This is one Senator who works for you on a daily basis and deserves support.He doesn’t only talk the talk, Nelson walks the walk.

We contacted the Senator with our concerns, Here is his reply:

     Thank you for contacting me about the price of gasoline.  The price run-ups in the past few months are inexcusable and intolerable.

     To stabilize gas prices, we must rein in unbridled and unregulated speculators.  Gas prices fluctuate wildly because speculators, who behave like condo-flippers, are allowed to buy and resell oil contracts.  Until we stop that, we’ll continue to be gouged at the pump. That is why I introduced the Anti-Excessive Speculation Act (S. 1598), which would amend the Commodity Exchange Act (Public Law 74-765) to prevent excessive speculation in commodity markets and excessive speculative position limits on energy contracts.

     Most importantly, we need to break our addiction to foreign oil and switch to alternative fuels.

     Thirty years ago, in the wake of gas shortages and long lines at the pump, the President declared the need for the U.S. to become energy independent.  Unfortunately, little has been done since.  And having only three percent of the world’s oil reserves while we consume 33% of the world’s oil production means America cannot drill its way out of this crisis.

     We must develop alternative fuels–like biofuel– and make it from things we don’t eat.  In the meantime, we need to conserve as much oil as possible by raising fuel-efficiency standards for all vehicles and further increasing the production of hybrid cars.

     I appreciate your thoughts on this issue.  And I will continue to support measures that provide our nation with real alternatives to our reliance on oil.

                                   Sincerely,

                                   Bill Nelson

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians.  If you’d like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

Discussing the Supreme Court, Oil, Vice President Joe Biden, wannabes Paul, Gingrich (Romney & Santorum missing)

In a well presented discussion, with firm answers to questions, clear policy statements and realistic political views, Vice President Joe Biden left an impression that was hard to overcome by the adversaries that followed.

The Vice President characterized Mitt Romney as being “out of touch” and “not getting it”, using past statements from Romney and the Republican Party. In addition to reiterating Republican;s lack of plans, he pointed out the ugly differences between this election and those of years past; with the unnecessary emphasis on personal attacks and the perceptible lack of Republican unity.

Continuing the discussion; according to the Vice President, the spirit of comprise needed to govern is still alive in both parties, but is being blocked by “the tail waging the dog”, referring to the Republican Congress.

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the current Affordable Care Act was a subject that brought mixed comments. On the one hand, President Obama was seen as having created an enemy of the Court with his criticism of the Court’s Citizens United Decision (covered in a previous post). A decision by the Court to disallow part of all of the Act will be seen as a partisan reprisal. It is generally thought that the Court will once again, as it did in the Florida Election of 2008, interfere in something it should not be involved with. On the other hand, and pointedly, the Affordable Care Act, in requiring insurance coverage of all citizens is not a constitutional issue, any more than a State requirement that you buy a license plate for your car.

The Catholic Church’s involvement in government, centering around the issue of contraception, either directly or indirectly was handled delicately. With brief coverage, most panelists appeared to leave the subject alone, encouraging the members of the church make the ultimate decision on its merits.

Highly visible during this presentation of “Face The Nation” there were no fewer than four oil company ads. We found the timing, placement and content of the ads both objectionable and an overt act to influence voter’s party preferences, using misleading statements and questionable facts,

We think the network should not have placed these ads in the position they were within the broadcast, and that sponsors with opposing views should have equal time in a similar broadcast.

In a refreshing breath of truth and commitment, Ron Paul appeared briefly to answer questions regarding the issues. He is critical of the current candidates, their ideas of the truth and their attitudes towards war, education and the economy. He will stay a candidate up to the final nomination, he said.

In the final few minutes of the broadcast, representatives of the various candidates appeared and aired their sides of arguable statements. Most questionable, were the Republican thoughts for dismissing development of alternative fuels, ignoring environmental dangers, and putting American back to work – with no real plan for how to do that.

Paul Ryan [R-WI 1] continues to work for the big spenders, and wants you to pay him to do it.

Ryanization of the economy is:

1. Loss of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid;
2. Less Tax on Wealthy
3. More money for Congressmen
4. Elimination of Programs for the poor
5. A host of ideas that makes congress seem an independent nation.

Not even his own party agrees with him.

His economic proposal:

H.CON.RES.112 : Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022.
Sponsor: Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] (introduced 3/23/2012) Cosponsors (None)[1]
Committees: House Budget
House Reports: 112-421
Latest Major Action: 3/23/2012 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 290.

You pay him and congress for making the wealthy more so, eliminating the middle class and continuing corruption as usual:

H.RES.126 : Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.
Sponsor: Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] (introduced 2/28/2011) Cosponsors (None)[1]
Committees: House Administration

According to him, you would pay for it as follows:

112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 126

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 28, 2011

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Budget in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

For the expenses of the Committee on the Budget (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the `Committee’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee salaries and expenses, not more than $12,066,370.00 for the One Hundred Twelfth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

Of the amount specified in section 1–

(1) not more than $6,033,185.00 shall be available for expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on January 3, 2011, and ending immediately before noon on January 3, 2012; and

(2) not more than $6,033,185.00 shall be available for expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on January 3, 2012, and ending immediately before noon on January 3, 2013.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.

[1] Bill text source: Thomas (Library of Congress)

President Obama has been accused by the Republicans of delaying the Keystone Pipeline. Speaker Boehner appeared on national TV to emphasize how much the Republican Party wanted to move forward with the project and how much damage Obama was doing by delaying it. As has often been the case lately, Boehner had it upside down.

The reality of  the situation was that Republican Lawmakers had asked the President to delay signing the deal into law until a number of problems  could be corrected. Among these were  Congressional corruption and  environmental safety.

President Obama acted in a role that may have hurt his popularity, but that was in the national interest; in opposition to crony capitalism, as practiced by the Republican congress.

The pipeline is a  Canadian-backed project that promises to create thousands of American jobs and generate billions in annual state tax revenues. There is so much corruption involved, special interests and law suits, etc,  that whether this ever pans out, and if it really helps America as a whole,  is arguable.

It is said to increase Canadian crude oil imports to America by as much as a quarter billion barrels per year.

Occupants in the pipeline’s planned route, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico believe the route threatened the massive Ogallala aquifer, a vital underground source of drinking and irrigation water that stretches from South Dakota to Texas. They also questioned the State Department’s vetting process.

We have to applaud the President for doing what is right, and for fighting for America, rather than seeking to belabor the self-interest motivations of Republican Congressmen.

The Keystone Pipeline Project is enormously complex, so fraught with special interests and corruption that we urge you to see the Wikipedia  detiled account of the project. We urge you to examine it for a complete understanding of the political and economic interests involved.

Our feeling on this project is one of disgust, on several fronts.

Why must America destroy or endanger our lands? Do we really have to have more oil or would other solutions be better? Can’t we use some restraint in our use of resources that are destined to be obsolete? Why can’t we stop using oil for propulsion now, when so many alternatives are on the way?

Finally, our disgust exists because of our inability to rule our gluttonous attitudes and our corrupt congress.

Pat Boon was one of  the people we thought was above the need to advertise for  the political PACs. Unfortunately, Boon is seen as a paid spokesman for a misleading ad running and paid for by The 60 Plus Association.[1]

The ad decries some ill conceived points about local Decomocratic incumbants. The incumbant attacked varies, depending on the state in which the ad is run. Apparently Boon is from a lot of places.

The ad is so full of complications that only the adversity of it comes across. The rest is so loaded with initials and wording that it sounds like it came from Babble. As usual, it accuses each incumbant of everything wrong in the world.

Intended to freighten by speed and innuendo, only the people who wrote it can explain  it, and perhaps, even they can’t.

Shameful.

[1] The 60 Plus Association.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 60 Plus Association is an American conservative advocacy group founded in 1992 and based in Arlington, Virginia, that bills itself as the conservatives’ alternative to the AARP (formerly the American Association of Retired Persons). Over the years, it has sought to privatize Social Security, end the federal estate tax, and strengthen gun rights. Current issues include opposing health care reform proposals, opposing federal energy standards,  opposing the General Motors bailout and opposing tax increases. 60 Plus is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition.

End —– From Wikipedia——

Today, Democratic Senators are taking action that will address the prices of oil, and lessen the impact of foreign imports.

D-FL]”]

Sen. Nelson

In a move in line with real problems, Sen. Nelson proposes passing a bill that regulates the speculators on Wall St. that are in the business of bidding up the price of oil futures, Here is the Senator’s statement:

Dear Friends,

Gas prices in most places are pushing $4 a gallon – again. And news reports say it could be $5 or more by summertime. That’s outrageous – and unjustified.

Whether it’s the continuing threat of unrest in the Middle East or the lure of quick profit, the price of oil is driven in big part by traders, speculators and, of course, fear.

There’s been unrest in the Middle East for thousands of years, as we’re seeing right now with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. Every time we’re faced with this international uncertainty, especially in the Middle East, we’re reminded why we must get off of foreign oil. Nothing’s going to eliminate the volatility in oil prices like becoming less dependent on foreign energy sources.

But we’ve also got to stop a new brand of oil trader who has emerged in the last decade, a middle man of sorts, who’s also driving up the price we pay at the pump.

Many experts agree we should not allow these traders to bid up the price of oil and flip futures contracts like condos. Yet in the last ten years the share of the oil market controlled by investors and speculators has more than doubled.

During the same time, American drivers have seen the price of gas at the pump go from about $1.56 per gallon to around $3.61 per gallon or more. By bidding up oil futures, speculators also increase costs for our airlines, industrial energy users and other businesses. And these higher costs are passed on to consumers like you and me.

Fact is, the level of speculation in today’s energy markets greatly exceeds the historic norm. If you want to know the truth, it’s partly the fault of broken-down policies from a Congress dominated by partisanship and extremism. Congress deregulated oil traders in December 2000. And it hasn’t tackled a comprehensive alternative energy policy since Nixon and Carter first talked about one in the 1970s.

Anyone can push for gas-tax holidays and the Keystone Pipeline. In fact, I support the pipeline as long as it’s in an area where it’s not as much of a threat to the entire Midwest water supply and we require that the oil stay here at home and not be sold to foreign countries.

We’ve already given the oil companies more than eight million more prime acres in which to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. Now we should curb the activities of speculators. And, in the long term, we must develop alternatives to gasoline.

I think Congress should pass legislation that aims to drastically limit the ability of speculators to artificially drive up energy prices. If this bill passes, there would be the first-ever limits on how much of the oil market speculators can control. The chief cosponsor of my bill is Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

Plain and simple: the legislation says no single investor could hold more than 5 percent of the oil futures market, thereby greatly reducing speculators ability to manipulate prices.

Does this sound like an idea you could support? Please let me know. Also, let me know what else you think we could do to bring down gas prices.

Sincerely,

Signed by Bill Nelson

CONGRESS: A BIG, BIG, BIG BAG OF BOTTOM DWELLERS

It’s unbelievable what Congressmen get away with. They operate in a legal bubble of their own making. allowing them to become wealthy at the expense of the American Public. They have become a Permanent Political Class – most of them are not wealthy when entering Congress, but they rapidly become millionaires as they learn to play the system.. Learn more about the very real Permanent Political Class and the expression crony capitalism.

The latest statistics show Congressmen having a net worth increase of 15% in the current economy, while the American middle class has a decrease of 8%. How do they do it? They do it by trading on inside information, crony capitalism, trading information on legislature they are working on for contributions, employing relatives and using legislation and their position in ways that you and I would be jailed for if we did the same. Read ‘Throw Them All Out’ by Peter Schweizer, and be prepared to get angry and sick.

We were flatly amazed and disgusted by what Congressmen get away with; becoming millionaires at our expense.You, the people HAVE THE ONLY WAY TO STOP CONGRESSIONAL CORRUPTION: THROW THEM ALL OUT.

Albeit a lame idea, keeping Obama in office makes a macabre sort of sense. With so many Congressmen on-the-take, keeping Obama in office is controlling additional congressional abuse. The existing congressional makeup, in turn, keeps the Executive Branch in check, as the Constitution intended.

If a Republican is elected, crony capitalism will run unchecked, aided by an unrestrained Republican President. Despite the rhetoric of the current candidates, how many presidents of either party have kept the promises made during the election process.

Even those of us who are Republican radicals know that President Obama inherited a financial mess. It’s a matter of record and can’t really be denied.

Since President Obama inherited this mess from an egocentric, no-talent, bought-and-paid-for President, what has he done except try to dig us out. Granted, there is a mess, but what would you have done in his place? After all, you and I elected him. His position is not entirely different from some of the candidates we now see vying for a position at the feeding trough.

Do we really want more crony Executives and Legislators at the helm; Those who are elected with special-interest money from groups like American Patriots, or from an already splintered bunch, like the Tea Party? That’s asking for another public mess, at our expense. Medicare and Medicaid are goners if they get in office.

In the 2012 election, we face the same voting alternatives we have dealt with in so many past elections: vote against a candidate or vote against a candidate. Better to get rid of all of the ensconced, Permanent Political Class and set a new and ethical Congress and Executive in place.

Whatever your political beliefs, let’s not make the mistakes made in the past: don’t vote blindly just because of party affiliation. If you do. you become an enabler of whatever happens. and will abrogate your right to moral indignation or defensible ideals.

WE JOIN WIKIPEDIA AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY PROTEST GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE THE INTERNET. THE PROPOSALS IN THE SENATE AND HOUSE SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION, THEY SHOULD BE DROPPED. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO LIMIT A FORM OF SPEACH.

See this reply:
Bill Nelson [D-FL] replies to our objection:
NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE INTENTION, ONCE STARTED, THERE IS NO END TO THE WAYS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL TRY TO RUN THIS FREE SOURCE OF INSPIRATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FDA INTERNET INTERFERENCE IS ALREADY DETRIMENTAL TO FREEDOM, AND POSSIBLY, YOUR HEALTH

These are the Senators and House members that want to control the Internet:
As of Jan 22, 2012

Senate Bill 968 —————————————-

Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Kelly Ayotte [R-NH]
Michael Bennet [D-CO]
Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]
Roy Blunt [R-MO]
John Boozman [R-AR]
Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
Robert Casey [D-PA]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
Thad Cochran [R-MS]
Chris Coons [D-DE]
Bob Corker [R-TN]
Richard Durbin [D-IL]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Al Franken [D-MN]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Kay Hagan [D-NC]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
John Isakson [R-GA]
Tim Johnson [D-SD]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Herbert Kohl [D-WI]
Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
John McCain [R-AZ]
Robert Menéndez [D-NJ]
Bill Nelson [D-FL]
James Risch [R-ID]
Marco Rubio [R-FL]
Charles Schumer [D-NY]
Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH]
Tom Udall [D-NM]
David Vitter [R-LA]
Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
Jerry Moran [R-KS] (withdrawn)

House Bill H.R. 3261———————————

Mark Amodei [R-NV2]
Joe Baca [D-CA43]
John Barrow [D-GA12]
Karen Bass [D-CA33]
Howard Berman [D-CA28]
Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45]
John Carter [R-TX31]
Steven Chabot [R-OH1]
Judy Chu [D-CA32]
John Conyers [D-MI14]
Jim Cooper [D-TN5]
Ted Deutch [D-FL19]
Elton Gallegly [R-CA24]
Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6]
Tim Griffin [R-AR2]
Peter King [R-NY3]
John Larson [D-CT1]
Ben Luján [D-NM3]
Thomas Marino [R-PA10]
Alan Nunnelee [R-MS1]
William Owens [D-NY23]
Dennis Ross [R-FL12]
Steve Scalise [R-LA1]
Adam Schiff [D-CA29]
Brad Sherman [D-CA27]
Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20]
Melvin Watt [D-NC12]
Tim Holden [D-PA17] (withdrawn)
Ben Quayle [R-AZ3] (withdrawn)
Lee Terry [R-NE2] (withdrawn)

A summary of the Senate and House Bills, as read in Congress follows the Wikipedia introduction.

Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate — that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia.

This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst:

It is the opinion of the English Wikipedia community that both of these bills, if passed, would be devastating to the free and open web.

Over the course of the past 72 hours, over 1800 Wikipedians have joined together to discuss proposed actions that the community might wish to take against SOPA and PIPA. This is by far the largest level of participation in a community discussion ever seen on Wikipedia, which illustrates the level of concern that Wikipedians feel about this proposed legislation. The overwhelming majority of participants support community action to encourage greater public action in response to these two bills. Of the proposals considered by Wikipedians, those that would result in a “blackout” of the English Wikipedia, in concert with similar blackouts on other websites opposed to SOPA and PIPA, received the strongest support.

On careful review of this discussion, the closing administrators note the broad-based support for action from Wikipedians around the world, not just from within the United States. The primary objection to a global blackout came from those who preferred that the blackout be limited to readers from the United States, with the rest of the world seeing a simple banner notice instead. We also noted that roughly 55% of those supporting a blackout preferred that it be a global one, with many pointing to concerns about similar legislation in other nations.

In making this decision, Wikipedians will be criticized for seeming to abandon neutrality to take a political position. That’s a real, legitimate issue. We want people to trust Wikipedia, not worry that it is trying to propagandize them.

But although Wikipedia’s articles are neutral, its existence is not. As Wikimedia Foundation board member Kat Walsh wrote on one of our mailing lists recently,

We depend on a legal infrastructure that makes it possible for us to operate. And we depend on a legal infrastructure that also allows other sites to host user-contributed material, both information and expression. For the most part, Wikimedia projects are organizing and summarizing and collecting the world’s knowledge. We’re putting it in context, and showing people how to make to sense of it.

But that knowledge has to be published somewhere for anyone to find and use it. Where it can be censored without due process, it hurts the speaker, the public, and Wikimedia. Where you can only speak if you have sufficient resources to fight legal challenges, or if your views are pre-approved by someone who does, the same narrow set of ideas already popular will continue to be all anyone has meaningful access to.

The decision to shut down the English Wikipedia wasn’t made by me; it was made by editors, through a consensus decision-making process. But I support it.

Like Kat and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation Board, I have increasingly begun to think of Wikipedia’s public voice, and the goodwill people have for Wikipedia, as a resource that wants to be used for the benefit of the public. Readers trust Wikipedia because they know that despite its faults, Wikipedia’s heart is in the right place. It’s not aiming to monetize their eyeballs or make them believe some particular thing, or sell them a product. Wikipedia has no hidden agenda: it just wants to be helpful.

That’s less true of other sites. Most are commercially motivated: their purpose is to make money. That doesn’t mean they don’t have a desire to make the world a better place — many do! — but it does mean that their positions and actions need to be understood in the context of conflicting interests.

My hope is that when Wikipedia shuts down on January 18, people will understand that we’re doing it for our readers. We support everyone’s right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression. We think everyone should have access to educational material on a wide range of subjects, even if they can’t pay for it. We believe in a free and open Internet where information can be shared without impediment. We believe that new proposed laws like SOPA and PIPA, and other similar laws under discussion inside and outside the United States — don’t advance the interests of the general public. You can read a very good list of reasons to oppose SOPA and PIPA here, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Why is this a global action, rather than US-only? And why now, if some American legislators appear to be in tactical retreat on SOPA?

The reality is that we don’t think SOPA is going away, and PIPA is still quite active. Moreover, SOPA and PIPA are just indicators of a much broader problem. All around the world, we’re seeing the development of legislation intended to fight online piracy, and regulate the Internet in other ways, that hurt online freedoms. Our concern extends beyond SOPA and PIPA: they are just part of the problem. We want the Internet to remain free and open, everywhere, for everyone.

A SUMARY OF THE BILL AS READ IN CONGRESS:

Sue Gardner,
Executive Director, Wikimedia

Along with millions of other people, and thousands of Internet sites, we voiced our disapproval of the Senate and House bills and rules proposing government Internet interference. We sent our concerns to Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]. Here is Sen. Nelson’s reply:

Dear Mr. Government-protests:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the PROTECT IP Act and the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Over the past month, I’ve heard from a number of folks who’ve voiced concerns that the bills could inadvertently punish law-abiding websites and Internet retailers. In fact, there was enough concern about the Protect IP Act that the Senate postponed a vote on the legislation.

I strongly support Internet freedom, which includes easy access to and movement around the web. But I think that something needs to be done about piracy and counterfeiting from foreign websites. Crooks who try to evade the law online cost the U.S. billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. I will work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to make sure that any final legislation is narrowly tailored to stop piracy without stepping on innovation and competition online.

So, thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. Please know that I’ll keep your views in mind as work continues on this legislation. If I can be of further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Bill Nelson

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you’d like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

ROMNEY FINANCING

Now you know WHERE Romney’s interests lie and who would benefits from his Presidency

Recognize dirty politics.

Reprinted from Wikipedia

Restore Our Future

by Harry Toland

JEJUNE! A good definition of what’s going on in politics.

If you follow the news you’ll notice that some strange opinions have surfaced and been taken up by the media as hype for political coverage.

President Obama is being criticized for having contraception included in health care and insurance coverage. If you’ll pardon the pun, contraception and politics make strange bedfellows. Speaker Boehner places blame on the Democrats, but the reality of including contraception is nothing but good, from a secular standpoint: stopping unwanted abortions and pregnancies, and limiting disease, to name just two that are costing millions.

The Catholic Church’s opinion is understandable, their dogma has been in place for centuries. However, recent polls of Catholics asked about contraception indicate that a majority are for its inclusion in health care.

Newt Gingrich is criticized for having worked with the Democrats to conduct government business. WHOA, Isn’t that what we need now? It would be nice to see the government working again, with members of Congress at least trying to get along. Perhaps a person with a Gingrich-like-background could provide the wherewithal to galvanize positive change.

While Mitt Romney is the fair-haired boy in some places, his opposite,
Rick Santorum is the leader in others. What’s happening appears to be a split of our national interests along indefinable lines. Mitt Romney says he wants one thing now, but has changed his mind a number of times. A change of mind because of facts may be healthy; changing what he says just to get elected is not.

Republicans say they would have less government, but introduce new bills weekly to enhance government controls. For example, The REINS Act and those:
(a) That weaken protection of the environment, i.e., The Keystone Pipeline.
(b) That increase Congressional control of the Executive Branch and provide more Congressional License

We applaud Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL] for his attention and reply to our correspondence regarding government intervention with the Internet. Seems the other Congressmen were too busy to reply – although Sen. Rubio withdrew his support. Senator Nelson says he supports Internet freedom, but wants the government to prevent “international piracy and the loss of thousands of jobs.” His source of information is questionable, and we wonder how he proposes to stop an international problem, send troops?. Why put a government band-aid on inadequately protected Internet sites when it would be better to privately fix the sites and applications that enable piracy.

Oh, JEJUNE means without interest or significance, dull, insipid.

Regards

Please keep us in mind as you look for information on the upcoming presidential elections of 2012.