WHERE DID ALL THE MONEY GO?

 Out of the fifty States, fifteen are in relatively dire financial condition. Their expenditures far outweigh their revenues. There is one State and one Territory very close to declaring bankruptcy and defaulting on their bonds and other commitments. Apparently, the banks and financial institutions are being very kind to Louisiana and Puerto Rico. This will not last long, as both are in the process of liquidating assets to pay for basic commitments such as salaries and pension contributions. Talk about too big to fail! How much will the U.S. Treasury be on the hook for if a State, or Territory, actually goes bankrupt?

States and Territories in trouble: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico.

“In trouble” indicates that their expenditures far outweigh their revenues and there is no apparent relief in sight. In some cases, they are selling off State owned land, car and truck fleets, and State owned buildings; anything they can do without right now. The State of Louisiana and Bobby Jindal put forth a 2015/16 budget that showed a revenue stream of $9 Billion and a balancing expenditure rate of $9 Billion. As it turns out, the estimate on revenue was manipulated, and has fallen woefully short of that $9 Billion mark. Meanwhile, the expenditures, which are more accurately noted, have remained at the $9 Billion level. Louisiana’s new Democratic Governor has his work cut out for him. My guess is that something will happen at the Federal level to remediate the situation in Louisiana, and it will be done very, very quietly in the dead of night on a weekend.

Can you say, “BAILOUT”?

Based on the States and Territory listed above, it doesn’t take much a mathematician to realize this Country is flirting with over trillions of dollars in “bail-out” costs in tax-payer’s money. The defaults will range from current annual budgetary numbers to their long-term debt obligations from direct borrowing and Bonds. Unfortunately, our National economy is not strong enough to withstand that kind of hit. We are still recovering from the disaster of 2008. This situation is here now, and, more than ever, the United States needs a President, Congress, and fifty Governors who know how to balance a budget and turn deficits into surpluses. Oh, did I mention, one of them is running for President this year.

Note: out of one Territory and fourteen States, a Republican governs all but two.

“CAUCUS - SHMAUCUS”

Over the years, I have really tried to pay attention to the mechanisms that make our style of democracy work. I have learned some things about the process. I have learned to appreciate some other things about the process. One thing, however, that still baffles me is the absurdity of the State Caucus mechanism during a Presidential Election year.

As far as I can discern, this process does nothing; means nothing; and, is, therefore, useless to the overall election of Party Delegates who, in turn, decide who their Presidential candidate will be. Eleven States and two Territories are currently entertain a non-committal system of voicing their electorate’s preferences in the corner of a neighbor’s living room. I understand and appreciate that the fifty States and our Colonial Territories have a need to flex their “individuality” when it comes to their identity. There are many ways States and Territories can do this; making it a useless part of an election cycle is not one of those times. I feel strongly that, in a Presidential election year, there should be certain uniformity to the Primary process and the General Election; do what you want with State and local politics, but the National forum should be uniform. 

[Note: This holds for the Presidential candidates and their election, only. The States and Territories have control over their Federal and Local Representation.; as it should be]

Below are some basic numbers to illustrate just how useless this Caucus thing is.

THE STATES WHICH USE THE CAUCUS SYSTEM INCLUDE

State / Territory	Population
Alaska	0.73 million
Colorado	5.3 million
Florida	19.8 million
Hawaii	1.4 million
Idaho	3 million
Iowa	1.6 million
Kansas	2.9 million [1]
Maine	1.3 million
Minnesota	5.4 million
Nevada	3 million
North Dakota	0.73 million [1]
Washington	7 million
Wyoming	0.5 million [1]
American Samoa	0.05 million
US Virgin Islands 0.05 million	0.05 million

^[1] The oil and gas industry has undoubtedly increased these population figures, but probably   not enough to make a remarkable difference in their percentage of the total population

THE CAUCUS STATES/TERRITORIES AS A % OF THE U.S. POPULATION

US Population	322 million
Caucus States/Territories Population	52.85 million
% of U.S. Population	16.5 %

Why do so few insist on voicing a non-committal preference when the rest of the Country is actually casting votes and going “on record” as to whom they prefer. Let it be that there is a Caucus process in the final decision making process at the Party’s National Conventions.

There are certain special interest Caucuses in the Congress. And, that’s alright; they serve a purpose in those venues. When we vote in any regularly scheduled National, State, or Local election there is no Caucus procedure. So, why do some of us insist on the Caucus process in a Primary situation? It’s stupid and useless in a Primary; get rid of it, please!

 I have some other basic questions about our “election” process, as well. And, believe me, I need some help here.

[These questions are predicated on my belief that our Primary and General Election time span is simply too long. The Primary/Caucus procedure starts on February 1 and continues until the National Conventions in August. This is a full 6 ½ months before the Conventions and 9 months prior to Election Day in November. Why?]

Questions:

1) Why are early Caucus States viewed as a make/break proposition for     candidates?

Ø They logically and rationally do not.

2) Why can’t the entire Delegate assignment procedure be accomplished just prior to the National Conventions?

Ø Two weeks prior would do just fine.

3) Why is our Presidential Election year campaign process a 1 ½-             yearlong proposition? ($$$money$$$)

Ø Three months is a reasonable period; given our twenty-four hour News Cycle.

4) Presidents and Governors have term limits. Why is any other politician different? ($$$money$$$)

Ø They are in business to serve “We The People”. We don’t need career Politicians. They have a very short shelf-life.

5) Could there somehow be an exponential increase in voter                   participation if the campaign season was shortened to three months?

Ø I feel there would be less apathy and a lot more enthusiasm with the voting public.

6)  Could something in the neighborhood of three months create a             “snowball/domino” effect that would see less influence from                   campaign contribution money?

Ø Simple legislation that says, “No!” would probably be enough to snuff out the obscene amounts of money in the campaign cycle.

7)   How do you force the imposition of term limits for every elected         official in the nation; Federal, State, and Local?

Ø Keep it simple, and vote!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is long past the time for all the idiots and ignoramuses’ in this Country to  cease and desist “cherry-picking” short phrases out of our Constitution and offering them up as the sole entirety of said Amendment. It is also past the time that all the rest of the idiots and ignoramuses’ in this Country stop blindly nodding their tiny little pea-brain heads in acceptance of such abortion.

 

Every time the Second Amendment of our Constitution is brought up in conversation of any sort, the “cherry-picking” comes out; “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. That’s it? That’s all they have to offer up in explanation of why they prefer to keep a virtual arsenal of weapons in their houses and on their person?

First, of all, the Articles and Amendments that make up the U.S. Constitution were crafted in the late 1700’s. Our Country was still a Colony of the British Empire, and was in the throes of building a government and a new Nation. At best, our Founding Fathers needed to come up with a way to ensure our borders were defended; “being necessary to the security of a free State,”.  We had the British and the Spanish coming at us from the East, and Native Americans coming at us from the North and West. Couched in that light, the basic interpretation of the Second Amendment draws the intent toward a “National Guard” –“A well regulated Militia,” ; in lieu of a formal standing Army, which was not a possibility at the time. When, in the twenty first century, you are trying to make sense out of this document and how it may apply to modern-day life, paying attention to the original intent and environment of the document is paramount.

 

Please, folks, stop listening to all the little nit-picking, nattering nabobs of negativism, and start using that thing resting on top of your shoulders, i.e. your friggin’ brain (also, referred to as the mass between your ears)! You are making those of us who have half a brain look really stupid, and that’s not nice, so quit it out!

Two and a Half years ago!...........It's finally happening!

                                Originally posted: Sunday, July 21, 2013 

As the United States plies its brand of “democracy” in the Mideast and Persia, the Church State of Iran is countering with spreading their unique brand of Islam. It has become painfully evident that the U.S. does not have a clue when it comes to understanding any other religion forms of Christianity and Judaism. The fate of all the Mideast, Persian, and neighboring Countries hangs in the balance. With most of Europe and all of Russia sharing in this demise, the longer this state of affairs exists, the longer western expansionist tendencies in the region will last, and the more dramatic Iran’s reaction will be. What is perfectly clear is that outside involvement in the Mideast and Persia is not about the oil. It’s not about human rights. It is about the total lack of understanding of the Islamic religion. This lack of understanding fuels a high level of fear that the political and corporate driven attempts to bring calm and peace to the region can’t seem to resolve. In this case, ignorance is not bliss; it is very dangerous to the world as a whole. There is a solution to all the turmoil that has been draining the human resources of too many Countries around the world.

The solution is three-fold in nature. The first part involves a concerted effort by all non-Islamic nations to do their best in understanding the true nature of the Islamic religion. This is not a religion that foments jihad, or any sort of extreme violence. As religions go, Islam is a very beneficent religion; loving, nurturing, kind, and forgiving. The second part of the equation involves the non-Islamic nations understanding and accepting that some folks prefer a Church State to that of a western style governmental structure. Not everyone wants to be like the United States; or, Canada, England, Spain, Greece, Russia, China, etc. Once these two are put into practice, Islamic governments around the globe will truly feel that they have a place at the table, and they aren’t going to be targets of colonialism, expansionism, or occupation.

The third part is a little trickier, but not out of the realm of possibility. This would be a legal form of State sponsored assassination. The “State” in this instance would ideally be the United Nations. As a world body, the U.N. should have the ability to remove singular despots from their perches as Kings, Emirs, Dictators, Grand Imams, Ayatollahs, etc. The benchmark would not include how a ruler got into power, but what he did once he assumed that leadership role.  Topping the list of determinants for assassination would be Human Rights, as describe by the U.N.; not described by any one member Nation, or private interest group. The U.N. would have the right to choose the “who, what, when, where, and why” for this action to proceed. In no way would any corporate influence be allowed to have any weight, whatsoever, in determining the specific action. Sorry, Dick Cheney. Sorry, Halliburton. Sorry, Exxon-Mobil.

This third part, being relative drastic in nature, would necessarily be preceded by diplomatic efforts to resolve the problem in a predetermined time period. Given the enactment of this third option, it would only take a few legal assassinations to let folks know that the world means business when it comes to peaceful coexistence. In defining “crisis intervention”, this type of action offers the absolute minimum of collateral damage to people, places, and things. Certainly, all peace-loving people would agree that lowering the “collateral damage” quotient is a desirable element in achieving World Peace.

The current situation in the Near-East and Mideast is not sustainable for very much longer. The next step will undoubtedly be an escalation of hostile takeovers that the world has never seen before. The entire quagmire will amount to a “domino effect” more damaging than that which occurred in Indo-China in the 1950’s, 60’s, & 70’s; an effect the United States has yet to recover from. And, of course, what happens to Israel is totally up in the air, as they will be surrounded by the opposition.

Posted by Hutch Dubosque at 7/21/2013 12:23:00 PM 

WHAT’S ALL THIS “DEBATING” GOING ON?

As the year draws to an end, the United States public has born witness to an odd political aberration that the mainstream Media calls “debate”. Having grown up in an era when words actually meant something, and the correct use of the English language was lauded, I have always had a quite different idea as to what a “debate” was all about.

I recall that at one point in time there were extracurricular events as early as High School called Debate Teams. The format of any debate was comprised of two people taking opposite views of a subject with each person putting forth an argument that won over their opponent’s side of the argument.

I start to get a nervous, agitating little twitch when words in our language get hijacked by people who should know better, and twisted into a meaning, or definition, that is far from the original. I have experienced that little twitch as I have been watching and listening to this year’s political panel discussions amongst the crop of Presidential hopefuls presenting themselves to the public. These panel discussions do not comprise a debate. I direct your attention to the Webster Dictionary’s definition of both the verb and the noun shown below:

DEBATE

SIMPLE DEFINITION OF DEBATE

verb,  de·bate 

·           : to discuss (something) with people whose opinions are different from      your own

·           : to compete against (someone) in a debate : to argue          against another     person's opinions as part of an organized    event

·           : to think about (something) in order to decide what to do

noun  de·bate  \di-ˈbāt\

1.         a discussion or argument carried on between two teams or          sides

2.         a discussion of issues <We had a debate over where to go          on      vacation.>

SYNONYM DISCUSSION OF DEBATE

•           discuss, argue, debate mean to discourse about in order to reach        conclusions or to convince.
•           discuss implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting     considerations pro and con<discussed the need for a new highway>. 
•           argue implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of     convictions   already held <argued that the project would be too costly>. 
•           debate suggests formal or public argument between opposing       parties <debated the merits of the amendment>; it may also apply to           deliberation with oneself <I'm debating whether I should go>.

ORIGIN OF DEBATE

·                   Middle English, from Anglo-French debatre, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere

·                   First Known Use: 14th century

SOURCE:

http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate

The only true political debate occurs when the vying Parties produce their final candidate and there is a true, defined debate between two people with differing views. Ten, or eleven bodies up on a stage is not a debate. It is usually a match of “one-upmanship” between a collection of egos each attempting to be heard over all the others. This seems to inevitably result in oral diarrhea be spewed in the faces of the audience in an vain attempt to impress someone; usually themselves.

In a true debate, facts matter. This does not seem to be a practice employed by anyone running for elective office regardless of Party affiliation.

To have men and women in the Media, who tout themselves as Journalists, allow this aberration to occur, makes absolutely no sense. My immediate conclusion on this count is that these “Journalists” are calling their profession something it is not; that would be Journalism (you can look that one up, too). I must admit, here, that my first college degree was in Journalism. It hurts my head to watch in utter wonderment as the race toward elective office in this Country morphs into some strange, twisted pissing match between folks who are probably normal outside the political ring. There seems to be very little of any substance on policy and direction offered during these trying times. And, that is a disservice to the American public who deserve a lot better from their potential political leaders.

My overall conclusion is that the voting public is the last bastion and hope for changing this abortion called the political process. The American public is not stupid, dumb, or ignorant. It is within their power to affect change; Lord knows, our politicians have thrown in the towel on that concept. Does anybody really want to “take back America”? Maybe it’s time to stand up, make your voice heard, and make your vote count. Please, just do it!