Talking Points Tuesdays – President Obama failure on Gun Control….

In 2008 candidate Barack Obama talked about re-instituting the Federal Ban on Assault Weapons; 4 years later we have a witnessed tragic shootings that have left a member of the United States House of Representatives (Gabrielle Giffords) recovering from being shot in the head and senseless murder/injury of innocent people trying to watch the latest Dark Knight movie (Dark Knight Rises).   While it is true that you cannot say for sure that these shooting could have been prevented with stricter gun control laws, what can be said is that the weapons used in the attacks would have been banned (AR-15 and extended magazine clip).  Of course having a ban of such weapons doesn’t guarantee no violence but it’s a start.  The last thing we should want to do is make it any easier for NUTBAGS like James Holmes to be able to purchase firearms and ammunition.

And as much as I will defend President Obama on some of his policies, I CANNOT DEFEND HIM ON THIS!

The NRA and nutbags within the GOP would have you believe that President Obama wants to take away your guns.  Well that is simply not true as President Obama has not done anything when it comes to gun control.  What’s sad is that Obama had the perfect opportunity to take up the fight of gun control when Representative Giffords was shot in the head; she survived along while 6 others died that day including a 9-year-old girl.  He had the sympathy of the nation but nothing was done….

There is no indication even if the president won re-election that he will pursue the federal assault weapons ban. Jake Tapper of ABC News reported that the White House has suggested that the president does not have the appetite to pursue stricter gun control laws.

“The president’s views on this are, as he has stated and as he spelled out in the op-ed that was published in an Arizona newspaper, which is that he believes we need to take steps that protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons…” – WH Press Secretary Jay Carney (reported by Jake Tapper)

Basically the president is saying, he has to SHOW that he is not planning to take people’s guns away as he can’t afford to lose any possible votes to Mitt Romney.

Sorry Barack, but if you have no appetite now when will you have one?

Hopefully we will not see another tragedy like Aurora, but then again didn’t we say that after the shooting in Arizona????

In case you forgot below here are some of the regulations included in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban:

Assault weapon (semi-automatic) refers primarily (but not exclusively) to firearms that possess the cosmetics of an assault rifle (which are fully-automatic). Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 round is fired with each trigger pull.

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15TEC-9, non select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
  • Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Pistol grip
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
  • Detachable magazine

The earlier term assault rifle refers to rifles that are capable of fully automatic fire. By that definition the ban did not cover “assault rifles” at all. Instead, it created a new definition of “assault weapon,” a term that was broad enough to encompass all three categories of firearm (rifle, pistol and shotgun) capable of semi-automatic fire and having a combination of features as listed above, but did not include fully automatic firearms of any type.

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Jason Alexander aka George Costanza plea for reasonable debate on Gun Control

In the wake of the shooting tragedy in Aurora, Colorado; Jason Alexander (Seinfeld’s George Costanza) tweeted a long message concerning gun control and the need for reasonable debate. In situations like this both pro/anti guns advocates talk from their respective extreme sides of the gun control debate. I agree with Jason Alexander that we at least need reasonable debate.

I don’t believe stricter gun control laws would have prevented this tragedy, but I do believe it can be debated that maybe the injury/death toll would not have been so high. One thing that can’t be questioned is that James Holmes is a NUTBAG, now how do we keep guns out of the hands of NUTBAGS??

Here is Jason Alexander’s long tweet on the gun control debate:

I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
“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.”
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“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.”

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR@nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right – these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn’t see it should…
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn’t have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources – sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. “Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar – plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.”

But that won’t happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don’t kill – people do. Well if that’s correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes — a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good-by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I’m an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Who is your favorite action movie star? Ummmm, Dolph Lundgren…..

Today was one of those slow days at work and in the world of IT that can lead to many weird conversations.

And today was no different.

“Who is your favorite action movie star?”

To protect the innocent I will use nicknames instead of real names; so the question was posed to our favorite guy to pick on EuroCut (He’s a Banana Republic guy).  Now EuroCut is not exactly Ebert when it comes to movies, but we were talking about action movies.  What guy can’t talk about action movies?

Well…..

The great thing about EuroCut is that it doesn’t matter if he knows nothing about a particular topic he will participate and say some crazy things; the guy has no fears of embarrassing himself.

So after deliberation and a whole lot of pressure from the rest of the group to give an answer, EuroCut confidently says…..

Dolph Lundgren!

Ivan Drago from Rocky IV?  Wait…. What?

Of course me being the movie watcher that I am, and I mean I will watch any movie; from 4 stars to B-star movies starring the likes of Dean Cain and Lorenzo Lamas.  So when this dude said Dolph Lundgren I kind of went into a rant.

“Dolph Lundgren??? I am pretty sure if you asked Dolph Lundgren he wouldn’t even say himself. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure he wouldn’t even rate himself in the top 20 of action movie stars.”

“WTH, out of all the action movie stars the 1st one that comes to mind is Dolph Lundgren? I would say Angelina Jolie before Dolph Lundgren!”

And of course I had to throw Carl Weathers in the mix fresh off of my last posting, ‘F-A-Natic Fridays – There is no Rocky without Apollo Creed…’.  I would definitely say Carl Weathers before Dolph Lundgren.

Others were just as shocked at the choice and we all had a good laugh at the expense of EuroCut.  People threw out names like Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, Bruce Willis…..  Eventually we ran off EuroCut with all the laughter, and when it all died down we decided to take a look at Dolph’s career….  We were curious,

To our shock Dolph Lundgren has made 51 movies!!!

Who in the hell is signing up Dolph for all these movies? I mean they are all straight-to-video, b-movies; but still….  I would have never thought he put in that much work, he was doing something like 3 movies a year.  You figure that he has to be getting something like $50 – $100K for these movies and is living comfortable, I fund myself having a lil more respect for the man’s career.

Not a WHOLE lot but a lil, HAHA!!!

If your curious or just bored here is Dolph Lundgren’s website; http://www.dolphlundgren.com/ . 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still taking Carl Weathers over Dolph. I mean at least Carl was the main star for a movie that people heard of, you know ‘Action Jackson’

Come on man, HE JUMPED OVER A MOVING CAR!!!!!

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

F-A-Natic Fridays – There is no Rocky without Apollo Creed….

Yup I said it!

There is no Rocky without Apollo Creed, or should I say Carl Weathers!!!

Now before all the Rocky/Stallone fans get on me just hear me out; I have a perfectly good explanation behind my statement.

Stallone did a great job portraying the character Rocky Balboa; a down and out struggling club fighter that has been hit in the head one too many times.  But in order to draw the contrast between Rocky and his opponent; you need an antagonist that you love to hate and who other than Carl Weathers could have pulled that off?  Not only did Rocky’s opponent had to look the part (boxer) but he to able to act the part.

I would go as far to say that Without Weathers Rocky would not be the hit movie it was, it was the perfect combination of showing how hard work pays off and walking the thin line of America’s need of a Great White Champion.  Now before you write me off as being a racist and example of the Great White Champion theory just think back to the hype around Gerry Cooney.   Also, remember Eddie Murphy‘s Rocky bit? 

With the desire to root for the underdog and you add Carl Weathers’ over the top cockiness and you got the perfect movie, and there was no one else at that time that could have pulled off that role.  Who else could have played Creed, Billy Dee Williams???

HAHAHA!!!

You all might be asking, why write about Carl Weathers and his impact on Rocky???  Well, recently they have been showing Rocky 1, 2, and 3 and it got me thinking how great Carl was and how Stallone really owes Weathers for his success.

So when ‘Expendables’ came out with Stallone, Schwarzenegger (who also owes Carl for ‘Predator’), and Bruce Willis where was Carl Weathers?  Where is the love???

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Takeover Thursdays – Lin, “Now I’m definitely relieved”

I’m trying to move on from all this Jeremy Lin craziness, but I was intrigued by Ian Begley’s interview with Lin the day after the Knicks decided not to match Houston’s offer.

What I expected was the usual talk when a beloved athlete leaves, “I love the fans” and “I wanted to play here for the rest of my career”…  Except, what I read made me look differently at what Lin might have been thinking as talks started to heated up.

One particular comment from Lin that caught my…

“Honestly, I preferred New York,” Lin told Sports Illustrated. “But my main goal in free agency was to go to a team that had plans for me and wanted me. I wanted to have fun playing basketball. … Now I’m definitely relieved.”

2 things stand out with what Lin said; “my main goal in free agency was to go to a team that had plans for me and wanted me”.

Lin told SI that he met with Mike Woodson in late June and said that Woodson talked about Lin being the starter and being a big part of the team.  Lin also stated that Dolan told him before Game 5 versus the Miami Heat,

“I have plans for you in the future,”

“This is a long-term investment. Don’t rush back (referring to Lin returning from knee injury).” – James Dolan

Now that to me sounds like the Knicks met Lin’s “main goal in free agency”

So what happened?

In my opinion the last sentence of Lin’s quote says it all…

“I wanted to have fun playing basketball. … Now I’m definitely relieved.”

All Lin talks about is how he loved the NY fans and that he preferred playing in NYC, so if you’re not playing in the preferred city you wanted to play in…  What exactly is he so relieved about?

After all the Linsanity and winning an Espy, could it be that Lin was feeling the pressure?  I mean at the end of the day this is still NYC, and the media here builds you up just so they can knock you down.  And with the Knicks fan base resting all their hopes and dreams on the shoulders of Lin, may be just may be basketball would not be as fun as he thought he could be.  Yes the Knicks have Amare and Melo, but it was Lin who had the Garden rocking like no other time during that EPIC 8 game winning streak.

There was no question Lin was going to sign with someone, so I just don’t get the relief he felt.  Of course I could be over analyzing this, smh.

How many more days until NFL Kickoff???

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

WTF/WTH Wednesdays – Knicks do not match offer sheet for Jeremy Lin

Jeremy Lin

After an amazing 26 game stretch that was covered by both the national and international media; the era of Linsanity in NYC is officially over.

Even though Linsanity may be over in NYC, the debate  on whether the Knicks should have matched Houston’s offer for Lin is farrrrrr from over.  Knicks fans were torn between keeping Lin or letting him walk; for the record I was for letting him walk.  Don’t get me wrong, Lin did what was best financially for him.  In no way do I as a Knick fan begrudge him for getting the best deal possible but at the same time I agreed with most sports columnist and Carmelo Anthony

The contract Houston offered was “Ridiculous”.

Like every other Knicks’ fan I enjoyed Linsanity, it was one of the highlights of last season.  But during those 26 games there were also troubling signs, no defense, and turnovers.  The pace of Linsanity slowed and many will blame the return of Melo but at the same time the NBA was figuring out Lin.  Then there is also Lin electing not to play in the playoffs when he stated he was at 85%. The Knicks were desperate for point guard help after Shumpert and Baron Davis were injured, some would say if Lin wanted the Knicks to take a chance on by matching the $25 million dollar contract… May be he should have when he decided to sit out the playoffs.

As I stated earlier this is far from over, I would not be surprised if one of the major NYC papers run a weekly comparison of what Lin is doing versus what the Knicks are doing when the season starts.

Dear God I hope that doesn’t happen….

We may not know at this point if Lin will succeed in Houston or if the Knicks will be a winning team next season, but one this is for sure.  Lin’s 1st game back at the Garden will be an EVENT!!!

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Talking Points Tuesdays – “Learn how to be an American…”

John H Sununu

So Romney surrogate John H Sununu decided he would give President Barack Obama a little advice today,

“Learn how to be an American…”

Of course Sununu tried to cleanup his remark about the President later on in the day,

“What I thought I said, but I guess I didn’t say, is that the President has to learn the American formula for creating business. “If I didn’t give all that detail I apologize.” 

Ok Mr Sununu, “If I didn’t give all that detail I apologize…”?  Ummm, Sununu made the comments but he doesn’t recall if he gave details.  That’s hilarious, but it is also typical of Republicans when it comes to Barack Obama.  From Glenn Beck to Donald Trump, Sununu has joined the exclusive club of NUTBAGS!!!

The funny thing is, you could say President Obama is more American than the man saying he needs to “Learn how to be an American”.

Fun Fact For Ya…. John H Sununu was born in Havana, Cuba!  Would it be wrong for the Obama Campaign to say Sununu is secretly a Communist since he was born in Cuba?

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Militant Mondays – When did Facts stop being enough….

Sunday’s episode of the ‘The Newsroom’ (I’ll Try to Fix You) was timely; in the episode Will McAvoy (Anchor) reports on the misinformation campaign against President Obama concerning his record on gun control.  McAvoy runs clip after clip of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Glenn Beck talking about how Barack Obama wants to take your guns and destroy the 2nd Amendment.  The only problem is there is no evidence of such a campaign by President Obama, to show this McAvoy talks about the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence‘s report card on how Obama has performed in strengthen gun regulation.

*** This report card was based on Obama’s record after 1st year as president ***

Candidate Obama in 2008 was way tougher on gun control then President Obama; basically Obama has been a GREAT friend to the gun industry!

Information like this is not top-secret, you can easily Google this and find the facts.  Or at least I thought so….  Before last night’s episode of ‘The Newsroom’ I just so happened to engage my colleagues at work in a debate concerning gun control.  For the record these guys are smart guys who happen to love guns, and I respect the right for people to own a gun.  But the conversation quickly went into a death spiral when one guy stated that, “Barack Obama wants to circumvent the 2nd Amendment and take away everyone’s guns…”

Ummmmmm…….

Of course I tried to correct him but he was adamant that; when I asked where he got this information from he said the head of the National Rifle Association aka NRA.  GTFOH, so the organization that fights any attempt to regulate guns was his source?!?!?!?

Folks this is what we are dealing with today, I could understand if this was 1980… Before the internet, the 24 hour news cycle, and GOOGLE!!! But this is 2012, this is the INFORMATION AGE and we still have people who are just as ignorant as if it was the stone age.  As usual my stubborn nature did not allow me to just walk away shaking my head, so I went into how the president has not introduced any legislation toughening gun control.  I showed article after article supporting what I was saying…

Did it work??

Nope, instead of believing numerous sources this guy preferred to believe the opinion (with no facts to back up) of a few people aka NUTBAGS.  So what do we do when people prefer to believe the non-factual rantings of nutbags?

I have no idea….

I am the type of person who relies on facts and it disturbs me when people ignore them; I will always stand by the facts but I have ask.

Have I been fooling myself in thinking that at the end of the day facts will always win out?

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Takeover Thursdays – Repeal, Repeal, Repeal, BUT…. No Replace!

Rep Al Green (D-TX)

Since the day the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare aka ACA was signed into law (March 23, 2010) Republicans have talked about repealing the law….

REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!!

The only problem is there is no plan to replace, well Republicans will tell you they have a “plan”. But there plan is more of incremental changes that will not insure nearly as many Americans and will not put much of a dent in the rising cost of healthcare.

So how is it Republicans have been talking about repeal and replace since 2010 and now that it is 2012, there is NO real plan to replace?

What kind of leadership is Speaker Boehner providing for the GOP if he can’t come up with some kind of plan to replace Obamacare.  The GOP had 2 YEARS to come up with something, instead they are empty-handed.  And once again Republicans in the House of Representatives decided they must have another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act…. For the 33rd time, and for the 33rd time there was no plan to replace.

Here is a funny but truthful speech by Representative Al Green from Texas:

Kudos to Al for speaking the truth and showing the foolishness of the GOP, by the way here is great descriptive pic that the Democratic Party Facebook page posted:

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!

Jobs Report Friday, What’s in Store for Us?

Once again we will get a look into how our economy is doing today, it’s Jobs Report Friday!

Yaaaayyyy!!!!!

Ok, may be there will be no cheering by the masses but there could be cheering within Team Romney.

Earlier this week it was reported that manufacturing did shrink in some areas, but there is still slight growth.  Overall this is not good news for the Obama Administration that had seem some traction over the past week.  Mitt Romney and the GOP have been tripping over themselves when it comes to discussing the Healthcare Mandate… Or is it a tax?  And there is the problem for Romney, he has gotten off message and for whatever reason he refuses to get back to the economy.

Well today’s jobs report should help Romney and the GOP get back to the state of the economy.  Now I will admit I am no expert in this but with manufacturing numbers showing a bit of a slow down, that there would be a similar effect in job creation.  For example, if there is a slow down in producing products or ordering inventory then that can be an indicator that consumers are not buying goods which would lead to stores not needing to re-fill their inventories.  If store owners don’t have to restock their shelves then that infers business is slow, if business is slow aka no demand then there is no need to hire resources to meet demand.

But who knows, there have been times when analyst have predicted low job numbers and we have seen great job creation.  Mitt Romney needs a bad jobs report to get his campaign back on track. I am predicting the number of jobs created for the month of June will fall short of 100K, if that turns out to be true that will mean a bad weekend for Team Obama.

As always….

If there is something to be said, “It’s On Broadway” to step up and say it!!