining, and ability to fix our prices for services not by the government."

In contrast, Obama physician supporters were more likely to be female and employed by a hospital or health system. Psychiatrists, pediatricians, and addiction medicine physicians also were more likely to support Obama.

"Affordable, high-quality healthcare, including education, lifestyle adjustments, and preventive measures, must be available to all persons living in this country," said another respondent. "We cannot afford to have a significant underclass of sickly people unable to participate fully in our economy."

Among physicians, the split between more conservative practice owners and more liberal employed doctors was the subject of a 2011 New York Times article that noted the evolving political views of those in the medical profession.

"There are no national surveys that track doctors' political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening," the article noted.

For example, the American Medical Association supported the ACA, a significant change for a group that opposed "almost every major health overhaul proposal for nearly a century," the Times reported.

In the Jackson & Coker survey, here's how survey respondents self-identified their party affiliations: 35% Republican, 24% Democrat, 26% Independent, 6% Libertarian, and 7% unaffiliated.

Fifteen percent of the survey's respondents said they voted for Obama in 2008 but planned on switching their vote to the GOP this year. Among those physicians, the ACA and Obama's leadership style were the most frequently cited reasons for the change.

The survey was emailed to more than 133,000 physicians and yielded a response rate of 3%, according to Jackson & Coker.


View the original article here

Sunday 18 November 2012

Netanyahu Says Iran Nearly Ready With Nuclear Bomb

So is there any truth to this? Should we be worried? Well clearly there are some more complex political games going on but the short answer is... yes. The long answer is a bit involved. First we need to clear up this three stages business.

By this Mr Netanyahu means three phases of enrichment. We all know that you need radioactive type stuff to make a nuclear bomb, but the thing is you can't just dig it out of the ground and stick a fuse in it. In its natural form Uranium just don't have enough juice, you got to enrich it. And by this we mean increase the concentration of a certain part of it (called U-235).

Natural Uranium has about 0.75% U-235 in it. In the first stage of enrichment you increase this to approx. 5%. In the second phase you take it up to 20% and in the third and final stage you would want to take it up to about 85% enrichment. That is called highly enriched Uranium and you need about 56 kg of it to make a bomb, that's exactly the size of the bomb America dropped on Hiroshima.[1]

So where is Iran at? Well according to the International Atomic Energy Agency[2] they have loads of the 5% enriched stuff, but that's used in nuclear power stations so you can't really complain about that. They have about 190 Kg of the 20% enriched stuff, but that can also be used in some experimental power stations. However you can get about 1 kg of highly enriched (weapons grade) stuff from 5 kg of the 20% stuff so they could potentially make about 40 kg of it pretty easily, remember you only need 56 kg to make a bomb.[3]

So in summary, Iran does seem to have the capability to produce weapons grade uranium and could move to the final stage of enrichment fairly rapidly. They also continue to hamper and obstruct monitors from the UN and generally behave in a less than open manner. However it always pays to take what Israel says with a pinch of salt. Iran and Israel are deep into political gamesmanship and all may not be as it seems. For instance there is a very real possibility that Israel is simply trying to coerce the US into sponsoring military action against its regional rival, and that the threat to the wider world simply does not exist.

References:

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-235

[2] iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-37.pdf

[3] world-nuclear.org/info/inf28.html

This article was brought to you by Richard Hamilton of Whole Story News.

Ever wondered if your news provider is telling you everything? Whole Story News is a website that gives you all the information and differing views.

http://www.wholestorynews.com/


View the original article here

Political Fact Checkers Desperately Needed For Hispanic TV Commercials

During the 2008 Elections in Texas the opponents of Barack Obama's campaign committee charged them with putting out false and misleading political advertising on the Hispanic venue radio and TV stations. Obviously, those who are not Hispanic or perhaps do not speak much Spanish do not listen to or watch those states. Some of the hurtful things which were said about John McCain were, well, and this is my opinion, "deeply troubling" and unfortunate to say the least.

Interestingly enough, I met a gentleman who worked for an advertising agency in Houston who assisted the Obama Campaign in the primary vote there. He bragged about how they dialed in the Hispanic vote in the primary, and later during the election. Personally, since I am not a supporter of Obama, I felt it was somewhat problematic that he helped out the campaign in what "I believe to be" an unethical way. Nevertheless, those negative ads did wonders for Obama in TX, and in AZ and NM too.

In the last month, October of 2012, President Obama went to California to the home of Caesar Chavez and called his home a National Monument, unfortunately, he did that on Columbus Day, a day all Americans might celebrate as it was the day Columbus was said to have discovered America, even if he really found some islands nearby. Some might charge the President with political pandering, but it was nice for him to show that he is also with the Hispanic Community, even if there is irony in the date he chose.

Now then, whether or not the President on that particular day was catering heavily to the Hispanic vote or even pandering as his opponents had said, I'd still like to see a reality check this time around on any of the negative ads the Obama Campaign runs on Hispanic media venues. In other words, just as we have everyone running around playing "gotcha politics" and pretend-to-be fact-checkers, maybe we need some Spanish speaking media folks doing a little fact-checking of their own?

Luckily, first and second generation Hispanic Americans are well aware how much bull politicians will throw out and generally they don't trust them much, still, if a barrage of ads are released just prior to the election, very negative ads, there won't be time to set the record straight, and by then all the fact-checking in the world might be, well, too late.

Thus, we need a full-on scrutinizing of those advertisements to make sure they keep it legit and reality based. What I've seen so far isn't, and realize that's only been in the English speaking political ads, is really crossing the border on ethical truth in advertising. Please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Political Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/


View the original article here