Trouble in Wisconsin

Democrats are blaming the Republicans and the Republicans are blaming the Democrats. Everyone has to blame someone so they blame each other; no one wants to take ownership of the problem. However with these she said, he said excuses no one seems to be fixing the problem.

The economy and budget cuts are occurring all over the United States, but the issue really heated up in Wisconsin.
Governor Scott Walker proposed a plan that would "require higher pension and health insurance contributions and remove bargaining rights except for wages, which would be limited to be not greater than the Consumer Price Index." The bargaining changes would exempt the unions of public safety officers, including police, firefighters, and state troopers.
Take for example the teachers that are protesting the budget cuts.
Teachers are meant to teach students the basic knowledge to help them later on in life. But, why are Wisconsin’s teachers, calling in sick so they can protest against Governor Walker’s plan?
Teachers are public servants, the ideal teacher has a drive to teacher the kids in their classrooms, and their lives are devoted to the education of the students. That does not seem to be the case in Wisconsin.

Rush Limbaugh states the obivious, “The taxpayers are not paying for a sick day, but a protest day.  Maybe some criminal fraud charges should be filed against individual teachers.  Maybe it's hardball time here.”

Limbaugh interviewed a teacher in Wisconsin who explained her thoughts,” I am an elementary teacher myself, and I think what the teachers in Wisconsin are doing is deplorable.  I myself in Michigan can't find a job because I have a master's degree equaling too much money.  They can hire two newbies for one of me.  But off of that, here they are walking off the job; teaching their students that it's acceptable to just call in sick if you don't like what's going on.  No, no, no!  So I think that it's just... It blows my mind that they're even considering and tolerating the actions of these immature teachers in Wisconsin.”

Do you really want someone who thinks they can walk out at any time teaching your kids? Teaching children when something is not going your way, are you supposed to drop everything, drop your responsibilities and throw a fit?

Is this a Republican conspiracy to bust up the unions? I don’t think so.

I think that Walker is trying to reduce spending of the government in order to help the people of that state.

Randy Lewis, a spokesperson for the Tea Party Patriots, backs up Walkers' ideas, “"Every state needs an adult in the room to cut off the spending and tell the children they can't use the credit card anymore.”
No one wants to be cut off! But, when should the spending stop?

One Bite and You Are Hooked!

A classic American book, If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, the mouse goes to a friend’s house and sees the big chocolate chip cookie, he wants the cookie bad, when he takes a bite of the cookie, he is in heaven. But, that feeling does not last for long, he wants more cookies, he wants milk, he wants a place to eat the cookie. Once he got a taste he could not shake the pure delight the cookie gave him.

George W. Bush said, “you can’t put democracy and freedom back into a box.”

Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Iran and Libya have seen the power of democracy, the power of the people and have gotten a taste of the “cookie”.  

Newsworthy!

News sources seem to be focusing on only Obama's accomplishments. What more people should be asking is: What happened to his promises he made when trying to get elected?

In 2009, Politifact.com reported "Obama made 510 promises when he was running for president" and analysis found that Obaba "made more than twice as many promises as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton."

George W. Bush made 122 promises and Clinton made 204. Even theirs combined don't come near Obama's.

Did he believe that all he had to do is make the promises?  What about the people that counted on the promises?  Where is the examination of Obama and his so-called promises? Did Obama bite off more than he could chew?

Obama seems to be dabbling in the business of other countries, focusing on helping them, and telling them what to do. However, back at home, this country is falling apart and desperately needs help.  Who should he help first: the USA or other countries?

The unemployment rate seems to be making it in the news everyday, but what about plans and promises to fix it? One of Obama’s promises was to lower the unemployment rate. He and his party continually speak of the rate decreasing under the ‘Obama’s watch’ by using November and December unemployment rates. Of course those months would be higher due to the demand that the holidays put on businesses and seasonal employment. However, after the hustle and bustle of the holidays is over the same people are back in the unemployment lines and sending off their resumes looking for new work.

Blogger bydesign001 backs up my views

The unemployment rate now at 9.8% which means around 13.2 million people are out of work.

Another promise Obama made was that he would create “5 million ‘green’ jobs as a part of a more energy efficient economy,” according to PolitiFact.

If Obama created this it would bring the unemployment rate down to 8.2 million out of work.

Washington Post article states Obama promised to “create or save 1 million jobs with a $25 billion investment in infrastructure projects.”

This creation would bring the numbers to 7.2 million unemployed Americans, which was about the average in the 1990’s.

Another promise: to create secure borders.

How can one create secure boarders when you have cities that are safe for illegals to come and reside in? How can you create a health care bill that allows illegals to be granted health care which is ultimately being paid by the American citizens?

To me it seems like you are asking for illegals to come into this country. So, another promise can be tossed in the garage.

Yet another interesting promise: Obama based his campaign on ending the war.

CBS News quoted Obama stating “I’m not opposed to all wars, I’m opposed to dumb wars” when asked about Bush’s administration-approved invasion of Iraq. Obama planned on having all most of the troops home by now, yet when Obama took office he sent even more troops overseas.   

Does that make sense, for someone to feel so strongly about ending a ‘dumb war’ to send more troops to fight for something that he disagrees with? I think not.

When Bush was President, the news constantly hounded him about his short comings and his mistakes. News stories filled the airways and presses with complaints about him, people not liking his stand on the war and sending troops off to the unknown. On the other hand Obama’s news stories are filled with his family’s vacations, Obama and his secrets for staying in shape. Does he want to be a reality TV star or a President of this great country?

When Obama was trying to become elected, he made promises; all politicians make promises they can’t keep and (sometimes) admit to them. However, Obama made promises that were way out of his league, and way too many to complete in a 4 year span.

“I do hope that we can put all politics aside and do the American people’s business right now”- Obama

Question: When will this happen?

Some experts say his promises were based on a two term election, who is to say that he will be elected again.

All I have to say is ‘Don’t make promises you can’t keep!’

Tyrant Mubarak vs. The Media

Reports rang out earlier in the week, Mubarak and his supporters were trying to shut down the media coverage in Egypt.

According to Arab News, "The government has accused media outlets of being sympathetic to protesters who want the president to quit now rather than serve out his term, as he has vowed to do."

Not only has media coverage spoken out against the president and the government corruption but also, media sites are actively being used to organize demonstrations.

Egyptian police and other security services have earned the reputation to ruthlessly dismantle political opposition.

The Egyptian government has moved to ban Facebook, Twitter, Al-Jazeera and other international journalist.

"For instance, on Facebook Group call We Are All Khaled Said, features up-to-the-minute updates on the protest and photos from the scene," states Tech Crunch.

New York Times reports Facebook has swept Egypt "with more than 473,000 users and it has help spread the word about the demonstrations in Egypt."

Could this be another reason why to ban the media?
According to Facebook Group We are all Khaled Said reports, the Egyptian National TV and AlMehwar Egyptian channel are broadcasting, "the whole revolution was a plot by USA, Israel, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Iran and Khomeini. They have all paid $50 thousand for each protester," and "Egyptian National TV as announced that the proof that all those million of protesters are spies for USA& Israel, is that they are all carrying spy equipment."
Do you think Egyptian government wants this to get out?

With attempts to ban Facebook, Twitter and other media outlets, just last week, protesters found a loophole in the government's block on all Internet networks. The activists used dial-up modems and satellite phones to broadcast images, videos and reports of a distraught country. The Huffington Post exclaims, "Despite Social Media Block 'Egypt' Surges on Twitter."

Intimidation on international journalists in Egypt is on the rise. The new 'concerted campaign' to intimidate foreign reporters covering the protests was introduced by the Egyptian government. The tactics to harass interfere with the Internet and networks and where they detain reporters; telling two reporters they were not allowed to leave their hotel.

XE reports a Reuter's crew was 'beaten up on Thursday close to Tahrir Square" and "a Greek reporter was stabbed in the leg by Mubarak supporters and a photojournalist was beaten to the head."

CNN's Anderson Cooper was punched and kicked in Cairo by Mubarak supporters.

"The Egyptian government is employing a strategy of elimination witnesses to their actions," saids Mohamed Abdel Dayem.

New York Times says it best, "Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and mobile phones make it easy for human rights advocates to get out the news and for ordinary people to spread and discuss their outrage...where freedom of speech and the right to assemble are limited and the government monitors newspapers and state television."

Mubarak and the Egyptian government are clearly trying to contain the information that is going in and out of their country denying the rights of the residents there. In America, we fought for the freedom of speech and for the freedom of press. In this day in time, how can government control the most basic rights human beings have? It brings to question: What are the government's limits and how far is too far?