Conservative Purification of Federal Employees: the satire in Candidate Gingrich’s ideological war on Americans!

Keywords or Terms: Conservatives, Liberals; ‘Revamp and Standardize’; Republican Aspirant; Federal Employees; Federal Retirees; Office of Personnel Management; “President Gingrich”; January, 2013; FOX NEWS; Reverend Mike Huckabee; Dictator; Committee of Conservative Republicans; and Conservative-Values Board of Assessment for Federal Employees”

Candidate Gingrich wants to ‘revamp and standardize’ public policy on employment according to the epistle of the new right conservative messiah. To purify the nonsensical liberal leanings of federal employees or to ensure that federal employees are not, and do not, turn 'lefties' or share liberal views, let's terminate any suspected federal employees of this unacceptable crime! Here comes the McCarthy era all over again: “By all means possible, let’s drop the lefties under the bus, whether illegal or not!” To ensure federal employees are qualified and a good fit for the touted conservative values shared by candidate Newt Gingrich, let’s screen them for their personal views. Let’s schedule their appointment, retention, advancement or termination not for their ability to perform the duties as contained in their job’s description, but for their individual and personal views.

Former Speaker of the United State’s House of Representatives wants to fire public employees based on personal views. Given the choice, Newt Gingrich, one of the Republican aspirants for the November 8, 2012 Presidential contest, wants to terminate public employees with liberal views. As if playing to the fancy of conservative wing of the Republican party and viewers of Reverend Mike Huckabee program on FOXNEWS, Speaker Gingrich says: “I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal employees delivering the right services in a highly efficient way and then wants to get rid of those folks who are in fact wasteful, or those people who want to frankly dictate to the rest of us,” Gingrich said in response to a question from a federal employee at the forum.” According to the great and probably most adulterous Republican candidate to ever run this decade, with lackluster performances in the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary, who is trying to woo the conservative Republican voters in South Carolina, any Federal Employee with ideological left leaning, should be shown the door.

Inferring from his pronouncement, Gingrich wants Office of Personnel Management, directors, mangers and supervisors to check for the liberal views of their staff based on a conservative barometer that determines who is essentially conservative enough to work for the federal government. The new conservative barometer to be initiated by “President Newt Gingrich” would standardize the evaluation and retention of federal employees based on a conservative calibrator! A calibrator crafted by the Republican conservatives for the rest of us; and, if we don’t meet up to who is conservative enough, show us the door from federal employment service. The self-identified conservative, but not so favored Republican aspirant for nomination for the 2012 November contest, will like to eliminate all liberal views and values in any federal government agency and re-affirm the chastity of being conservative!

Reverend Mike Huckabee gave Newt Gingrich enough time to represent himself on his show on Saturday; and, did he truly offer some insightful comments that will startle any employment lawyer or make a Judge on the Federal or state court circuits or bench go comatose. “President Gingrich” wants office of personnel management to participate in personnel actions against employees, contrary to the current provisions of employment laws, never to advance or terminate employees based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicapping condition, marital status, or political affiliation. “President Gingrich” wants to hire and fire federal employees, use a webcam to check and score federal employees for their conservative or non-conservative (liberal) views – that’s the new America to look forward to in January, 2013. 

To overcome the messy experience of firing the Air Controllers under President Reagan, “President Gingrich” wants to second guess or get ahead of the Federal Employees, by ensuring that they are conservative enough to occupy a federal post, from the mail room guy to the Secretary of the Agency! “President Gingrich” wants a platform for interviewing prospective federal employees using the conservative philosophical ideology in lieu of existing legal employment framework and laws. The Office of Personnel Management has to fill future positions in federal employment based on the conservative values of the Republican Party and prescription of the new “President Gingrich” come January 2013. 

In the opinion of the 67 year-old former speaker of the House, employment, retention and promotion of Federal Employees have not been essentially conservative enough; he would like to try a process that ensures that employees that seem to be liberal leaning in their thinking or writing, can easily be terminated without due process. For the soon to be “President Gingrich”, the fact that we have some liberal federal employees, is too disheartening and unacceptable. Given the forthcoming change, the soon to be enthroned “President Gingrich” will establish a committee of conservative Republicans to conduct periodic oversight over all Federal Agencies regarding how conservative enough they are; or, to what degree they deviate from conservative values as prescribed by him and his cohorts; majority of whom may be Tea Party members. 

“President Gingrich” wants to encourage hiring and firing of federal employees based on the prescription of Tea baggers! Since liberal leaning federal employees seem to be obstructionists on the job, it is better to implement this new order of business, where all federal employees will swear to an oath to uphold the conservative doctrine of ‘hear no evil, see no evil or say no evil’ of any employees or policies that are in proper conservative status as determined by the Republican “President Gingrich”. If a liberal leaning employee is identified after employment into federal service, it is the duty of other vetted and ascertained conservatives in federal employment to expose this employee as not being conservative enough at all cost. To improve the employment process into federal service, “President Gingrich” wants to interview prospective employees into federal service based on conservative-friendly questionnaires that are to be prescribed and implemented in secrecy; or, with content firmly entrenched in conservative values; and newly employed federal employees “determined” as conservative enough to retain their various positions based on their hierarchical position on the ladder of conservativeness. 

Exploring conservativeness, through the use of kitchen-cabinet questionnaires prescribed by the newly inaugurated “President Gingrich”, is not only in order; it is the sin-qua-non of any recruitment into federal service come January 2013. A termination letter must be issued to existing federal employees who fail to measure up to the conservative threshold duly identified and prescribed by “President Gingrich” and his cabinet. Generally, all entry-level federal employees must gather in the ‘hall of conservativeness’ in all federal agencies to receive training, conferences or workshop on the first day of employment, on the expected conservative values of federal employment. All federal employees will be expected to receive guidelines on adherence to conservative values. In situations, where the mid-career federal employees are found to be slacking-off on conservative values, they must be interviewed, re-trained and intermittently monitored by the soon to be newly established “Conservative-Values Board of Assessment for Federal Employees” under the conservative icon, “President Gingrich”! 

In daily round of conservative pep-talk to be given-out on a roaster of morning assemblies’ at all federal agencies, federal employees are expected to imbibe the newly introduced ethos of conservativeness as espoused by “President Gingrich”. All truly identified and ascertained conservative federal employees are superior to all others. They must lead the conservative training workshops on how to be conservative enough; and, offer opportunities to show their dedication regarding advancements and promotions on federal employment. As part of the federal agencies' advancement credo, all federal employees are expected to discuss conservative thoughts and offer reactions suitable for maintaining the conservative ethos as prescribed by “President Gingrich.” Regional Directors of Federal Agencies are compelled to use a weekly camera session to link and bring all federal employees in their domain, to ensure that that ethos of conservativeness are alive and thriving under “President Gingrich”! 

When working with federal employees suspicious of having left leaning and liberal values, the essence of conservativeness must be espoused and reiterated by the most highly conservative staff in the department. For example, all liberal judges, who are suspected of attempting to re-write federal laws through their rulings; and, who are out of line with conservatively-accepted values of his royal highness, the doyen of conservative values, “President Gingrich”, will be replaced. Just as a liberal Judge can and must be replaced under the newly introduced conservative-enough barometers, efforts must be made to terminate judges on the federal bench, who may be suspected of promoting liberal values in their rulings or judgments. It is hoped that through the new dispensation under “President Gingrich” many federal employees and Americans will become more conservative. 

Former federal employees, who have retired with full-benefits, who were suspected to have been liberal or held lefties-views, must be informed through the federal gazette that their meritorious services were lacking of conservativeness; and, as such will be ducked in their retirement payments for lacking the quality of a well deserved retirement benefits for former federal officials with the duly acceptable conservative values. The conservative federal officials will compile the list of less conservative former federal employees and the right-wing media will read-off their names on daily bulletin immediately after the inauguration of “President Gingrich”. 

N.B: 

For those federal employees and retirees, who are alarmed by the new pronouncement of the former speaker on Saturday, and future “Dictator President Gingrich”, never worry; don’t be alarmed, Newt has the slightest and probably the least likely prospect to get through Florida primary. In short, he has a zero chance of being the Republican nominee comes November, 2012. Finally, this nightmare of a politician and Republican candidate is a star gazer, who is just holding on to the thread of survival in a very brutal nomination process for the Republican flag-bearer for the 2012 general elections.

Venture Capitalist or Vulture Capitalist: What category does Bain Capital fall into?

Keywords or terms: Venture Capitalism; Vulture Capitalist; Bain Capital; Mitt Romney; Rick Perry; Job loss; Unemployment line; DDi Corporation; Heartless and Brutal Candidate; Unfounded job's creation number; Private Equity Firm; Financial Regulations Exploitation

In the current Republication nomination race for the November 2012 contest, we are in confusion at best. Many Republican voters are paying attention to what the candidates are saying, how they say it, who is saying what, where it is being said, and which of the candidates we cannot afford to ignore. Remember Rick Perry? The candidate that cannot remember all the three federal agencies he is going to eradicate if he ever became the President of the United States? Yes, that Governor from the lone star state introduced two lexicons to the vocabulary of political gurus who have been tracking what the candidates are saying. This time, the lexicons are Venture Capitalism or Vulture Capitalism. These lexicons would have been a mouthful for a Democrat; but here again, the Republicans are doing the dirty job for us. Bravo!

It is the difference between the two differential lexicons used to describe the front runner for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, which continues to bemuse many of us: Is the governor of the lone star state describing his opponent as a vulture? Wow, One ready to dismember companies, turn a huge load of employees to the Unemployment line, make a quick profit and move on to the next? Is the governor of the lone star state cautioning the voters that Mitt Romney is in the business of destroying jobs and not creating any? What about that branding of: I am the job creator and President Obama is killing jobs? Is that brand tainted? Is that brand completely worthless by now? What must Republican voters be thinking at this time: Are we about to nominate a cold hearted, probable heartless and brutal candidate, who enjoys firing workers to represent us in the coming November contest? Are we about to open the oval office to a man that drove miles with his family dog on the roof of a car, to suffer the pains and pangs of the adversities of weather? Are Republicans so desperate to the extent that they will choose a candidate that would rather look out for his pocket and his venture capitalist partners than the larger interest of the nation’s workforce?

I once talked with a CEO of a private equity firm and all he says he is in the business of, is: how to hunt down another failing or about to fail firm, restructure it or pay someone to restructure it; and if impossible, tear the damn thing down and sell it in pieces. He talks about the essence of making companies work efficiently and if they don’t, so be it; we’ll take our money and head out to the next company. “Our job is not solely to make all companies turn out profit to their investors or employees; rather, it is to satisfy our interest to make a quick one, even at the expense of employees.” The business demands dedicated CEO’s with a pennant for turning companies around, off-loading workforce where and when necessary; and, occasionally, if expedient, to look out for making more or the hugest returns or profit for the private equity firm. This is probably what many Americans may find despicable, as they determine that these venture capitalist firms are hardly interested in the total package except for one thing: Making a quick buck under high pressure, and where possible, which is often, blasting off with millions into their bank accounts, without caring whose loin is being gutted.

It isn’t the successes of capitalism that many observers are against or frown on; rather, it is the brutal consequences of these equity firms practices as they go about marauding firms, destroying lives by terminating companies’ employees and damaging the communities they leave behind. It isn’t the huge profits that the equity firms enjoy that the public denounce; or the expansive nature of the unusual restructuring once an equity firm takes over a company’s management; rather, it is how cold hardheartedly each of these marauding equity firms damage our communities, our states and our beloved America. There is nothing wrong in making an inefficient firm work better. Unfortunately, there is a lot to loose, when the private equity firm fails to have the patience to understand what exactly are the problems leading to a company's inefficiency; and making effort to resolve them and or getting the troubled firm back on its feet. The private equity firms are torch and go, and this is probably what Governor Rick Perry and many fair minded people find unacceptable in the way, an equity firm once led by Mitt Romney, go about its business. To Governor Perry and other Republican contestants: Romney and his ilk are hardly Venture Capitalist, but Vulture Capitalist! This depiction is damning to say the least; however, it may be irrelevant regarding Republican voters' choice of a candidate to represent their interest in the November, 2012 contest.

At this time in the race, Governor Romney has described his critical opponents, as frustrated and offering their criticisms out of desperation. Romney's assessment may have some credence; however, the opponents' criticisms are not without merit. How can Governor Romney explain away how he still retains over 1.3 million shares of DDi Corporation, a corporation that was restructured by Bain Capital, decade after he was away from Bain’s management? Romney has been calculated to have netted millions from DDi restructuring and massive employees layoff, even years after he had left the management of Bain Capital? Has Romney reflected over how many jobs were lost, lives destroyed and wealth amassed in his multiple acquisitions, management and demises of many American corporations? Will Governor Romney agree that he did not create 100,000 jobs as recently claimed after being exposed that he once said he created 10,000 jobs in an earlier campaign run for Senate against Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts? The more the governor continues to make inconsistent statements or statements that look more like falsification of record, the more people find him as incredible and a flip flopper! This type behavior does not auger well for any candidate seeking the highest office in the land.

Will the evidence of slash and burn practices engaged by Romney and Bain Capital absolve him of thriving at the expense of the working class? Can a leader who has been associated with ruthless business practices worthy of the office of the Presidency? Can Romney’s devious, untruthful, two-faced behavior and practices be triggered off when elected into the office of the Presidency? What does the future hold for American workers, if their elected President chooses to practice the profit first and people last doctrine that has netted him and his cohorts millions at the expenses of workers? Can Governor Romney get before a crowd of Mormons and or all Americans and testify that he has not assuage the rights of employees in many of the companies he has been involved in restructuring? Even worse, can the Governor attest that he has not done one of the current contestants for the Republican nomination wrong in Iowa through his PAC advertisements? These are unavoidable questions that need answers from the potential Republican nominee and flag bearer in the November 2012 contest for the White House's oval office.

  

In campaign politics, voters expect high integrity of the candidate seeking their support. Voters expect that candidates do not embellish their past records of claims. Further, voters frown over candidate's claims that weaken their credibility; or, position the candidate in poor light towards the contest. In addition, whether voters increase their financial contributions or not to a candidate's campaign chest, depends on how credibly they perceive the candidate's message. It is perhaps feasible, that once voters notice that a candidate is untruthful, has credibility issues, they begin to shy away from him or her and instantly withhold further monetary contributions. When you are in a campaign mode, everything a candidate says must not be found in a gossip fodder. Many of the claims made by Romney and many of the candidates on the Republican campaign trail are being vetted by some independent organizations who are now serving as the people's watchdog. A few of the vetting organizations have even introduced credibility index measure that makes some of the candidate’s claim laughable. Candidates must realize that voters will hardly offer their support or money, when words coming out of the candidate’s mouth are hardly substantiated and or, looks more like embellishments.

Many voters hardly put stock in a politician seeking office with incredible and devious claims. When devious records or unsubstantial claims are flagged, candidate had better correct the records or they become laughing stock to the voters and public. For example, a candidate that is part of a religion that castigates the black race as evil cast of Cain, who hold firm to this belief and broadcasted the same in France and any other places he was engaged in missionary work for his religion, lacks the upper moral grounds to claim that he is a changed person and hardly subscribes to this religious bigotry. A candidate must avoid operating in a vacuum or assume that he can easily paper over his past, simply because he is a front runner. For Governor Romney to claim that his Mormon religion hardly has a bearing on his way of life or how he directs the affairs of his political office seems somehow unreal, especially when people are circumspect regarding what his religion is all about? To be truly upfront with the voters, a candidate must endeavor to make clear his stand, even on issues of corporate corruption and immigration. Candidate Obama gave a speech regarding the views of his past pastor while he was seeking the office of the Presidency in 2008; and, did not shy away from voters' reservation regarding the issues of race relation in America. Romney may want to borrow a leaf from candidate Obama on this one; and, some other issues regarding his candidacy, even within his political party.

Making inconsistent or incorrect statements that make the candidate seem like a fair-weather friend or a flip flopper, hardly portrays the candidate as honest, dependent and reliable in the position of political authority. Many observers suspect that Mitt Romney has taken time to probe all the skeletons in his cupboard regarding his claims or assertions regarding his candidacy for the office of the President. It is not enough to be a Republican Party front runner; or, touted as most likely to beat President Obama come November 2012 contest for the White House? A promising candidate’s past endeavors or engagement in the position of authority may be frowned upon; especially, when they are perceived to be on the wrong side of the welfare of ordinary people. No one wants a heartless and in-compassionate leader in the oval office. There are zillion of candidates who want to occupy the office of the Presidency; however, very few of them can qualify based on past or previous leadership activities and or experience. It is not that voters, especially Republicans, cannot appreciate previous efforts by Romney to turn around failing companies or the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City; it is the fact that there are other leadership and religious issues that continue to dog his candidacy, especially when and where he offers dubious explanations like corporations are people and he enjoys firing people?

For whatever reasons, many Republicans are still attuned to another candidate but Mitt Romney. If the Governor is very logical and objective, he must ask himself, why are his party's members not completely or truly embracing his candidacy? Why has his candidacy not muster a threshold of support of more than thirty percent or so, among Republicans? Why are conservative Christian groups considering his candidacy as a sham as his religion is suspected to be a cult? Answers to these questions, will enable him re-write or burnish the script for his candidature. For now, being a venture capitalist at Bain Capital may not be working for him, based on what is being reported as his activities and experience as the CEO of that equity firm. He may choose to ignore the current criticisms regarding his stewardship at Bain Capital; however, in a national contest, he can be rest assured that more information regarding his behavior, personality and religion would be dogged out by the Democrats; and, more questions asked of the wonder boy of Vulture Capitalism; oh, excuse me, Venture Capitalism!

Iowa Caucuses Results: Romney isn’t better than Santorum?

Keywords or Terms: Mitt Romney (First); Rick Santorum (Second); Ron Paul (Third); Newt Gingrich (Forth), Rick Perry (Fifth); Michelle Bachmann (Sixth); Huntsman (Seventh); Social Issue; Born-Again Evangelical Christians; Mormonism; Iowa; New Hampshire; South Carolina; Florida

For more than four years, Mitt Romney campaigned for the office of the Presidency, yet he came just slightly ahead of Rick Santorum as one of the Republicans seeking that highest office in the land. The conversation today could have focused on the performance of a unique candidate in the Iowa Republican primary and a documentation of hard data, but the time is not yet ripe to talk about that. What is upper most at this time, is to reiterate some questions again: Is Santorum the counter weight to Romney? Will Rick Santorum draw Romney into a Social debate on Abortion and other respective issues that Santorum has made part of the basis of his candidacy? Is Santorum the answer from the Born-Again Evangelical Christians to Mormon Mitt Romney? The answers to these questions may be provided in the coming months; but what we know from Iowa Caucuses is that the Republican flag bearer is hardly settled at this time.

It seemed it was a virtual tie for a long time between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney on primary results across Iowa; however, late data has shown that a rematch in New Hampshire Primary may help Republicans get their bearing better than Iowa. And if not, maybe the primary results from South Carolina or Florida primaries will shed more light on which of the Republican aspirants will get to carry the Republican flag. With 99% Iowa precincts reporting, here is the break down of the result:  Rick Santorum (30, 007 – 25%); Mitt Romney (30,015 – 25%); Ron Paul (26,219 – 21%); Newt Gingrich (16,251 – 13%); Rick Perry (12.592 -10%); Michelle Bachmann (6070 – 5%); and Huntsman ( 744 – 1%). Although Santorum may be at a disadvantage in going on because of the size of his campaign war chest, it is likely this result is a positive sign for Republicans who seek an alternative to Mitt Romney. What may the result mean for others who could hardly care about Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum?

The first message from the Iowa caucuses is that mainstream Republicans in the heartland of America are still looking for that ideal candidate that will replace Mitt Romney. Second, the Born-Again Evangelical Christians find it difficult to vote for Mormon Mitt Romney. Is religion a very important variable in American Politics; or, has the nation actually buried that bias with JFK?  Are Social issues more or less relevant in modern day Republican nomination process?  Is there really a paucity of Reaganomics Republicans who can take the mantle to fight for the so touted Republican ideals? The complex problem surrounding the economy is number one for many Americans; however, does a campaign strictly based on the question of job creation or social issues translate into votes against President Obama? Can Rick Santorum put together  grassroots support in South Carolina and Florida to flush down Mitt Romney? Will another candidate from the old conservative wing of the Republican Party rise to throw a huge wrench into the puzzle?

We have seen in the past when an obscure candidate in States' primaries, jump in front out of nowhere, challenging the status-quo or probably the front-runner candidate, the process of nomination becomes more fascinating and the public may enter into a state of despair over who is likely to be the flag bearer. Iowa’s Republicans answered some rather muddy questions and some of them are: 1) Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann are not ready for prime time Presidential campaign and nomination process; 2) Mud slinging campaign tactics can bring out a tough meanness in a presidential aspirant – ask Newt what he thinks about Mitt after the Iowa caucuses?; 3) Ron Paul is a little bit too extreme for many Republicans, if not the whole of America; 5) Rick Santorum re-asserts the conviction that retail politics, face-to-face campaigns, down to the door steps of the voters do produce essential results – though time and labor intensive, retail politics is the real deal! Come tomorrow, we may get some candidates dropping out of the nomination process, while others will choose to move ahead. Today's result emphatically shows that the process of nomination for the highest office as construed by Iowans, works

Within the next few months, blood-letting among the Republican aspirants will offer the Democrats the opportunity to see how voters perceive either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum as viable candidate for the highest office in the land? Republicans are being told that the old rules hardly apply anymore. Where the winning candidates are not exactly what the hard core Godfathers of the party are looking for, change or hiccups may develop in the nomination process; and, this may spell other challenges for the party and insiders regarding who becomes the party's flag bearer in a general election? Six months from now, the myth may explode, but until then, we are all left with the realities of what the Iowa primary has or are forcing the Godfathers in the Republican Party to deal with? The results from the Iowa caucuses may be cuddled by some very hard core supporters of Mitt Romney; however, there is a huge faction of Republicans who don’t want Mitt Romney to be the nominee and who will insist that an alternative candidate steps in to deal with what seem to be an impending nightmare. By October 2012, the difficult experience of ascertaining what Iowa's true result actually means will have been settled and the battle for the oval office begin. Hopefully, Republicans will have their somewhat consensus party flag bearer, by then.

Democrats need to understand that the Iowa caucuses results are actually good news. Here are Republicans quite unsure if they actually want their front runner or not; or, whether they would rather wait for results from other State’s primaries or caucuses to stand firm on their party’s flag bearer. If Republicans want to generate good favor, they may as well go along with whoever of the candidates that seem to be garnering the necessary fellowship to be the flag bearer; or as some put it: “the likely Republican candidate that can unseat President Obama.” Intra-party acrimony will do the Republicans no good after the bad blood between Mitt and Newt from the way the former ran his campaign in Iowa; or, how the Mitt Romney’s or Ron Paul’s PAC ran the mudslinging bonanza that probably skewed the result towards specific candidates.

Democrats must set up a triage to determine who is going to be the Republican flag bearer. Democrats must take from the lesson of Candidate Obama’s 2008 nomination as the flag bearer for their party. If Democrats want to infer from the Republican’s Iowa’s caucuses result, the choice of the party’s Godfathers may not end up being the flag bearer for the Party in the general election. Further, the front runner in any primary is beatable by other aspirants; and, the fact that a presumptive candidate may loose or given the run for his or her money, is not only plausible, it must be expected. To develop a strategy that will address the not so perfect state caucus results from Iowa, where the first or winning candidate only led the second candidate by 8 votes, will be challenging but will be interesting for all political gurus. Everyday henceforth, Democrats must now believe that they have a better chance than yesterday, as the winning and plausible Republican nominees are known to have said things like, Corporations are also people and Obama always sided with America's enemies? Haba, A treasonable President, Mr. Santorum?

Obama’s campaign team do not need to develop a campaign strategy that counters Mitt Romney argument for his candidacy for the office; rather, a broad based campaign strategy that anticipates another candidate like Rick Santorum or any other Republican. The answer to the question who is President Obama likely to face from the Republican Party maybe challenging for now; however, in another three months we will get a clearer view of what is coming before us. State primaries or caucus may not provide quick answer to the question of who is likely to be the opposition candidate. Voters at primaries or caucuses tend to junk or embrace a candidate depending on what ensues from debates and subsequent state’s primary results. No candidate must rest on his oars, as the battle for Party’s nomination hardly emerges, until the fat lady sings; in other words, as Yogi said: It is not over until it is over! Goodnight.

HAPPY NEW YEAR: 2012!!!

Welcome to a New Beginning. The blog that prides itself on quality writing, promises to work hard to be more entertaining this year. Readers expect the best from our entries and we promise not to let them down. We are opportunistic in terms of seeking out issues that hold the attention of many readers, especially audience away from the strictly academic belt-way.

We learned so much about the passing of health care reform law, Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and environmental damage from BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the past two years, this year our entries will focus on the 2012 Presidential Elections, with some sprinklings of personal and human stories that challenge the depth of our being.

We hope to grow and learn together this year and probably understand better, how our Presidents are elected and the politics of vote harvesting and probably intra-party politicking or mudslinging in the bid to win electoral votes. The first State Caucusing, Iowa's, would be holding in another two days. Expect some entries regarding the winners and losers in not so distant dates in the not so perfect grassroots electioneering and campaign efforts.

We will make effort not to be lopsided in our discussions and forthright in our assessments of what the candidates are promising America. Stay tuned and enjoy the rest of the first day of the New Year.