Secretary and the function of every Agency

DSWD - Corazon juliano N.Soliman

- Has been acknowledge as the lead agency in basic social services. Through its 30 years existence. It has agency basics so it has operated under varied structures as been called by different names.

Department of foreign affairs-Delia Domingo Albert

-Uses a set of independent variables to separate cases based on groups you define.

DOH - Manuel Dayrit

- Child and family services agency. Health and medical services provides coordinated district assistance and resources to respond to public health and medical care needs following a public emergency.

DOJ - Raul Gonzales

Provision of legal services to all government owned and controlled corporations. Their subsidiaries, other corporate offspring’s and government acquired asset corporation.

DENR - Elisea Gozun

The director for  disaster and Emergency response will become the directory of the DRC upon its activation.

DAR- Horacio Morales

Its serves as the current national agenda for sustainable development.

DND-Avelino J.Cruz J.r

The one who provided low of the government.

Deped - Edilberto De Jose

The CSCA, in consultation with the Bureaus and centers of pupil student co-curricular activities

DBM - MS. Bongodin

The forum aimed to provide policy guidelines and procedures in the preparation.

DOT - Roberto Pagdanganan

The office of the secretary provides leader,direction and substance to the overall operations.

DTI - Cesar V. Purisima

- Has thrown its support behind a plan to establish a regional economic zone.

DILG - Angelito Reyes

- It is hereby declared the policy of the state to protect the people.

DPWH - Florante Soriquez

Senator

The function of the senators are the one who create laws like the congressmen.

Ralph Recto, Manuel Villar, Mar Roxas, Pia Cayetano, Miriam Santiago, Bong Revilla, Ping lacson, Aquilino Pimentel, Alfredo lim, Jinggoy Estrada, Franklin Drilon, Robert Gordo, Kiko Pangilinan, Sergion Osmeña, Ed Angara, Juan Javier, Rodolfo Biazon, Lito Lapid, Joker Arroyo.

Today I read an article in our local newspaper that stated an independent research organization was commissioned to study whether the left leaning MSNBC has influenced the parent NBC network and moved their reporting more to the left. The study proved that MSNBC had not influenced NBC in that the NBC news coverage was not “less favorable toward republicans than the media as a whole.”

I find the wording remarkable. The organization doing the study must have a bit more ethics than expected, since the study was careful not to say that the reporting was unbiased. It just stated that it was no more biased than the media as a whole. I am certain the media would have preferred the report to say that news reporting was not biased.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find any political news report that is not biased. Those news organizations that favor republicans will spin news reports in the favor of republicans, and those that favor democrats will slant in that direction. Unless it is directly quoted, a report of a Republican or Democrat speech will look entirely different depending upon the bias of the news organization, and most organizations will not directly quote unless the quote exemplifies their position or can be used to ridicule. But all media organizations want people to assume their news reports to be unbiased, and their opinions to be limited to the editorial comments.

So when NBC commissioned a study of their news reporting, the study group had to provide a report that was not critical of NBC. And finding that NBC news was no worse than any other news media was an acceptable conclusion. Think of how simple things would be if all groups or individuals performing studies or reviews would take the same tact. A restaurant reviewer could find that Joe’s Gourmet Grill is no worse than any other restaurant of that type, or a auto service reviewer could find that one automobile dealer is no worse than any other. This simplicity could even extend to the school report cards, as the teacher’s report could easily state that one child was no worse than any other.

But it would really benefit the public if during elections years, such as this one, reports would conclude that one candidate is no worse than any other. Then, perhaps, media news reports would concentrate on providing information on important issues so the voting public could get accurate unbiased information.

Yeah OB is outspending McCain and not pulling the lead by that much in Pennsylvania or elsewhere in the country. He averages a 2-5 pts lead depending on which poll you look at. Polls are not generally to be relied on but they do give some indication of the way things are going. Much depends on the questions and manner in which they are worded.

With all the spending and the money raised and the hoopla to get out the vote it is interesting that his lead is so little.

Could it be that his lies are finally coming out? Is he lying when he says 250K is the rich threshold? He has said after all just a few months back that 217K would be the threshold. He was said no one would receive a tax increase now he says it will be a tax cut.

Lately his campaign has lowered threshold to 200K and Biden even said 140K. Which is nearer what Dems usually say is rich anything over 100K. In fact just last year both Biden and Obama voted to raise taxes on those earning over 42K.

Well friends, 100K is not poor but it is closer to middle class than ever. In about 5 years 100K will be the lower middle and poor will be at 60K. Who would have thought you could be poor at 35K? In many parts of the country 60K is not enough for one income.

In 2010 the tax cuts that were passed in Congress will be up for vote to extend. Obama will not want those tax cuts extended and most Democrats do not want the tax cuts extended. When those are reversed then that is a TAX INCREASE.

Be careful what you wish for. LOOK at the e voting record and look at what is planned.

When wishing businesses to take it on the chin and pay for more you are really saying tax ME more. Where do you think biz gets tax revenue? It’s not from their profits it’s from the taxes they collect.

Add up your taxes now. Those taxes you have right now federally were scheduled b Democrats to be removed and revert to prior years rates. They fought to keep those tax cuts away from you.

So far we have tax increased by 2010 on the poor as well as middle and upper class. WE have social security increases and we have capital gains increases and estate tax increases.

I don’t see any plans to cut spending by Obama. Not only that with the economy having problems this last couple of months we are looking at a recession that if government messes with it too much could cause a DEPRESSION. What could they do? They could RAISE taxes in a recession which by historic example makes the problem worse. ALWAYS.

Yeah OB is outspending McCain and not pulling the lead by that much in Pennsylvania or elsewhere in the country. He averages a 2-5 pts lead depending on which poll you look at. Polls are not generally to be relied on but they do give some indication of the way things are going. Much depends on the questions and manner in which they are worded.

With all the spending and the money raised and the hoopla to get out the vote it is interesting that his lead is so little

Could it be that his lies are finally coming out? Is he lying when he says 250K is the rich threshold? He has said after all just a few months back that 217K would be the threshold. He was said no one would receive a tax increase now he says it will be a tax cut.

Lately his campaign has lowered threshold to 200K and Biden even said 140K. Which is nearer what Dems usually say is rich anything over 100K. In fact just last year both Biden and Obama voted to raise taxes on those earning over 42K.

Well friends, 100K is not poor but it is closer to middle class than ever. In about 5 years 100K will be the lower middle and poor will be at 60K. Who would have thought you could be poor at 35K? In many parts of the country 60K is not enough for one income.

In 2010 the tax cuts that were passed in Congress will be up for vote to extend. Obama will not want those tax cuts extended and most Democrats do not want the tax cuts extended. When those are reversed then that is a TAX INCREASE.

Be careful what you wish for. LOOK at the e voting record and look at what is planned.

When wishing businesses to take it on the chin and pay for more you are really saying tax ME more. Where do you think biz gets tax revenue? It’s not from their profits it’s from the taxes they collect.

Add up your taxes now. Those taxes you have right now federally were scheduled b Democrats to be removed and revert to prior years rates. They fought to keep those tax cuts away from you.

So far we have tax increased by 2010 on the poor as well as middle and upper class. WE have social security increases and we have capital gains increases and estate tax increases.

I don’t see any plans to cut spending by Obama. Not only that with the economy having problems this last couple of months we are looking at a recession that if government messes with it too much could cause a DEPRESSION. What could they do? They could RAISE taxes in a recession which by historic example makes the problem worse. ALWAYS.

The days are winding down. We have a little more then a week to go when we elect a new leader for this great nation we live in. As the time gets closer, the mudslinging only seems to get worse. Everyday something new seems to pop up about one candidate or the the other.

Yesterday we heard how much our hockey mom, Sara Palin, spent on her campaign wardrobe. She claims to be just the average American Walmart shopper. According to the media, she spent thousands of dollars at an upscale Minneapolis store for clothes for her and her family, during the Republican National Convention. Now let’s be honest with ourselves, Sara Palin can’t be out on the campaign trail wearing Walmart apparel. It just wouldn’t fit the position she’s running for. I don’t believe Walmart carries apparel for the executive woman anyway, especially one who may be the next vice president of the United States.

A couple of days ago, Joe Biden’s medical records were released and a question came up about some major surgery he had about 20 years ago. It was being questioned if this is something that could come back. We never know what could come up with our health. Someone who has been healthy all their life suddenly drops dead of a heart attack. John McCain’s melanoma was also brought up. We’re are all vulnerable as far as our health is concerned. We have the best health care facilities available to us, but there’s no 100 percent guarantee that something totally unexpected can come up. Life is full of surprises, some good, some not so good. We take what comes along and deal with it the best we can.

The phone calls that come to our homes from campaign volunteers are very annoying. If they were just about the get out and vote issue, it wouldn’t be bad. Most of them though, are just another smear attack, and some of them are downright vicious. It’s very sad I feel, to ask these volunteers to make these types of phone calls to Americans homes.

Even vandalism has hit the homes of some of our politicians. In Minneapolis alone, six homes of congressional members were sprayed painted with political attacks. Haven’t we had just about enough of this now?

As we wind down towards election day, shouldn’t we be focusing on the important issues that are facing this nation, instead of Sara Palins appearance on Saturday Night Live? Is this really going to make a difference in how the upcoming president is going to govern?

The candidates that are running for political offices want to win. As we near election day, it looks like they’re going to do everything and anything possible to accomplish that. If the strategy of vicious political attacks on each other is all that’s left to complete their mission, it looks like that’s the route they will take. Good, bad, or ugly, they have one goal in mind, and that is victory.

Maybe when election day rolls around in another four years, a new theme will be divised to win, instead of constant mudslinging. Thar’s probably not a very realistic possibilty, but wouldn’t it be nice if it was?

Have you ever thought that the US ever had so many days we celebrate? I have written about 38, but going over and over again to learn about history, I’m learning there are many new holidays and days coming to our calendar soon. Here are a few of the calendar days as well as federal days.

a. Thanksgiving                                                              
b. Christmas                                                                      
c. Independence day                                      
d. Memorial day                                                          
e. Labor day                                                             
f. mothers day                                                
g. fathers day                                                       
h. Valentines day                                                     
i. Hanukkah
j. Kwanzaa
k. Uniform holidays bill
l. Veterans day
m. New years day
n. Martin Luther king Jr.
o. Inauguration Day
p. Columbus Day
q. Columbus Day
r. Washington’s Birthday
s. Constitution Day and Citizenship Day
t. Flag Day
u. National Grandparents’ Day
v. Wright Brothers Day
w. Patriot Day
x. Thomas Jefferson’s birthday
y. Peace Officers Memorial Day
z. Parents’ Day

1a. Law Day, U.S.A. (May 1)
2b. Leif Erikson Day                                                                        
3c. Constitution Day and Citizenship Day (September 17)
4d. Child Health Day
5e. Ash Wednesday
6f. Groundhog day
7g. ST. Patrick’s day
8h. April fools day
9i. Good Friday
10j. Easter
11k. Boss’s day
12l. Earth day

In all my years, I haven’t seen such an obvious, blatant division of our nation politically. We have two Prez candidates, Barry Obama and John McCain. These two, in my view are almost just two sides of the same coin. What would make me wanna vote for either one of you? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Mr. Obama, your record is not much to speak of- I’m not one to get mesmerized and hypnotized by platitudes and speeches. I don’t see ANYTHING that would make me wanna throw my support your way. And don’t say that I should vote for you b/c you’re “Black” - Race has nothing to do with credentials, dependability and overall believability. You haven’t shown me anything other than the same old political games. There is nothing new to you. I’ve seen speakers and politicians talk a great game, and go do exactly what they were paid to do by their handlers.

Mr. McCain, you’re tagged as a ‘Maverick’ - someone that goes against party principles in order to do what you feel personally. Do you get it now? Being a ‘Maverick’ hasn’t and will never do you any good. Your toughness in war is well-documented, your extended stay at the ‘Hanoi Hilton’ is the stuff of legend. But your work while back in the States is questionable. How can you allow illegals to come across our border, do all sorts of atrocities, and just turn a blind eye? How can you, good sir, just seemingly play the political game when jobs are being squandered by rogue employers, people being kidnapped, raped, abused and sold in AMERICA- and you dare try to slip in an Amnesty package while people who look to you are none the wiser? Give me one good reason why a man such as myself should vote for you?  Seems as if your real goal is just power, fame and prestige- a far cry from your platitudes on freedom and fairness…

Both you and Mr. Obama have some explaining to do to us… I’m not one for blind party loyalty (I have become a Libertarian over the GOP’s antics in recent years). Mr. McCain, when was the last time you (or any GOPs) really sat down and explained what’s really going on, not just with your campaign, but with the country as well? And Mr. Obama, when was the last time you ever explained to anyone what you are about? I’d like to hear what you are about. I just am not impressed by speeches, and a ‘Messiah-like’ mantle given you by the media. I wanna know what makes you the best man for the job. And Mr. McCain, I wanna know what would make YOU the man to lead us through ever-toughening times. As for the both of you, I need to see and hear evidence that would make me even put a shred of confidence in either one of you. These are changing times, gentlemen, and I for one wanna see what you are prepared to do, and where you’re planning to take my country.

As for the VP nominees, Mrs. Palin, I am impressed by you- amazing. You are what’s right with this country. You have a great story.  Mr. Biden, why did they pick you?  Is this a joke? Have I even seen anything you have done that smacks anything of new blood? Nope. I just need to see SOMETHING  from any one of you guys that will make me swing my vote… Signed, the American people.

Millions of viewers tune into CNBC’s Suze Orman Show look to her for financial advice and money tips, but the problem is she’s not qualified to speak on anything pertaining to financial matters. The fact that CNBC would allow someone like her to have a show on the air when she’s not qualified to speak about financial matters and there are 5 sound reasons as to why Suze Orman is not qualified to speak on financial matters. These reasons are logical because this is something that should be best left to a qualified and trained financial adviser or manager. Below are the 5 reasons as to why Suze Orman is not qualified, certified, or licensed to discuss any financial or legal issues surrounding someone’s money or financial affairs:

1. Suze is NOT a certified and/or licensed financial analyst such as a stockbroker, accountant, financial planner, or financial manager.

2. Suze’s undergraduate degree is in social work-HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FINANCES.

3. Much of the information she talks about on her show is stuff that a financial planner would tell to their own clients. Plus it sounds like she gets her stuff off the internet and tweaks it so that it sounds like she did her homework to the capacity of an accountant, financial planner, or stockbroker.

4. She’s not a licensed attorney to advise people of legal matters or to advise on legal documents when it comes to financial matters.

5. She isn’t qualified to advise people on how they should handle things like their 401k’s and other types of financial accounts. If people are having questions about that this is where they need to consult with firms like Edward Jones, Vangard, and other financial firms that deal with long term investments. It’s those people who average Joes should be talking to since they’re licensed and certified to speak to you about financial investing and some of them are lawyers so they can advise you legally of what you can do to protect your finances.

It’s funny how Orman thinks she’s the know it all about money when in fact she’s not and for someone with a social work degree she’s in the wrong job field. She needs to check the definition of what someone with a social work degree can do. It bothers me when you have people like her trying to sound as if she’s got buku knowledge about the financial world when there’s a show on CNBC called Fast Money and all the people on the show are actual financial analysts, accountants, financial planners, and financial managers who are certified and licensed in their field to speak and advise people on financial matters. Jim Cramer host of Mad Money worked in hedge funds for 20 years and is a lawyer so he can speak about money and advise on legal matters. The deal with her is that she needs to watch how she advises people because if someone took her advice and applied it to their own financial situation and they end up losing their money she could get sued for misrepresentation and knowing she’s got NO license or credentials to make her a trusted expert in the financial field this puts her at a risky advantage because much of her information both financial and legally sounds like it came from the internet.

Much of what Orman talks about on her show is stuff you can actually research yourself and this time have the actual discretion of using it on your own or combining it with the advice of a qualified and licensed financial analyst or manager. This is more of a liability issue as well because financial analysts and those who work in financial and securities trading are protected with insurance and other things, but giving the fact that Suze Orman is not a licensed financial professional to advise anyone on financial and legal matters surrounding a person’s money.  Anyone who watches her show should only consult with a licensed and certified accountant, financial planner, and financial analyst. Also make sure that person has educational credentials such as a degree(s) in finance, economics, accounting, and business. This also applies to graduate level degrees as well because that tells a person the person who’s going to advise them on how to spend, save, and invest their money has the educational background to say they are an expert in the field of finance.

Never trust someone with a social work degree to advise you on your financial life that’s something you can educate yourself on with a trusted financial expert who is licensed and has the credentials to back up their level of expertise. This is becoming a growing trend of people who are making millions of dollars on something they have no qualifications to speak on and puts not only themselves at risk for lawsuits, but it also makes those who actually work their careers in the field harder because they have to make themselves stand out so people know they’re qualified to speak on the area of expertise.

This is an election year and do you know where your politician is? How about what he or she truly stands for on an issue?

I am not talking about all the hype you hear on television. I mean do you really know what your politician voted for, why and how it affects you?

These are important questions and in an informal poll that I did very few people could even speculate about the last vote their champion was involved in let alone what it meant for them.

It is high time that we as Americans took our freedom seriously and looked into these matters. Everything that your politician does is a matter of public record. We need to look at that record and stop depending on the media and mail outs to tell us what they are doing.

When we as a people get serious and make the politicians accountable for their actions you will see the change that all people want in this country. However if we continue to blindly support these men and women with no expectation that they will do what they tell us, then what is the point? I am just a lowly American who is tired of lying being the status-quo.

I say we join forces Americans and stop squabbling among ourselves over these politicians and find out what is truly going on. It is time the American voter was informed and making decisions on the facts instead of the fiction. Research fairly what any man or woman asking for your vote has actually done. Not what they say they want to do but that which is a matter of record.

Wolf packs living in the northern Rockies were issued a temporary reprieve this past summer when a U.S. District Court judge placed the animals back on federal protection, pending a court case challenging the animals de-listing.

Several leading conservation groups brought suit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the agency’s attempt to strip the animals protection under the Endangered Species Act.  The de-listing of the animals supported by the Bush administration enabled hunters, ranchers, and anti wolf opponents to kill over 100 of the predators, before the temporary injunction halted the killing.

Wolves once roamed in large numbers throughout the entire United States but were largely poisoned, trapped and hunted to near extinction by early settlers.  Because of this mass extermination wolves were re-introduced  and supported by a variety of conservation groups.  A small portion of wolves have re-colonized areas of the United States by simply crossing over from Canada.

In order to protect this valuable and intelligent predator, they should remain under the protection of the Endangered Species Act.  However, the Bush administration opted to strip the animal of its legal protection and turn over management of the animal to state wildlife agencies.  This simply means taking the animal and controlling its numbers through hunting.  This would definitely not ensure the long term conservation of wolves, especially in places like Wyoming, where the animal is still allowed to be shot on sight all year round.

Other Rocky mountain states like Idaho and Montana also offer little or no protection for wolves.  In fact in Idaho, wolves can be killed for merely annoying or worrying livestock owners.  There has even been calls for starting a poisoning program again, using the dreaded and lethal strychnine agent.

The issuance of a temporary injunction to halt the indiscriminate killing of wolves in the Rockies region is a good first step toward federal protection again.   If we are going to learn from past mistakes, we must never allow the grand scale extermination of an important species such as the wolf ever occur again.

I have tried very hard to raise my son in an impartial household as far as politics are concerned, but I myself, have never voted for a Democrat - not because I am a Republican, but because I felt that the Democratic candidates were out of touch with my values and my sense of well being. My son, on the other hand, is a deep thinker and weighs all the issues regardless of party choice. Being 18, he is still very naïve, being able to still sense the goodness in people and to have hope in what he is being told will come to fruition. After turning 18 last year one of his greatest joys was the ability to vote in the local election. This year he is at college and quite excited about being able to vote in a presidential election. Me, not so much! Usually, my vote is cast against the person whom I feel to be the worst choice as the “best” choice is really, well just not good enough. My son’s reason for choosing a candidate seemed to be quite different from mine, or so it seemed as he has been agonizing over this process for months.

He researched both candidates, their backgrounds, voting records, etc. He took great notice in who was supporting each candidate and why; their family life, religious beliefs, body language, etc. He really did his homework. Yesterday he called from college to tell me that he had sent in his absentee ballot and after much thought he voted the straight Democratic ticket. When asked why he stated that after all his research he decided that things have gotten so out of hand in Washington perhaps it was time to let the “other side” give it a go. I was shocked. I really expected some profound reason on his part for his choice of a candidate considering the extensive amount of time he put into the process. But no, he stated “when it comes right down to it, I guess you have always been correct - you vote against the person you think is least worthy and for the person you think is the lesser of the evils.” Shocked as I am, I feel totally vindicated in my prior voting strategies and wonder if I am the norm rather than the exception.