The New York Times, the epitome of The Media. Republicans don’t like the media and often refer to media establishments as “lamestream.” So having a top shelve media outlet call for his departure, Chris Christie is sure to send out his fundraising letter, telling his supporters to donate, because the lamestream media is calling for him to “go home.”
The New York Times Editorial Board took the time to pen an article, urging Christie – a bottom feeder in the presidential polls – to go home and take care of the crises in New Jersey!
It’s that time in the ever-long presidential campaign when candidates lacking money and mojo are starting to go back to their plows. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey should join them.
Mr. Christie has been called a lot of things, but until Wednesday’s debate performance, “barely there” was not among them. In eight minutes of speaking time, Mr. Christie said little of substance. As for his parting pitch that he’s “deadly serious about changing this culture” of government, well, his constituents in New Jersey know better.
This isn’t strictly about Mr. Christie’s fitness for the presidency. His role in New Jersey’s budget crisis, betrayal on affordable housing and the interlocking scandals on his watch, from Bridgegate to “the chairman’s flight,” say a great deal about that.
The point is that New Jersey is in trouble, and the governor is off pursuing a presidential run that’s turned out to be nothing more than a vanity project. Mr. Christie’s numbers are in the basement, and he’s nearly out of campaign cash. This is his moment, all right: to go home and use the rest of his term to clean out the barn, as Speaker John Boehner would say.
Needless to say, Chris Christie responded to the Times call for him to bow out, and he has apparently decided that the troubles in his state are not as important as his selfish goal to have the word ‘president’ attached to his name. In a tweet back to the Times, Christie said, “Can’t read the article because I don’t have a subscription, but I can tell you this – I am not going anywhere.”
.@nytimes Can’t read the article because I don’t have a subscription, but I can tell you this – I am not going anywhere.
— Chris Christie (@ChrisChristie) October 29, 2015
They saw something in the young Obama.
On February 6, 1990, it announced (in a headline that’s now pretty dated), “First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review,” and explained that the 28-year-old’s new role was considered the “highest student position” at the school.
The fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin thinks he has the moral compass to talk about diplomacy is in itself laughable. The fact that he sees himself capable of teaching the idea of Diplomacy to Americans is Rolling On The Floor Laughing Out Loud.
Putin and the Syrian leader Bashar Assad jumped on an off the cuff remark by Secretary of State John Kerry, where Kerry suggested a total surrender of Syria’s chemical weapons as the only way to avoid military action. The here’s our weapons ball began rolling almost immediately with Putin leading the way and here at home, the Republicans – who haven’t yet met a war they didn’t like – suddenly became peace makers, lovers of diplomacy. They began praising Putin The Savior yesterday, as if he was Christ getting ready for the second coming.
All this love going his way from the Republicans in the United States Congress and the exaltation from a right winged media blitz on all this week, must have went straight to Putin’s head, prompting him to pen an op ed in the New York Times. A Plea for Caution From Russia was written well, made some good points. But the message was totally corrupted by the messenger.
Ordinarily this part of the message I would agree with. In this passage, Putin explains how much of the world view America and our military power, and the irony of using the military to protect innocent people who sometimes end up being inadvertently killed by military action.
Putin, take it away!
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
If that was all Putin had to say, then his message would be more acceptable, more believable in spite of the messenger. But then Putin went where he clearly had no right going.
At this point in his article, Putin was probably admiring the masculinity of his shirtless physique in the mirror, when decided to tell Americans that we are not exceptional and shouldn’t even feel like we are.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.
And the part of Putin’s message that showed us just how broken his moral compass really is, and why the message was totally corrupted was when he talked about everyone being equally created by God… Yes, Putin really said that. Yes, the same Putin who is persecuting people in Russia because of their sexual orientation. That same Putin said this:
We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Putin, put your shirt back on. You are not muscular and you are no saint, despite what the Republicans say.
The New York Times reports:
CHARLESTON, S.C. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. informed his advisers on Sunday that he intends to drop out of the Republican presidential race, ending his candidacy a week before he had hoped to revive his campaign in the South Carolina primary.
Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the soaring expectations of his candidacy, made plans to make an announcement as early as Monday. He had been set to participate in an evening debate in Myrtle Beach.
Matt David, campaign manager to Mr. Huntsman, confirmed the decision in an interview Sunday evening. “The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” Mr. David said. “That candidate is Gov. Mitt Romney.”
Since winning the House of Representatives in November 2010, Republicans have been on a rampage trying all they could to suppress the votes of minorities throughout the United States. Republicans would have you believe that voter fraud is crippling our political process, and they are the only ones with the willingness and ability to fix it.
If you listen to the Republican logic, you will believe that on election day, millions of dead people come back to life and vote for Democrats. So to solve this dilemma, Republicans governors across the nation began implementing various forms of voter ID laws.
But the facts show a different story.
A recent Washington Post article found that “prosecutable cases of voter fraud are rare.” The report said that in Ohio for example, out of 9 million votes cast in the 2002 and 2004 elections, only 4 cases of voter fraud were reported. And “from 2002 to 2005, the Justice Department found only five people were convicted for voting multiple times.”
But what about on the national scene, the voter ID fraud cases must be ridiculously rampant, right? Well you’d be wrong to think that too. Another report, this time by the New York Times found that during the first five years of the Bush crackdown on voter fraud, from 2002 to 2007, “about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted” nationwide.
This is just a manufactured issue by Republicans claiming that we are under attack by illegitimate voters from beyond the grave. That’s just not the case and these Republican governors know it. What they are actually trying to do, is suppress the minority votes for the 2012 election.
So we take pleasure in reporting what this judge did in South Carolina – putting the brakes on Gov. Nikki Haley’s voter ID law.
The U.S. Justice Department has blocked South Carolina’s controversial voter ID law, saying it would prevent black people from voting.
It was the first voter ID law to be refused by the federal agency in nearly 20 years.
The decision means voters will not have to show a Department of Motor Vehicles-issued driver’s license or photo ID card, a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport. And it means the state, which says it plans to appeal the decision in court, will spend time and taxpayer dollars on the second such lawsuit during Gov. Nikki Haley’s term.
It is simple math, really! The primary incentive for any Corporation is to make money, to make a profit. But in order for these companies to achieve their goal, their products or services must be in demand and then purchased. When the demand is there and consumers are able to purchase these products or services, companies make a profit then produce more to satisfy consumer demand, thus more profits.
The problem with this economy is not a matter of supply and demand. Records show that Corporations are sitting on a collective financial nest egg of about $2 trillion in cash, so the ability to produce is there. And the problem is not a lack of demand either, for as long as there are consumers, there will always be a demand. The problem with this economy is the ability of consumers to purchase. It’s a vicious cycle – take away consumer’s ability to purchase, and the company’s profit incentive is no longer achievable. If the company can’t see a way to be profitable, they lay off workers and sit on their nest-egg. These laid off workers then join a population of non-consumers who don’t have the ability to purchase and the cycle continues.
What then, is the answer? As far as I can see, the answer is simple – give consumers the ability to purchase.
The best, most ideal way to do this is with jobs. If consumers are working, they get a paycheck and thus, are able to purchase. But in this economy, jobs are becoming scarce because Corporations are trying to hold on to their profits and are laying off. If we can’t attack the problem by making Corporations hire, then we must attack it from the other end – creating the ability for consumers to buy, thus, increasing demand. When this demand is increased, the profit margin is realized by these Corporations, and hiring is increased to meet the demand of the consumers.
How do you empower the consumers? There are two ways:
- The government must pick up the slack and take the initiative. A perfect example of this was the actions of President Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression, where the government took more of an active role in The New Deal and was able to reduce unemployment by converting auto manufacturing plants into factories to meet the demands of World War 2. This action alone employed millions of unemployed Americans, giving them a paycheck and essentially reversing the effects of the Great Depression.
- A massive direct Stimulus Bill – This will put real dollars into the hands of consumers, thus, giving them the ability to consume. Because of the nature of this method, it is not a long-term sustained effort to get the economy going, but it will provide a necessary needed jolt that can get corporations hiring again to meet the sudden demand by these newly empowered consumers. More hires will eventually lead to more paychecks, thus reversing the effects of this recession.
Can this government employ these two measures now to get the economy back on the right track? Yes, they can, but it takes both sides to come to the table with a real genuine goal to get America back to work. We’ve heard a lot about “shovel ready projects.” These are real areas where people can get work and begin the process of ending this recession. Bridges, roads, schools and America’s communication infrastructures need repair. We talk about green technology and clean energy, well now is the time to put people to work getting these ideas implemented. If Roosevelt had the ability to do it back in the 1930/40’s, there is no reason why it can’t be done now.
So if a simple person like myself can figure this out, why can’t the elected elites in Washington do the same?
So Newt decided to throw his hat in the ring. Mr. Gingrich has decided that what America needs now is a Republican President who’s on the ball. One who is able to see through the fraud and trickery of the Democrats. The only problem is, fraud and trickery is Newt’s middle name. Try as you may, you won’t find a politician more trickier than Newt Gingrich.
Mother Jones has a piece out that goes through some of the more inflammatory remarks and doings of Newt, since he first joined congress in 1978, spanning some of his most infamous remarks to date. These include, but not limited to;
- His 1978 address to Congressional Republicans urging them to be more nasty
- Another speech in 1984, where he charges Democrats of “appeasement and distributing ‘communist propaganda,'”
- And yet another speech in 1984, where he quotes a conservative study and argues that it was time to stop using the label “patriots” when talking about Democrats. According to Newt, “enough historical evidence exists,” to prove that Democrats cannot be patriots.
- And in 1985, when he talked about Democrats foreign policy, Newt said, “Adolph Hitler must somewhere be burning in hell, wishing he had lived two generations later, so he could manipulate Americans instead of Englishmen.”
The article, written by David Corn and Tim Murphy, details the last 33 years of Newt Gingrich. But if you don’t have the time to read through the garbage that sums up Newt’s political and personal life, the New York Times published a piece summarizing some of the more outrageous and divisive statements;
The Democrats who won in 2008, including President Obama, are “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine,” he wrote in his 2010 book, “To Save America.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then the inevitable historical coup de grâce: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.”
The slurs don’t stop there. He compared the Muslims who wanted to open an Islamic center in Lower Manhattan to the German Reich, saying it “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” He is promoting the fringe idea that “jihadis” are intent on imposing Islamic law on every American village and farm.
Last year, he called for a federal law to stop the (nonexistent) onslaught of Sharia on American jurisprudence and accused the left of refusing to acknowledge its “mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” This nuanced grasp of world affairs was reinforced when he said that Mr. Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.”
In his world, advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment, blacks have little entrepreneurial tradition, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.” (He kind of took back that last slur.)
And even Newt’s own mother unintentionally threw him under the bus back in the 1990’s, when she quoted something he said about Hillery Clinton, then first Lady of the United States.
Yes, the fraud and trickery of Newt Gingrich is abundant. Just what we need in the White House!