The Top 10 Craziest Quotes by Tea Party Candidates (so far)

The Tea Party is a "revolution" or so they would lead you to believe, but in the larger context of American history they're just the same nuts that always appear when a Democrat holds the highest office. But this year, the nuts on the far-right have taken crazy to a new level. Whether it's Former Nevada GOP Senate hopeful Sue Lowden telling people instead of health care they should just barter chickens or GOP candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky saying he thinks business owners should have the freedom to segregate lunch counters again, here are 10 quotes from the wacky Tea Party candidates that are sure to make you want to vote Democrat in the November elections.

1. "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." —Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle, floating the idea of an armed revolt by conservatives in a radio interview, Jan. 2010 

2. "I’m telling you that this works. You know, before we all started having health care, in the olden days our grandparents, they would bring a chicken to the doctor, they would say I’ll paint your house. I mean, that’s the old days of what people would do to get health care with your doctors. Doctors are very sympathetic people. I’m not backing down from that system." Former Nevada GOP candidate for Senate, Sue Lowden, defending her remarks about how people should barter chickens for Heatlh Care, April 19, 2010.

3."I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn't mean we approve of it." —Rand Paul, taking issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while arguing that government should not force integration on private business, interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, May 21, 2010  

4."Instead of handing out the welfare checks, we'll teach people how to earn their check. We'll teach them personal hygiene ... the personal things they don't get when they come from dysfunctional homes. These are beautiful properties with basketball courts, bathroom facilities, toilet facilities. Many young people would love to get the hell out of cities. You have to teach them basic things — taking care of themselves, physical fitness. In their dysfunctional environment, they never learned these things." - GOP New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino, saying that the state's poor should be housed in prisons.

5. "I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade." —Sharron Angle, explaining why she is against abortion even in cases of rape or incest, July 8, 2010 

6. "What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.' I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen." —Kentucky GOP Senate candidate Rand Paul describing how corporations like BP should be allowed to regulate themselves, May 21, 2010  

7."It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. You can't masturbate without lust! ... You're going to be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" —Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, advocating against masturbation in a 1996 MTV interview

8. "We needed to have the press be our friend ... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." —Sharron Angle, describing how her campaign belives media should work for her and not the people, during an interview with Fox's Carl Cameron, Aug. 2, 2010


9. 'We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, and now we're having weekly shootings practically. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS." —Christine O'Donnell, during a 1998 appearance on Bill Maher's 'Politically Incorrect'"

10."People ask me, 'What are you going to do to develop jobs in your state?' Well, that's not my job as a U.S. senator." —Sharron Angle, May 14, 2010

The Daily Show to hold 'Rally to Restore Sanity'

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rally to Restore Sanity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Freedom of Religion not Location should be focus of NYC Mosque debate

For the past month the political headlines have been dominated by news that the evil Muslims, who killed more than 3,000 Americans in the attacks of 9/11, are planning to build a Mosque on the "sacred ground" where the ashes and bones of those who lost their lives still lie. The site of the former World Trade Center buildings that currently houses 17 pizza shops, 18 bank branches, 11 bars, 10 shoe stores, 17 salons, a strip club, a off-track betting parlor and a smaller mosque, has suddenly become the talk of the nation as Republicans are using the volatile issue as a political football to force Democrats into defending freedom of religion.

Since this issue arose, right-wing swine like Sarah Palin have jumped all over this issue and attempted to pressure Democrats into a tricky political situation just before the crucial November elections that could swing control in the House back to the Republicans - which would in theory make the walking Melanoma tumor, John Bohener, the next speaker-in-waiting. If you ask me, Americans should be more concerned about a 60-year-old version of The Situation running the House than a well-known, peaceful Muslim sect exercising their constitutional rights to practice freedom of religion in the most diverse city on the planet - but hey, what do I know.

While this is obviously a volatile issue for many Americans, including the 9/11 victims families, who paid the greatest price, it is important that we look past the smokescreens that Republicans so graciously hypnotize our minds with and focus on the real issue in the debate - freedom of religion. Now Republicans have done a masterful job of framing this issue in a way that says, 'we aren't against a Mosque being built, just it being built at Ground Zero.' Of course I find it interesting that someone like Sarah Palin, who is constantly defending her own religious views and deeming people living in liberal city's like New York and San Francisco as not being "real Americans", has now found it important to defend the 9/11 site, where more than 3,000 New Yorker's of all different religious backgrounds lost their lives, but I guess even blatant hypocrisy is viewed as an opinion in today's America.

If this issue had arose say last summer, it probably would have been a non-issue nationally but since an election is right around the corner, the right is taking full advantage of distorting the facts and dividing us once again as a nation. Because at first glance a Mosque at the Ground Zero site might seem in bad taste to the average American. You might think the argument that Muslim's have the right to build a Mosque, just not on the site where 16 Muslim hijackers attacked us in the name of Allah, but I guess you could also argue that a Catholic Church should not be built across from the Oklahoma City Building because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. But I guess philosophical arguments like the previously mentioned don't hold much weight in a country that is predominantly Christian. So maybe we should look at the facts about the Mosque. First, the Muslim group that is planning to build the $100 million dollar multi-use facility, which will house a pool, gymnasium, a 500-seat auditorium and a Sept. 11 memorial, in addition to a prayer space, has operated in and around the Ground Zero site for more than 30 years - making them more victims of the 9/11 attacks than Sarah Palin, myself and most any other American living outside of the 212 area code. Second, the local Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has received high praise from Jewish groups, not to mention the State Department has declared him a "bridge builder" between the Muslim and Christian world. But all of this has been overshadowed by the angry right who continue to try to make themselves out to be the protectors of the Ground Zero site, while also torch bearers for freedom of religion and the constitution in this country. Unfortunately, I don't think they can have it both ways and when they start to take up this issue with other Mosque's being built in other locations across the country - like the act of arson recently perpetrated at the construction site of a Tennessee Mosque - I think the moderates in this nation will begin to realize the true intentions of the Republicans to divide us at the polls and extinguish religious freedom beyond Christianity. Of course it might be too late for the November elections, but historically speaking I think the right will lose in the end, just like they have on most every other controversial issue they have defended throughout our nation's history (i.e. segregation).

When it comes right down to it, this issue for me has nothing to do with the supposed hallowed ground of the Ground Zero site, I mean for god sakes there are numerous bars, strip clubs and gambling parlors, and other establishments of perversion in the same location and no one seems to find those places distasteful. It is about Republicans once again dividing us as a nation and further disrespecting the religious and cultural freedoms of the rest of the world. It is about the right taking the focus off the fact that they have no real plan to move this country forward by dividing us on issues that are in reality non-issues. And yes, the majority of New Yorker's and Americans don't support the building of a Mosque at Ground Zero, but a majority of Americans also didn't support Medicare or Social Security, which have today become the two most popular pieces of legislation in our nation's history. A majority of Americans at one time also supported George W. Bush, the Iraq War and Segregation, but that doesn't mean Americans were right. Actually quite often public support for an issue is wrong in the long run, let's just hope our public leaders, just like they did during the Medicare and Social Security debate, ignore the will of the people and do not what the people support, but rather what is morally and constitutionally right - for that is what this country was founded upon.

And all this is coming from a person who if they had their way, would rid the world of all religions and turn every church, mosque and temple in this country into a Chuck E. Cheese - hey, it couldn't make them any less useless.

Good Night, and Good Luck!

LeBronidict James brings his brand and ego to Miami

It was the moment all NBA basketball fans had been waiting for: LeBron James' announcement of where he would play in 2011. And after reports swirled earlier in the day that the self-proclaimed "King" would wind up in Miami along with All-Stars Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh, the two-time MVP confirmed the rumor during an hour-long, ego-driven ESPN special, "The Decision".

The fall-out over the announcement and how it was handled has not been pretty for James, to say the least. And if you expect me to be any kinder to the future billion dollar athlete, you might want to stop reading now. Since the announcement quivered off James' chattering lips, criticism of the once beloved baller has included everything from how he dealt with the situation to whether or not him winning a title in Miami will be lessened by the great players he has surrounded himself with.

While there has been more criticism than praise over the past 24-hours, he has received a great deal of praise for his supposed unselfishness in putting winning over money. However, I would argue that his decision was completely motivated out of self-interest. And while it is true that he will certainly give up numbers, a minut amount of money and his reputation in his home state of Ohio, in the end, if he is able to win multiple titles and cement himself as one of the greats in NBA history, he will put himself on a path to be a billion dollar athlete. For while I have heard many people talk about how it was so "unselfish" for LeBron to put winning over ego and money, I would argue that is just what he did. For if LeBron had stayed in Cleveland and never won a title, his brand for the future, which will certainly make him richer than any contract, would be in great jeopardy. For in the end, while he may take a slight pay cut, about 96 percent of the salary instead of the 100 percent he would have earned if he were to go back to Cleveland, he will in the long-run make hundred's of millions of dollars in endorsements if he is able to win multiple titles. Plus, Florida doesn't have a State tax, so in the end he will probably end up making more money than he ever would have in Cleveland, New York or Chicago. So while there are people in this country struggling to feed their families and pay their mortgages, analysts are praising LeBron for supposedly putting winning over money, and I am just not buying it.


Now if LeBron was truly being unselfish, he would have chosen to go back to Cleveland and help not only win the city a title, but continue to help rebuild the economy that has been left in ruins since the recession hit. For Cleveland's whole economy was built around LeBron, and maybe, just maybe, if he had chosen to stay and put the people that have cheered him on for the past seven-years over his future earnings, we could sit here 20 years from now and praise the man for choosing to sacrifice multiple rings and beautiful beaches, for the people who admired and needed him most.

Right-wing Supreme Court strikes again: Overturns 200 years of consensus on state gun control rights

Want to hear a joke? The Supreme Court. Get it! If you don't I take it you have not been paying attention to some of the rulings they have passed down in recent months, including one that allows corporations to basically sponsor political candidates for office, and the most recent that precludes local and state governments from banning possession of handguns.

The case, McDonald v. City of Chicago, stems from a gun ban in the violent city that did not allow citizens to purchase handguns - a gun that is only used for one thing, killing people. In a previous case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the same 5-4 majority ruled that the second amendment prohibits the government from denying an individuals right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.The recent ruling overturns and contradicts a 200 year consensus that the second amendment guarantees the right of states to form militias, but not an individual right to bear arms out of self-defense. Furthermore, the recent decision was a combination of both the second amendment and fourteenth amendment, which says no state shall deprive any person of “life, liberty or property without due process of law." But over the years the right-wing judges on the court have used the due-process clause to apply certain amendments in the Bill of Rights to states and local municipalities, while leaving out others like individual's right to a fair trial.

To understand the second amendment maybe we should first look at the language. It reads as follows: "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."

The fatal flaw in the argument of the right-wing members of the court and gun owners, is that the second amendment, as you can see, says nothing about individuals having the right to own guns for self-defense - a ruling the court declared to be constitutional two years ago in a previous case. But instead of upholding the "original intent" of the clause, the right-wing justices on the court, who outnumber the liberal justices, 5-4, have decided to interpret the core of the constitution to fit their party's political agenda. They have also changed how the country views these laws as they have time and time again attempted to spin such rulings to make people believe that they are holding to the "original intent" of the Founding Fathers. Of course if you have ever studied the Founding Fathers you would see that they have nothing in common with the right-wing nuts that are infiltrating, and attempting to destroy a country that so many have fought so valiantly to uphold. For if you take a closer look at conservative politics you would see that members of the Tea Party, who have hijacked and contorted the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, are more like King George than Thomas Jefferson.

But it should be no surprise that the Supreme Court continues to be dominated by right-wing views instead of what are supposed to be unbiased interpretations of the constitution. For they are the same court that trumped the "equal protection" argument to justify its decision to appoint George W. Bush to the White House. What we are witnessing today, is a generation of justices that have no understanding of unbiased rule. For in today's society there is no room for unbiased thinking, it's a with us or against us mentality, which makes you wonder why they even bother having interviews for nominated Supreme Court justices like the one we are currently witnessing with Elaine Kagan. It doesn’t matter because the wing-nuts on both sides will fill their decisions with opinions of their party and whatever news station they watch, instead of a fair interpretation of the laws.

But what does this mean for the city of Chicago: Well first they will have to rewrite the current law to make it enforceable under the constitution. And hopefully for the people of Chicago they will be able to create a new law that will allow for it to be constitutional, while simultaneously protecting its citizens from handguns. For in Chicago alone they average 40 shootings a day and boast 45 gun stores in the city's 13 mile radius. It could be argued that people need guns to protect themselves from criminals, which is a legitimate argument, but is the answer to protecting people from shootings to allow every individual to posses a gun at home and in public? Is a city filled with guns really the answer to a safer city?

Bill Maher, host of Real Time on HBO, said on Larry King the other night that he owns a gun and would not give it up. However, he made it clear that his gun is kept in his home and he did not agree with allowing any idiot with a gun to be able to possess it in public. Joking, he said, "Because you know the best way to protect your children in public is through cross-fire" (I paraphrase, but you get the point). And the point is that if we have people shooting each other in the streets like something out of the Wild West, although they too had gun laws, innocent people, including children, are going to be killed. But that's ok because at least the "constitution" is being upheld and the "good guys" with guns are protecting us from the "bad guys" with guns.

It's just funny how the people who live in rural areas, where gun deaths occur once every decade, are always trying to uphold their rights to bear arms, while people in cities, where guns actually pose a major threat, are the ones trying to block such rights in order to protect themselves and their loved ones. But of course none of this would be a problem if we had a Supreme Court that put truth over politics.

For pro-gun laws do nothing to protect people's individual rights to own guns. All they do is uphold their individual rights to brandish such weapons in public, something we have seen in recent years when citizens at rallies in which are president spoke at showed up brandishing guns on their hips. But that is the message the Supreme Court is sending to us all: that it is all right for you to carry a gun out of self-defense. Which in turn allows politicians and Tea Party activists to threaten any "Sane" American who does not believe in their political agenda with gun violence. Now if you ask me that is recipe for Hitlerian rule. Not the fact that a black, Democrat holds the highest office.

Maybe it's time this left-wing nut goes out and purchases himself a handgun, so in case some right-wing nut decides to push his political views and gun in my face, I will be prepared!

God Bless America!

Sen. Robert Byrd dead at 92

The longest serving senator in U.S. history, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), died Monday. He was 92.

Byrd was admitted to Fairfax Inova Hospital late last week for dehydration and heat exhaustion. What was originally considered a minor condition, developed into other medical conditions throughout the week. Byrd had been in frail health for several years.

Byrd, a Democrat, was known as a fiery orator versed in the classics and a hard-charging power broker who steered billions of federal dollars to his state of West Virginia. He held his seat in the Senate for more than 50 years, serving as its majority leader for six of those years. He was most recently elected to an unprecedented ninth consecutive term in the Senate in 2006.

W.Va. Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, is expected to appoint a replacement.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal relieved of command in Afghanistan

A day after word spread about Gen. Stanley McChrystal being ordered to Washington to answer questions about insubordinate comments he and his staff made in a Rolling Stone Magazine article, the commander who had once said he could win the Afghanistan War, was relieved of his command of U.S. and N.A.T.O troops in the country.

President Obama said that McChrystal's remarks about administration officials "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system."

Obama has since named Gen. David Petraeus, the Central Command chief, to fill in for the lose-lip general. He also urged the Senate to confirm Petraeus quickly and reinforced that the change in command would not disrupt the Afghanistan strategy.

This wasn't the first time McChrystal locked horns with the Obama administration. He publicly shot-down a strategy based on fewer troops by Vice President Joe Biden last winter, causing him to be reprimanded by President Obama. McChrystal has also been very pushy with the administration as he made public comments that were aimed at pressuring President Obama into deciding on implementing a surge in Afghanistan, which he later did. McChyrstal was also surrounded by controversy in 2004, after he was accused of a cover up in the "friendly-fire" death of former NFL football player, Pat Tillman, by the soldier's mother  If you ask me it was only a matter of time before McChrystal or one of his staff members put their foot in their mouth around a reporter. And with all the baggage surrounding McChrystal, not to mention his blatant disobedience to civilian rule of the military, which has kept us free since our founding while other democratic nations have fallen under dictatorial rule, I think it was the right move for not only the administration but the war. It also didn't hurt President Obama to use the opportunity to flex his power as Commander-in-Chief.

While McChrystal's controversial comments about the administration left no other decision but for the commander to be relieved of his duty, I think any one can sympathize with a guy who talked shit about his boss, considering we all do it at one time or another. But this is not a private work place, this is the military. For this is a man commanding a war and we can accept nothing less than the utmost integrity and loyalty out of the man in charge of our troops in battle.

While the current strategy in Afghanistan was McChrystal's, Petraeus is a brilliant choice by the president, considering the universal respect he garners from both Republicans and Democrats. But while Petreaus is certainly the right choice to replace McChrystal as the commanding officer in the war, we are kidding ourselves if we actually think our country can win this war - for it's time to bring our troops home. And while that is not going to happen until at least July of 2011, this incident, if nothing else, has caused American's, and possibly the government, to refocus our attention on the war and our strategy moving forward.

Judge with financial ties to oil and gas industry overturns Obama's drilling moratorium

The Louisiana judge who overturned President Obama's six-month moratorium on off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico yesterday had number of investments in the oil and gas industry, financial disclosure reports show.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his decision to prohibit government officials from enforcing the moratorium until a trial is held: "If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."

President Obama had imposed the six-month moratorium on any new drilling in the Gulf following the BP oil spill that has dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf. The decision has halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended drilling on 33 exploratory wells until they can be deemed safe.

While Feldman's holdings in the oil and gas companies range from $15,000 to less than $1,000, many of the companies he has investments in would be affected by the moratorium. Theses companies include: Transocean Ltd., Provident Energy, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling Co., TXCO Resources; EV Energy Partners, Rowan Companies Inc., NCP Capital Resources, BPZ Energy, El Paso Corp., KBR Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corp., and ATP Oil and Gas Corp.

According to the Associated Press, Feldman is just one of 37 active judges in key Gulf Coast districts who have financial ties to energy industries, including oil and gas. Many of these judges have already disqualified themselves from such cases sighting conflicts of interest.

While it could be argued that Feldman's ruling is sound based on his argument, there is no way we can allow a judge, even with modest investments in oil and gas, to have such power in deciding such a critical issue at this time. To allow for more drilling in an area, when we know that safety reports filed on most of these rigs were done so by the companies who would be doing the drilling, would be foolish. It would also be foolish to allow companies to continue to drill without a full investigation into why the BP oil rig exploded, not to mention while millions of gallons of oil continues to spill into the Gulf.

Major oil companies say the moratorium is "unnecessary" and would cripple world energy supplies. But I say another oil spill in the Gulf would cripple the environment and the people who depend on the Gulf for their livelihood for a generation, not to mention the potential loss of life if another rig were to explode. As a nation we must consider what is in our best interest first, the world's second and big oil last - for they are the scum who put us in this position in the first place. Jobs are also a concern for some, but the $350 million contributed by BP to pay for those out of work oil rig workers due to the spill, should be sufficient enough to pay for any damages incurred. It is time that we stop worrying about big corporations and start worrying about the environment and people of America. For too long these bastards have been allowed to scare us into believing that without them we are nothing, but what they fail to see is that without the deep pocket books of the American people they are nothing. If you ask me, a six-month moratorium is not long enough. For we still have two months until the leak is potentially stopped and years until the mess is cleaned up.

But all hope is not lost yet as the Obama administration has vowed to appeal the decision, which many experts suspect they will win.

"We will immediately appeal to the 5th circuit the president strongly believes as the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice argued yesterday that continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened does not make any sense and... potentially puts the safety of those on the rigs and the environment in the Gulf at a danger that the president does not believe we can afford right now," said spokesman Robert Gibbs following Judge Feldman's decision.

General McChrystal called to Washington over controversial remarks

General Stanley McChrystal, America's top military official in Afghanistan, has been summoned to Washington to answer questions about his mocking of top public officials over their counterterrorism strategy in a new Rolling Stone article due out Friday.

McChrystal was originally supposed to attend a meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan via video conference, but was later recalled in person after news of the controversial remarks became public.

The article written by Michael Hastings talks of McChrystal dismissing Biden during a question-and-answer session in Paris in April, after growing irritated with questions about a counterterrorism strategy the vice president had offered, which McChrystal had dismissed.

"'Are you asking about Vice President Biden?' McChrystal says with a laugh. 'Who's that?'"

"'Biden?' suggests a top adviser. 'Did you say: Bite Me?'"

Hastings also writes that President Obama and McCrystal had "failed to connect" from the time the president took office. Quoting an advisor to McChrystal, his first meeting with Obama "was a 10-minute photo op... Here's the guy who's going to run his f---ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss (McChrystal) was disappointed."

McChrystal apologized for the remarks Tuesday. He is also said to have fired a press aide over the article.

"I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said in a statement. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

It is expected that McChrystal will tender his letter of resignation upon his return to the States. What this will mean for the future of the war and troop morale is yet to be seen, but it is said that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has defended McChrystal and wants him to stay on as commander. It is, however, hard to accept McChrystal's apology after President Obama gave him everything he wanted to continue a war that has become widely unpopular on both sides of the political isle.

"I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome," McChrystal said in the closing of his apology.

Obama negotiates $20 billion compensation fund with BP

Just a night after pundits ripped his first Oval Office address on the BP oil spill, President Obama has gained a major victory in the fight to ensure the British-based oil company pays for all damages incurred by the spill, when the two parties announced Wednesday that BP would set up a $20 billion major claims fund for those whose livelihoods are being ruined by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

President Obama promised to make the bastards at BP pay for the mess in the Gulf, and after four-hours of intense negotiations he was able to prove to the American people that he could deliver on his promise. Not only was he able to get BP to agree to creating a $20 billion fund without dragging it through the courts for years and even decades, he also got the executive swine from BP to agree to no cap on the amount they would pay. In addition to this the company also agreed to set up a $100 million fund for oil-rig workers, who have been laid-off due to the six-month moritorium the president has placed on drilling in the Gulf.

"What this is about is accountability," Obama said after his session with BP executives. "For the small-business owners, for the fishermen, for the shrimpers, this is not just a matter of dollars and cents. . . . A lot of these folks don't have a cushion."

So far, 66,000 claims have been filed, $81 million awarded, and 26,000 checks cut, according to accounts from the Coast Guard. And to ensure that all legitimate claims are honored, President Obama has appointed Kenneth Feinberg, the man who oversaw the $7 billion government fund for families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, as the administration's "pay czar" to oversee the payouts.

The fund is also not capped, so BP could still be on the hook for more money in terms of claims and that does not include the fines that the United States will certainly be levying against them once the spill has been capped.

While the announcement came at a great time for those who are losing their livelihood along the Gulf coast, BP executives continue to put their foots in their mouth. During the announcement of the agreement, BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg apologized for the "tragic accident" and added "we care about the small people."

The comment was not well-received by the people along the Gulf coast who resented the foreign speaking dignitary's remarks that were perceived as talking down to the working-class people in the Gulf.

By night Svanberg was apologizing for the slip: "I spoke clumsily this afternoon, and for that, I am very sorry. What I was trying to say - that BP understands how deeply this affects the lives of people who live along the Gulf and depend on it for their livelihood - will best be conveyed not by any words but by the work we do to put things right for the families and businesses who've been hurt."

Obama talks oil spill response plan in first presidential address

In his first presidential address from the Oval Office, Barack Obama reassured the nation that the BP oil spill in the Gulf will be cleaned up, but did he inspire?

The 17-minute, nationally televised speech, mostly consisted of him describing the April 20 oil rig explosion, which left 11 dead and how he intends to make BP pay for not only the clean-up but the compensation of those who depend on the Gulf for their lively hood.

Obama said he will tell BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg to, "set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness."

"This fund will not be controlled by BP," Obama said. "In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."

While Republicans have bitched about Obama using the disaster to push his energy bill, he did not hesitate to boast about it during his speech. He called upon Congress to put aside partisan politics to end America's dependence on fossil fuels once and for all.

"the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now," he said.

Obama also outlined the response effort thus far, in an effort to curb the negative views by Americans - 52 percent don't approve of his handling of the oil disaster. Obama noted that the resources the federal government had poured into the area, including the 30,000 people working in four states to contain and clean- up the oil. He added that 17,000 National Guards members are available along the coast to be used as needed by the governors of the state's. 

While Obama was effective in bringing us up to date on the clean-up effort, what he missed in this speech was his ability to inspire. Not that I am a big believer that the president has to be emotional, but it just seemed very scripted, as I guess most presidential speech's from the Oval Office do. But people need to be comforted now. They need to be made to believe that this spill will be stopped and cleaned-up. While it remains to be seen wether or not the president will be successful in cleaning-up the Gulf, he was ineffective in settling people's nerves over the disaster on this night.

For more information, visit www.whitehouse.gov/deepwater-bp-oil-spill/

Is BP oil disaster Obama's Katrina or Bush's second Katrina?

It has been close to two months since a British Petroleum's off-shore oil rig exploded, killing 11 workers and spilling millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. While the biggest concern at this point is stopping the leak, there is also the issue of how this will play out politically for the Obama Administration.

Before we get into the politics of this issue and whether or not our federal government has done enough to remedy the situation, I first must say that I hope this spill is a wake up call to Americans who are on the fence in terms of off-shore drilling, including the thick headed "Drill Baby Drill" thugs and our president, who supports "safe" off-shore drilling - as if there is such a thing. Since the oil has started flowing up on the shores of four U.S. states, it has been heartbreaking to see the oil soaked birds, gasping for breath, not being able to move. It would be nice, if nothing else, we could take the BP executives, give them a good old fashion tar and feathering, and parade them down the streets of New Orleans, where they may or may not be stoned to death by onlookers. But in a capitalistic society, where the rich are protected by our elected officials, such an act of justice will never occur.

It is sad that due to our dependency on fossil fuels and capitalism and corruption within the Bush Administration, we have had to subject our people and environment to such pain. But we can't turn back the clocks now, so all we can do is move forward and fix the problem and clean up the Gulf.

While the oil continues to billow into the Gulf, the biggest question, aside from stopping the leak, has been, "has President Obama shown enough emotion?" Not, "has the government done enough?," which in many ways it has because the president has had the best scientists and engineers in the country working on fixing the leak since it started - hell, he was even ahead of BP and the media in terms of responding. But the media is more concerned with how unemotional the president is, as if they are just now realizing that Obama is a thinker and not one that wears his emotions on his sleeve - we all know how that worked out the last eight years. This question of course is not necessarily a concern of the people, but rather some creation of the media, both on the left and right. I mean what do these bastards want, for Obama to fall down to his knees on the beaches of Louisiana, gripping oil soaked sand in his fists and screaming and crying at the heavens "Die BP Die!" I mean really people, the guy is more like Ghandi, and less like Randy Marsh. And maybe it is just me but I prefer a level headed leader, instead of some drama queen. But in a world ruled by reality television, it is no surprise that we now need crying and temper tantrums for our president to prove that he is upset over a specific event. And just because I don't expect the president to be someone he is not, does not mean I wouldn't like to see more pressure put on BP to fix the spill and clean up the mess. But we also can't lose sight of the fact that our president is dealing with a number of pertinent issues right now, including but not limited to: two wars, an unstable economy, high jobless rate, Iran's nuclear program, a potential civil war between North Korea and South Korea and Israel's strangle hold on Gaza.

But as the oil continues to pour into the Gulf, pundits are asking, "is this Obama's Katrina." While others, like Time Magazine columnist, Joe Klein, have pointed out that this is actually "Bush's second Katrina." While I would like to blame the spill on Bush, which would not be a long shot considering his utter lack of regulation over his friends in the oil industry, this is in fact President Obama's problem, even if it was the policies of the previous administration that paved the way for such a disaster to occur. And while the spill might in the end effect as many or more people's lives than Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 combined, to correlate an environmental disaster with the death of thousands to me is a long shot. The fact is Obama does not have the capabilities to stop the leak, only the oil companies, who possess the technology and research to contain such a spill, can fix the mess. While we can all sympathize with the 11 workers who died in the off-shore rig explosion that caused the spill, in reality it is incomparable to the loss of life we witnessed during Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. In the end the real victims of this disaster will be the animal life living in the Gulf. And while it is a great shame that so much animal life will die, and as painful as the images are to watch on TV, in the world in which we live, the mass loss of animal life and human life is incomparable. Because when 3,000 people die we mourn, hold candle light vigils and feel the pain of the loved ones they left behind. When 3,000 birds die, we say, "what a shame," and ask, "what's for dinner, chicken?" Like it or not, it's the truth.

In the end it may take decades to restore the Gulf to what it was prior to the spill, but it will be how the president responds to the clean up that will determine his fate in history, not the fact that the spill is still occurring or how he emotionally responded.

Currently, BP has made some progress at capping the leak, but it is now looking like it wont be stopped until August, when the relief wells are scheduled to be drilled. Earlier this week, the company successfully put a "top hat" over the leaking pipe and collected 11,000 gallons of oil in the first day, which they suspect is only one-third of the oil billowing out of the pipe. 

And while we would all like to see an emotional leader, we cant ask for someone to be something they're not. But what we do have in our president, if nothing else, is a thoughtful leader who I trust will do everything in his power to clean up the mess BP made once the spill is finally capped. And in the end that is what matters most. Well that and creating jobs.

Rand Paul: I abhor racism, but believe businesses have the right to segregate

Tea Party candidate Rand Paul (R-KY), son of Ron Paul (R-TX), told Rachel Maddow following his big primary win on Tuesday that he would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted against Civil Rights because he believes the first amendment should allow for private business owners to segregate against people based on race, creed and religion, if they so choose. This discussion derives from an earlier interview with a local Kentucky paper in which Rand said he would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, whose primary purpose was to do exactly what Paul says it shouldn't have done - desegregate.

Yeah you heard me right, Rand would have voted against Civil Rights. You can't make this shit up, but in his defense his father voted against reaffirming Civil Rights and has made a number of eye-brow raising comments over race in the past - like father, like son. In terms of Rand, he believes that businesses should have the right to not allow you into their establishment because you are black or gay or Jewish. He doesn't believe that the government should be involved in private businesses and their policies. Well people this is why we need big government on certain levels because dumb-asses like Rand, as well as the nutty, scumbag bigots, who believe in the right to segregate based on race, creed or religion.

You have to watch this interview to believe it for yourself. I think someone should remind Rand - who names their kid Rand by the way, if I owned a restaurant under his beliefs I would not let him in based on his name - that this is the year 2010 not 1950. I think no matter what he believes, he should have just shut his mouth on the subject because it's not like the Civil Rights Act is a pertinent issue in today's America or is it anything that is going away any time soon - or is it! I mean could you imagine icons like Jay-Z or LeBron James not being allowed to enter a restaurant because they are black - well Rand Paul can! But what else would we expect out of the Tea Party candidate. I have a feeling that the Kentucky Senate race just went from an easy win for Republicans to a bloodbath. But as a Democrat, I welcome Rand, and all other Tea Party and Republican candidates, to continue saying nutty things! It certainly cant hurt our chances come November.

No clear message for election season following Tuesday's primaries

With all the talk about Democrats possibly losing control of the House in the November mid-term elections, Tuesday's primaries turned out to be a promising day for liberals who flinch at the idea of the nutty Republican/Tea Party combination controlling the vote in Congress.

While the events of the day proved no clear message in how people will vote in November, one thing is for sure: the anti-incumbent, anti-Washington anger is not going away any time soon, meaning no one, not even the big political machines are safe from the anger on Main St.

The best example of this anti-establishment attitude took place in the Democratic primary for Senator in Pennsylvania, where Rep. Joe Sestak, who ignored the White House's request to not challenge the former Republican turned Democrat, Arlen Specter, for the seat. Sestak who had seemed like a long shot to win the nomination a month ago, easily defeated the former Republican who a little more than a year ago was hitching his wagon to the likes of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. In the end, while the president's endorsement failed to win him the nomination, I would have to believe that it had more to do with Pennsylvania Democrats getting over voting for a man they opposed for three decades, than it was a referendum on President Obama. But I guess believing the vote had nothing to do with voters discontent over the status quo would be foolish as well.

Democrats also received some good news in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District, where the party was able to hold onto the seat left vacant by Jack Murtha's death. Mark Critz easily defeated the GOP candidate in a district that is heavily Republican. Unfortunately, Critz did run a campaign that was opposed to many of the White House's legislation (i.e. health care). But you can bet the White House will use the win to push back against a potential massacre in November.

In other races, Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, who voted against health care and still received an endorsement from President Obama, was forced into a June 8 primary runoff with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. Once again it seems as though Lincoln's potential defeat has less to do with the president and more to do with her centrist voting record.

The Democrats were not the only winners on this day as the Tea Party showed their influence in Kentucky's Republican Senate primary, after Rand Paul, son of Rep. Ron Paul, crushed Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who was endorsed by the state GOP, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney. However, Paul is now facing some of his own problems after it was revealed that he would repeal Civil Rights, which he will have to answer too if he expects to defeat his Democratic challenger for the seat.

While the results on the day proved mostly positive for Democrats, it is inevitable that they will lose more seats than Republicans due to their majority in the House and Senate and the anti-incumbent attitude currently present in the country. Just how many seats they will lose remains to be seen.

What is going on in Arizona?: State bans ethnic studies in schools

First it was a law that would force President Obama to show his birth certificate in order to be on a primary ballot, then it was an immigration law that allowed for the racial profiling of Hispanics, and now non-white students in Arizona will not be permitted to study the history of their own ethnic background in public schools. Which leads me to ask, 'what the f*ck is going on in Arizona?'

It's one thing to attempt to curb an immigration problem because illegal immigrants are in fact illegal - although I would argue the methodology - but to not teach children the truth about Mexican-American history because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean you have the right to create a law that bans teaching it in schools. Because if that is the case, why don't they just take all of the terrible things that happened in our history out of school text books. I mean who needs to know about the near-extermination of Native Americans, or the enslavement and segregation of blacks, or the stealing of Mexican land, or the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, or any of the other gross injustices that have taken place in this country since its inception. The fact is that we already mollify these harsh truths in our text books enough and now we are just going to stricken it from teachings in order not to incite Hispanic students. And anyway, when has there ever been a backlash from these students due to these teachings? And maybe they should be a little pissed. I mean African Americans have the right to be upset over slavery and segregation, so shouldn't Hispanics have the right to be upset over the way they have been treated by this country? Especially in light of the new immigration bill.

The saddest part about this new law is that Superintendent Tom Horne was a major supporter of the bill. He says that such studies divide students, which leads me by this reasoning to ask, 'doesn't teaching white/European history also divide students?' All I know is that if I were a parent in Arizona, I would be calling for this man's resignation. It's one thing for some narrow-minded law maker to support such a bill, but for man who is in charge of educating students to support this, is like an editor supporting a ban on the Freedom of Information Act - it just wouldn't make any sense to give up the truth in a profession that demands the truth to be successful.

The reason why this is an important issue, which I believe to be unconstitutional at first glance, is that it is important for all of us to know the truth - White, Black, Asian, Native American, Hispanic and every other group that has settled in America. For if we don't learn our own history, we are doomed to repeat it! Which seems to be the case right now in Arizona. And if they don't start changing their attitude, then long after these laws have been repealed, and possibly even sooner, our history books will be including these same individuals - and who wants to be remembered for something as evil as racism, I guess Arizona.

Obama kills at White House Correspondents dinner

President Barack Obama took advantage of his chance to roast himself and critics last night at the annual White House Correspondents dinner.

The WHCA dinner has become a tradition since 1920, and 13 presidents have attended since Calvin Coolidge first attended in 1924. The event, that used to feature singing and big-name performers has since taken the form of a roast.

In recent years, the event has fallen short due to major national tragedies, such as the Oklahoma City bombing, the Siege at Waco, Texas, the Columbine shooting, and the Virginia Tech Massacre. Another tragedy almost marred this year's event, when New York City police discovered a car bomb in Times Square. The police were able to diffuse the bomb before it detonated.

Along with President Obama, Jay Leno performed a skit that many considered to pale in comparison to President Obama's. Above is the full-video of both President Obama and Jay Leno's stand-up at the dinner. Enjoy!

Arizona immigration bill takes Civil Rights in America two steps back

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," reads the inscription on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal. Too many, these words still ring true, not that immigration hasn't become a problem in America, especially considering there are an estimated 11 million illegal aliens currently residing within the U.S. boarder, but because its notion that America stands as a beacon of freedom for oppressed people from every corner of the world. However, lawmakers in Arizona squashed these immortal words and our country's belief that "all men are created equal," when they passed a bill this past week, allowing police officers the right to question anyone about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect they are in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime if they are.

The problem with the law is not that it is attempting to curb illegal immigration in a state that boasts more than 400,000 illegal aliens, but because its intentions are meant to curb illegal immigration by a specific group - Mexicans. Currently, 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic and boy are they furious about the prospect of being pulled over because of the color of their skin and asked to show their birth certificate. And can you really blame them? Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who had the opportunity to veto the bill, but instead singed it into law, when asked after signing the bill what exactly an illegal immigrant looks like, said she "didn't know." Which is precisely the problem. No one knows what an illegal immigrant looks like. But I think it's safe to say no white people will be getting pulled over and asked for their birth certificate after the law is enacted this summer. I think it is insane that the state of Arizona expects all Latinos to carry around birth certificates in order to prove their citizenship just because they are the wrong color. I mean what decade are we living in. I am just waiting for the next law that allows for all people of Latino decent to be locked-up in internment camps like the Japanese were during World War II. Or maybe we can set aside reservations or have separate drinking fountains for Latinos - whatever keeps them out of our perfect American lives.

Many of the proponents of the bill try to use crime and a lack of enforcement by federal government as the primary reason for the bill's passage. And yes the federal government does need to do more to stop illegal immigration, but how can you associate isolated cases of crime with someone's skin color. I mean most serial killers are white, does that mean we should hold such crimes against white people? And the same goes for saying all Mexicans, and illegal immigrants, are criminals because of a few bad apples.

While all of these issues are major concerns over the law, the big question for Arizonians has to be, is stopping illegal immigration as important as upholding the rights of millions of Lations who were born and live in the state. Is it worth having the majority of Americans view your state as one that upholds the same type of racial divide as the South did during the height of segregation? It used to seem funny to believe that such blatant racism could rear its ugly head in America in the modern world, but I guess we also thought McCarthyism could never happen again, until right-wing nuts like Michelle Bachman proved us wrong during the 2008 election.

The injustice of this new bill is already starting to rear its ugly head, after news reports have already surfaced telling the story of police officers pulling over Latino-Americans, asking them to provide a birth certificate because they didn't answer their questions correctly and were placed under arrest until they could prove their citizenship. Already seeing how law enforcement has begun to abuse the power the bill gives them before it even goes into effect, it is scary to think of all the corruption that will follow the new law. You can bet there will be cops taking pay-offs and using the color of people's skin to pull them over without cause.

The Obama Administration is already looking into whether or not such a bill is constitutional or not. But I say, who cares if it is unconstitutional, it is unAmerican. A number of state mayor's including the mayor of Phoenix have called for a repeal of the bill and leaders from across the country are calling for a boycott of Arizona, which could cost the state millions in convention and tourism. So while the fight over how to deal with immigration continues on, it will be the Latino-Americans who will have to deal with being reduced to second-class citizens in their own state and country - something no American in the year 2010 should have to endure.

UH-OH! Dem wins first federal election since passage of health care bill

Democrat Ted Deutch won a special election Tuesday, making him the winner of the first federal election since the passing of the historic health care bill, which Republicans hoped would be the Democrats waterloo in the 2010 elections.

"We've heard for months that tonight ... is a referendum on health care, it's a referendum on the (Obama) administration, it's a referendum on what direction this country is going," Deutch said following his victory. "Let me tell you something, what we learned today is that in Broward County and Palm Beach County, Florida, the Democratic Party is alive and well."

With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Deutch defeated Republican Ed Lynch, 62 percent to 35 percent. Lynch attempted to make the election a referendum on health care, but failed to convince the more than 234,000 Democrats in the state's 19th congressional district to vote against Deutch.

It's tough to say whether or not this election had anything to do with the passage of the health care bill, considering the district is largely Democratic. However, it was a substantial victory which tells me that health care certainly did not hurt Deutch's chances and may have even helped him among Independents, who were beginning to question if the party could legislate.

Tea Bag candidate for NY Gov. in hot water over racist and pornographic emails

Carl Paladino, the Tea Bag backed candidate for New York governor, is fitting right in with his nutty right-wing supporters after emails featuring racist images, porn and bestiality that the multi-millionaire developer had forwarded to his friends, associates and co-workers were published on the blog WNYmedia.net earlier today.

The emails include a video entitled "Obama Inaugeration Rehersal," which features African Tribesman dancing; an email with the subject line "Proof the Irish discovered Africa" containing a video of monkeys Riverdancing; and a video of a woman having sex with a horse.

I guess it's no surprise that the Tea Baggers are a bunch of ignorant, racist bastards but I did not know they also enjoyed bestiality. I would, however, be more surprised if one of these dumb shit's actually knew what a term like say, "socialism" means, than to find out they get kicks out of being penetrated in every orface of his/her body by giant, horse cock, but maybe that is just me. I guess I am missing something when it comes to the Tea Baggers. Their talking points basically include the idea of returning the country to what our founding fathers had intended, yet when you ask Tea Bag supporters or even leaders for that matter what they believe the founding fathers had intended they don't even have a clue as to what the founding fathers stood for - just what they want people to think the founding fathers wanted, in conjunction with their values. They tout capitalism and speak of socialism as if it is was the same thing as a communist dictatorship, yet they don't even realize that the founding father of all founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, despised the idea of capitalism, and even thought it to be un-American. But never mind the facts, it's not what the Tea Baggers want you to believe, and since they know the founding fathers so well, they will tell the American people how they thought, and in turn how they should think. When people exploit figures like Jesus and our nation's founding fathers, what they are trying to do is solidify their argument by associating themselves, and beliefes, with god-like figures. It's kind of like saying "I studied political science so I know that this bill is bad for the American people." But in reality it only means that you studied political science, not that you know whether the bill is good or bad.

It is true that Jefferson was a proponent of revolutions, and I too am a person who believes revolutions are needed to uphold a strong democracy. I also believe I took part in one when I worked on Barack Obama's campaign. Now that was a revolution and revolt against the right-wing powers at be, who had raped the American people of their rights and liberties for eight years. And they will do it again, if the Americans who are on the fence in regard to the Obama administration, or easily manipulated by fear, buy into this movement that is nothing more than a right-wing reaction to a liberal president, which has happend to almost every Democratic president since FDR.

The good news is Paladino, even before these controversial emails were released, had no chance at winning the governor seat in New York, even with the mess that Paterson has created for Democrats. The last time these horse fuckers tried to get a candidate nominated they lost a seat to the Democrats in a congressional district that Republicans had owned for more than 100 years.

But if you're a Tea Bagger who is reading this don't concern yourself with Paladino's problems because he has already blamed the emails on the Democrats, which I believe is rule #1 in the Tea Bag handbook, "If all else fails, blame it on the Democrats."

Here is a brief rundown of the emails courtesy of Huffington Post:

- Ahead of Obama's swearing-in ceremony, Paladino sent around a video entitled "Obama Inauguration Rehearsal." The video shows an African tribesman dancing, and is apparently popular among white supremacists.
- An email with the subject line "Proof the Irish discovered Africa" containing a video of monkeys that appear to be doing a Riverdance-style jig.
- A video of a naked woman sent from a government email account.

Paladino's spokesman has since released this statement:

Carl Paladino has forwarded close friends hundreds of email messages he received. Many of these emails he received were off color, some were politically incorrect, few represented his own opinion, and almost none of them were worth remembering.

We're not surprised the political establishment feels threatened by Carl's drive the take Albany back for taxpayers. Our campaign won't be wading through the details of what is just another liberal Democrat blog smear. It figures that members of the Party who brought us record taxes, record spending and record debt would want to change the topic from reform to having sex with horses and S&M parlors.

Obama, Medvedev sign nuclear arms reduction treaty

Since the end of the Cold War, Americans and Russians have by and large not had to worry about the threat of a nuclear attack between the two superpowers. Now the two nations presidents, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, have signed a major nuclear arms control treaty that will further reduce nuclear stockpiles and launchers for both nations as the two work towards a world free of the "bomb."

"This day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia - the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons - to pursue responsible global leadership," Obama said after the signing.

The two presidents met in Prague today to sign the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - known as START - that builds on the previous agreement that expired in December. There had been a halt in talks over the new treaty, after Russian leaders became disgruntled when President Obama announced intentions to build a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe - specifically angered by news that Romania had agreed to let the U.S. build missile interceptors within their boarders.

But after a year of negotiations, the two sides reached an agreement that marks what President Obama called an effort to "reset" the U.S. relationship with Russia.

The new treaty limits both nations to 1,550 nuclear warheads within seven years. There are also limits on launchers and it creates a "verification regime" that includes on-site inspections, data exchanges and notifications. The treaty, however, does not "contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities."

"It significantly reduces missiles and launchers," Obama said of the new 10-year treaty. "It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."

"This agreement enhances strategic ability and, at the same time, allows us to rise to a higher level of cooperation between Russia and the United States," Medvedev said.

The signing of the treaty comes just days after President Obama announced a new plan to limit the conditions under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons. His decision is a dramatic shift from his predecessors view of how to use nuclear weapons and also intends to revamp our use of the weapon to deal with a new era in which terrorist organizations are a bigger threat than traditional powers. The new policy makes it so the U.S. will explicitly commit to not use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attack the U.S. with biological or chemical weapons. There will, however, be an exception for such nations as Iran and North Korea that have violated or ignored the treaty.

The new policies to reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles and redirect how we will use such weapons in the future, is part of President Obama's vision to rid the world of nuclear arms. While the president has struggled to pass many of his domestic policies and gain the trust of the white, working class voter since taking office, it is obvious that his skills on the world's stage are much stronger than had been argued by his Republican competitor during the 2008 election. Of course, maybe it just took a president that would open his ears and mind to reach out and work with the rest of the world leaders to ensure a more peaceful world.

March yields first significant job growth in three years

For the first time in three years, the American economy added a significant number of jobs since the Great Recession started, adding an estimated 162,000 jobs according to the Labor Department.

While many will view last months job growth as a step in the right direction, the unemployment rate stayed steady at 9.7 percent for the third month in a row. Economists have warned that the labor recovery will be slow.

Of the 162,000 jobs created last month, 123,000 were created in the private sector, while 48,000 positions were generated by the Census Bureau. The government also revised previous job numbers from January and February, saying the economy created 14,000 jobs in January instead of the losing 26,000 as originally reported. And in February, it shaved job loses from 28,0000 to 14,0000.

Since the beginning of the year, the economy added an average 54,000 jobs in the first quarter, which is a significant turnaround from losses averaging 752,700 jobs per month in the first quarter of 2009.

While it remains to be seen if these kind of numbers can continue to rise, it should be a positive sign to Americans that the economy is beginning to bounce back, especially considering that the Dow Jones gained 4.1 percent, its best first quarter performance since 1999. If the economy does continue to grow, even at a slow rate, it will be interesting to see how Tea Baggers spin this as being bad for the country - if anyone can make job growth look bad, or at least make themselves believe it is bad for the country, it is certainly the nuts on the right.

Drill Baby Drill: Obama announces intentions to end ban on offshore drilling

"Drill Baby Drill!" Is no longer the rallying cry of the Republican party but rather the Democrats, after President Barack Obama announced a new plan earlier today that would eliminate a decades-old ban on oil and gas drilling along much of America's coastal lines. The decision to drill along the American coast is part of a new bi-partisan effort by the president to win support for a energy and climate bill.

The policy change will allow drilling as close as 50 miles to the Virginia shore, and end a longstanding moratorium on drilling from Delaware to central Florida. Exploration would also be expanded in the Gulf of Mexico, including opening up regions in north Alaska.

"There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision," Obama said during a speech at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. "But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy."

The U.S. Atlantic coast is estimated to hold as much as 37 trillion cubic feet of gas and four billion barrels of oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

While this is a major blow to liberals who have fought against such offshore drilling for decades, including yours truly, on the bright side the legislation is not intended to take effect for decades and will also forbid drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay region (National Wildlife Refuge) and will uphold a moratorium on drilling off the West Coast.

This maneuver is obviously aimed at bringing on Republicans to help pass the president's highly coveted energy and climate bill. The president had hinted at such a move during his State of the Union address, but now that it could become a reality it holds a little more cache for the base of the party that has stood against such actions for decades. While it's extremely disappointing to hear of this decision, I do think the president is just trying to compromise while passing a bill he believes will help make us more energy independent and safeguard the environment for the future. While the president defends the decision as a sensible step towards energy independence, there is no way that we can drill our way out of the mess we currently find ourselves in - especially considering the coastal reserves only amount to two percent of the world's oil, while Americans consume 20 percent of world's oil each year.



Obama's speech did, however, include provisions meant to satisfy environmental groups, as The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department is finalizing increased fuel efficiency standards on new cars. The president also announced the addition of hybrid vehicles for government use that the U.S. military is currently developing. And most importantly the bill includes caps on carbon emissions, which many environmental groups believe is the key to slowing global warming. 

"Already, we've made the largest investment in clean energy in our nation’s history," Obama said. "It's an investment that’s expected to create or save more than 700,000 jobs across America: jobs manufacturing advanced batteries for more efficient vehicles, upgrading the power grid so that it’s smarter and stronger, and doubling our nation’s capacity to generate renewable electricity from sources like the wind and the sun."

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has said in the past that if the president would consider offshore drilling then the party could be open to working with him on his energy bill. Still one has to worry that once the coasts have been open to drilling, what will stop future Republican leaders from attempting to open up all of our coastal lines to the rich oil companies. While I support the health care bill because it does make health care a right and not a privilege for Americans, it was in the end a gift to the health insurance companies. And while I am in strong support of an energy bill, as I view it as not only protecting our environment for future generations but a way to make America a global super power for decades to come, I am very concerned about the power this puts in the hands of oil companies and future Republican administrations. It is just sad that liberals continue to have to make concessions on their core beliefs in order to motivate Republicans and moderate Democrats to move this country forward.

President Obama signs student loan reform, making college more affordable for students and families

While most Americans continue to deliberate the positive and negative affects that the historic health reform bill will have on our health care system, current and future college students and their families should be excited about the new legislation as the bill also invests in higher education that will make college more affordable.

The new legislation will not only invest in higher education, but it will also bring meaningful reform to the current student loan system. The bill will put an end to a system that used taxpayer money to subsidize private bank loans to students and reinvests those $68 billion in savings toward making college more affordable as well as reducing the deficit.

"For almost two decades, we’ve been trying to fix a sweetheart deal in federal law that essentially gave billions of dollars to banks to act as unnecessary middlemen in administering student loans. So those are billions of dollars that could have been spent helping more of our students attend and complete college; that could have been spent advancing the dreams of our children; that could have been spent easing the burden of tuition on middle-class families.  Instead, that money was spent padding student lenders’ profits," President Obama explained to students during a speech at Northern Virginia Community College. "Now, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that the big banks and financial institutions hired a army of lobbyists to protect the status quo.  In fact, Sallie Mae, America’s biggest student lender, spent more than $3 million on lobbying last year alone...By cutting out the middleman, we’ll save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years -- $68 billion.  That’s real money -- real savings that we’ll reinvest to help improve the quality of higher education and make it more affordable.”

Below are some of the highlights of how the bill will help students and families pay for college:

• Double funding for Pell Grants since President Obama took office, to ensure that all eligible students receive an award, and that grants keep pace with the rising cost of college
• Invest in community colleges to help an additional 5 million Americans earn degrees and certificates over the next decade
• Increase support for historically black colleges and universities and minority serving-institutions, which have been particularly hard hit by some of the challenges facing all universities, and account for nearly sixty percent of the 4.7 million minority undergraduates in our country.
• Ease loan repayment by capping student loan payments at 10 percent of a graduate's discretionary income, with any remaining balance forgiven after 20 years. And those who go into public service after graduation can have their loans forgiven after 10 years.
• End government subsidies given to financial institutions that make student loans, switching to direct loans. This saves nearly $68 billion for college affordability.

President Obama makes surprise visit to Afghanistan

President Obama made a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where he met with President Hamid Karzai and American troops earlier today.

The trip was Obama's first visit to Afghanistan, where he has heightened American military efforts in recent months by adding a surge of 30,000 American troops much along the same lines of the effort exhibited in Iraq during the Bush Administration. 

And the heightened effort by the America troops was one of the main reasons Obama made the trip,

"One of the main reasons I'm here is to just say thank you for the incredible efforts of our US troops and our coalition partners. They make tremendous sacrifices far away from home, and I want to make sure they know how proud their commander-in-chief is of them," Obama said.

Obama later spoke to approximately 2,000 soldiers in Bagram, thanking them for their service.

Obama also found time to speak with President Karzai for about 25-30 minutes. The administration has criticized Karzai's rule as corrupt and ineffective in the past. Karzai won reelection last August, in an election that was marred in fraud and corruption, making the administration wonder if he was capable of uniting the people of Afghanistan. 

It does appear that the president is keeping his eye on Karzai, especially since his decision to deploy additional troops to the war torn country. I do hope he is keeping Karzai on a short leash because if he can't control his own administration, how in the world is Obama gonig to entrust turning the country over to him? For it is he we are entrusting in rebuilding the military, uniting the people and running the country once we leave in July 2011, and right now it is not a promising prospect.

While the issue of Karzai's leadership is a major concern for every party involved in the war, it was good to see the commander-in-chief show up and support the troops for which he put in harms way.