Ok, so it has been a while since I posted on here. I had a few computer problems, and had to take my computer to KC Computers--it needed a new hard drive. Plus, I had been spending more time over at my MySpace page, because a friend got me hooked on some of the 'myspace game apps' and now I need to attend 'game apps anonymous'. LOL!
Mafia Wars is my #1 favorite.
Anyway, I am back, and I am going to try to get some posts going again. Please be patient. Hope everyone is doing well.
Merry Christmas.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
To Die, or Not to Die...THAT is the Question
New Yorkers worry about trial for 9/11 mastermind
This combination of undated photos shows, from left: Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Waleed bin Attash, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ramzi Binalshibh. Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday, Nov. 13, 2009. (AP Photos) (AP)
*********************************************************************************
By DAVID B. CARUSO
The Associated Press
Saturday, November 14, 2009; 12:17 PM
NEW YORK -- The move to put the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind on trial just blocks from ground zero raises a host of legal, political and security questions, chief among them: Can a fair-minded jury be found in a city still nursing deep wounds from the attack on the World Trade Center?
Some also worry that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will make New York an even bigger terrorist target, and that he will use the proceedings to incite more violence against Americans.
The loudest protests Friday came from relatives of the victims, many of whom oppose any civilian trial for terror suspects - especially at the federal courthouse 1,000 yards from the spot where nearly 3,000 people died.
"If we have to bring them to the United States, New York City is not the place to have it, let alone in a courthouse that is in the shadows of the twin towers," said Lee Ielpi, whose firefighter son died in the 9/11 attacks. The city's wounds, he said, are simply still too raw.
"Ripping that scab open will create a tremendous hardship," he said.
Some city leaders seemed to relish the chance to hold the evildoers accountable at the scene of the crime.
"It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
New York Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly also said that holding the trial in the city most devastated by the 2001 attack is appropriate, and he pronounced the Police Department prepared to meet any security challenge.
It may be years before Mohammed is brought to trial, and there is no guarantee the proceedings will actually be held in the city.
A defense attorney is almost certain to ask the judge to move the proceedings to someplace less likely to produce a jury tainted by extreme hatred of the defendant, said James Benjamin, a New York City lawyer who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
Still, he added, the city has handled big terrorism cases before.
Trials arising from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and another plot to attack city landmarks were held in federal court in New York.
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
Now, I know this is a few days old , but I have just been trying to get my head around this thing, and I still do not understand the logic behind this move. I mean, I think this is more ridiculous than the Obamacare Nightmare, which in and of itself is insane, but this...THIS...just goes beyond all logic and reason.
Now, I want everyone of my readers to know, I am completely 500% in favor of thew 'death penalty'...EXCEPT here...and before you guys start thinking I have gone googatts in the head, let me tell you why.
It is a well known fact, a WELL KNOWN FACT, that these TERRORISTS do not have a problem with 'dying'. They WANT to die, and what is worse, they want us to 'put them to death' at our expense, for us to 'pay for them to die'.
So, what would I do instead, you ask, with that look of unbelief on your faces, which I totally understand, because in a way, I cannot believe myself on this.
Well, here's the thing, how many people died on 9/11? 3,000 or more? Ok, well, sentence them all to a 'LIFE' sentence FOR EACH victim. That is 3,000 LIFE sentences. And, FORCE them to eat PORK 4 times a day, and tell them 'GOD BLESS AMERICA' every 5 minutes.
They want to die? Let them kill themselves, at their own expense, and leave us out of it. Because, even though I would absolutely love, love, LOVE to see them fry in the chair, what purpose would it serve other than justice for our families and friends? It would serve THEIR purpose in 'DYING'. They want to die because they belive they have all these 'virgins awaiting in Heaven' for them.
My 'HOPE' is that they actually have some 'AIDS infested Whores in Hell' awaiting them, which I am very certain is the case, so, that being said, sentence all 5 of them to 3,000 LIFE sentences each, feed them PORK 4 times a day, and say 'GOD BLESS AMERICA' to them every 5 minutes, and let them 'off' themselves.
Because, honestly and personally, I don't want my tax dollars to 'give them the gift of death'. Which is exactly what death is for them--A GIFT.
This combination of undated photos shows, from left: Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Waleed bin Attash, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ramzi Binalshibh. Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday, Nov. 13, 2009. (AP Photos) (AP)
*********************************************************************************
By DAVID B. CARUSO
The Associated Press
Saturday, November 14, 2009; 12:17 PM
NEW YORK -- The move to put the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind on trial just blocks from ground zero raises a host of legal, political and security questions, chief among them: Can a fair-minded jury be found in a city still nursing deep wounds from the attack on the World Trade Center?
Some also worry that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will make New York an even bigger terrorist target, and that he will use the proceedings to incite more violence against Americans.
The loudest protests Friday came from relatives of the victims, many of whom oppose any civilian trial for terror suspects - especially at the federal courthouse 1,000 yards from the spot where nearly 3,000 people died.
"If we have to bring them to the United States, New York City is not the place to have it, let alone in a courthouse that is in the shadows of the twin towers," said Lee Ielpi, whose firefighter son died in the 9/11 attacks. The city's wounds, he said, are simply still too raw.
"Ripping that scab open will create a tremendous hardship," he said.
Some city leaders seemed to relish the chance to hold the evildoers accountable at the scene of the crime.
"It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.
New York Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly also said that holding the trial in the city most devastated by the 2001 attack is appropriate, and he pronounced the Police Department prepared to meet any security challenge.
It may be years before Mohammed is brought to trial, and there is no guarantee the proceedings will actually be held in the city.
A defense attorney is almost certain to ask the judge to move the proceedings to someplace less likely to produce a jury tainted by extreme hatred of the defendant, said James Benjamin, a New York City lawyer who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
Still, he added, the city has handled big terrorism cases before.
Trials arising from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and another plot to attack city landmarks were held in federal court in New York.
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
Now, I know this is a few days old , but I have just been trying to get my head around this thing, and I still do not understand the logic behind this move. I mean, I think this is more ridiculous than the Obamacare Nightmare, which in and of itself is insane, but this...THIS...just goes beyond all logic and reason.
Now, I want everyone of my readers to know, I am completely 500% in favor of thew 'death penalty'...EXCEPT here...and before you guys start thinking I have gone googatts in the head, let me tell you why.
It is a well known fact, a WELL KNOWN FACT, that these TERRORISTS do not have a problem with 'dying'. They WANT to die, and what is worse, they want us to 'put them to death' at our expense, for us to 'pay for them to die'.
So, what would I do instead, you ask, with that look of unbelief on your faces, which I totally understand, because in a way, I cannot believe myself on this.
Well, here's the thing, how many people died on 9/11? 3,000 or more? Ok, well, sentence them all to a 'LIFE' sentence FOR EACH victim. That is 3,000 LIFE sentences. And, FORCE them to eat PORK 4 times a day, and tell them 'GOD BLESS AMERICA' every 5 minutes.
They want to die? Let them kill themselves, at their own expense, and leave us out of it. Because, even though I would absolutely love, love, LOVE to see them fry in the chair, what purpose would it serve other than justice for our families and friends? It would serve THEIR purpose in 'DYING'. They want to die because they belive they have all these 'virgins awaiting in Heaven' for them.
My 'HOPE' is that they actually have some 'AIDS infested Whores in Hell' awaiting them, which I am very certain is the case, so, that being said, sentence all 5 of them to 3,000 LIFE sentences each, feed them PORK 4 times a day, and say 'GOD BLESS AMERICA' to them every 5 minutes, and let them 'off' themselves.
Because, honestly and personally, I don't want my tax dollars to 'give them the gift of death'. Which is exactly what death is for them--A GIFT.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Off Topic--I am 42 Today--Happy Birthday to me.
Yes, today is my birthday. I am 42 years old. I feel older, and act younger. LOL! But a friend took me to lunch at a this place called China Inn 2 and I got to spin this birthday wheel, and the restaurant gave me a gift.
Anyway, I am just taking it easy, and playing around on my MySpace page--I got hooked into some games there, and I am already addicted to the Mafia Wars and Special Forces games. I have only been playing Mafia Wars since last night and I am already at Level 10.
Anyway, happy birthday to me, and I will be trying to catch up on blogging later today.
Anyway, I am just taking it easy, and playing around on my MySpace page--I got hooked into some games there, and I am already addicted to the Mafia Wars and Special Forces games. I have only been playing Mafia Wars since last night and I am already at Level 10.
Anyway, happy birthday to me, and I will be trying to catch up on blogging later today.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Soul of Your Freedom Flies Forever
Yesterday, I was at the North End Terminal waiting for my bus to get to work, and I saw a lot of Marines down there handing out cups and bumper stickers to promote their 'Toys for Tots' drive.
I called to one of the Marines and beckoned him to me. Without asking him, I reached over and gave him a big hug, and said "Thank you, for all that you do for our Country'. When I looked at him, a tear began to fall from his face, and he thanked me, for thanking him. Pretty soon, others who saw this exchange between me and the Marine, followed suit...they all came over and began to hug him and thank him, with tears in their eyes. Which only goes to show me, that one person CAN make a difference.
If there is only one type of human being on Earth who is the MOST unselfish, it is the many men and women in our military who are brave enough, and loving enough of our country to sacrifice their lives for ours and for our freedoms.
Our brave men and women in uniform do not have to fight for us, or our country, or our freedoms, but it is because they love our country and value freedom that they are willing to risk their lives for us that matters.
Not many people have respect or admiration for our troops. But those that do will always have a special place in my heart. As does our military. It hurts my heart and angers me to no end when someone shows a lack of respect for our troops. It is because of them...the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, that we are able to retain our freedoms that are granted to us in our U.S. Constitution.
So, please, the next time you encounter a military soldier, walk up to him or her, and shake their hand, or give them a hug, and just say 'Thank you, for your unselfish act of sacrifice for me, and my country'.
Remember, one person Can make a difference, and by doing this one small gesture, the soul of your freedom will fly forever.
God Bless America, and God Bless Our Troops.
I called to one of the Marines and beckoned him to me. Without asking him, I reached over and gave him a big hug, and said "Thank you, for all that you do for our Country'. When I looked at him, a tear began to fall from his face, and he thanked me, for thanking him. Pretty soon, others who saw this exchange between me and the Marine, followed suit...they all came over and began to hug him and thank him, with tears in their eyes. Which only goes to show me, that one person CAN make a difference.
If there is only one type of human being on Earth who is the MOST unselfish, it is the many men and women in our military who are brave enough, and loving enough of our country to sacrifice their lives for ours and for our freedoms.
Our brave men and women in uniform do not have to fight for us, or our country, or our freedoms, but it is because they love our country and value freedom that they are willing to risk their lives for us that matters.
Not many people have respect or admiration for our troops. But those that do will always have a special place in my heart. As does our military. It hurts my heart and angers me to no end when someone shows a lack of respect for our troops. It is because of them...the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, that we are able to retain our freedoms that are granted to us in our U.S. Constitution.
So, please, the next time you encounter a military soldier, walk up to him or her, and shake their hand, or give them a hug, and just say 'Thank you, for your unselfish act of sacrifice for me, and my country'.
Remember, one person Can make a difference, and by doing this one small gesture, the soul of your freedom will fly forever.
God Bless America, and God Bless Our Troops.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Now here is a POTUS we can believe in.
*********************************************************************************
Ok, so I know that these ragmags are just tabloids and that they do not print anything factual, but I just could not help printing it here. Maybe because I had alwaysn thought and heard that these particular ragmags were supposed to be liberal in nature, and if they are maybe I printed it here because I wanted to find out if the rumors are true that Obama's own LibDems really are turning against him.
I cannot remember exactly what I was looking for on the internet when I found this image, but when I seen it, and read the title of the story, I just could not help myself, so I saved it to post, maybe just to see what type of reaction I could get, and maybe as a conversation starter, and maybe, too, just to poke fun at our Hypocrit of the United States.
Either way, this one is not even close to the one I saw at the grocery store the other night, that claimed the president had 'collapsed', and the FLOTUS was worried that POTUS was turning to cigarettes and whiskey (or booze) to relieve his stress.
I found that bit of info to be rather incredible, because, well, I don't know. I mean, being the President of the United States IS a difficult job, but, our president really has not DONE anything to be stressed out with this job (the operative phrase here being 'not DONE anything').
Unless of course you call trying to beat the previous presidents' golfing score, or travel record. Well, anyway, I am working on trying to find a particuloar story to post, and I am also working on another particular post, one of which is taking me a while because of the research I have to do.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Plan B--A "Conservative revolution"-style 'Wheel of Fortune' Game
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the 'Conservative Revolution Wheel of Fortune'!
It is time to work toward saving the United States of America, the Declaration of Independance, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The contestants are the Conservatives of the United States of America, and the Opponents are the Liberal Government of Communists.
The only puzzle has five (5) words, and each contestant gets to pick a letter and buy a vowel.
And now, let's play--here is your puzzle:
The title of this puzzle is--'PLAN B'---5 words with 14 vowels and 20 consonants. The first contestant to successfully solve this puzzle will win the right to help in completing the research to get the job done.
"___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ -- ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ --
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ -- ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ --
___ ___ ___ ___ ___"
*References to this can be found in hhistorical documents.
Good luck, and HAVE FUN!!!
It is time to work toward saving the United States of America, the Declaration of Independance, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
The contestants are the Conservatives of the United States of America, and the Opponents are the Liberal Government of Communists.
The only puzzle has five (5) words, and each contestant gets to pick a letter and buy a vowel.
And now, let's play--here is your puzzle:
The title of this puzzle is--'PLAN B'---5 words with 14 vowels and 20 consonants. The first contestant to successfully solve this puzzle will win the right to help in completing the research to get the job done.
"___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ -- ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ --
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ -- ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ --
___ ___ ___ ___ ___"
*References to this can be found in hhistorical documents.
Good luck, and HAVE FUN!!!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Hello Blogofriends--I'M BAAACCCKKKKKKK!!!!!
Hey everyone. I am back, and ready to start the NEW CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION!
What in the HELL happened? I get back and find out that this bill PASSED and that the Communist of the United States of Obama is going to imprison people who DO NOT sign up for the Obamacare Nightmare????
If ANYONE has a copy of that section of this bill, PLEASE e-mail it to me, so I can get it printed off. I am going to start some HEAVY research to nip this ATTACK in the bud. So, if any of you have a copy of that particular section, please e-mail it to me, thank you.
I will be updating the blog later this evening.
What in the HELL happened? I get back and find out that this bill PASSED and that the Communist of the United States of Obama is going to imprison people who DO NOT sign up for the Obamacare Nightmare????
If ANYONE has a copy of that section of this bill, PLEASE e-mail it to me, so I can get it printed off. I am going to start some HEAVY research to nip this ATTACK in the bud. So, if any of you have a copy of that particular section, please e-mail it to me, thank you.
I will be updating the blog later this evening.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Blogging Will Be On Hold Until Monday Night
Dear Blogger Friends and Readers,
I am getting ready to fly to Texas, as I just got word that one of my brothers may have been one of the victims. I will be back online Monday night.
I am getting ready to fly to Texas, as I just got word that one of my brothers may have been one of the victims. I will be back online Monday night.
At least twelve killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.
"AT LEAST 12 KILLED IN SHOOTING AT FORT HOOD, TEX.; U.S. SOLDIER AMONG THE GUNMEN"
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 5, 2009; 5:15 PM
At least one U.S. soldier in uniform opened fire on troops at Fort Hood, Tex., Thursday, killing at least 12 people and wounding more than 31 others, officials said.
Officials said two other soldiers suspected of being involved in the shooting were in custody. The shooting occurred at a processing center and nearby theater where soldiers were preparing to deploy to the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, officials said.
Lt. Gen. Bob Cone, the commanding general of Fort Hood, said one gunman was shot at the processing center and that two others suspected of involvement were apprehended later.
President Obama called the incident "a horrific outburst of violence."
"These are men and women who made the selfless and courageous decision" to risk their lives in the service of the nation, Obama said. "It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil."
Sgt. Maj. Jamie Posten, a base spokesman, earlier said that two gunmen opened fire at the post's Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Authorities said shots were also fired at the Howze Theater near the readiness center.
"At this time, Fort Hood is locked down to in-and-out traffic."
Inside the processing center, soldiers were preparing for deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Cone said he did not yet have information of which units were inside at 1:30 p.m., when the shooting took place.
Located near Killeen, Tex., Fort Hood is the U.S. military's largest installation and the only Army post in the United States that houses two divisions. It is also the home of III Corps headquarters.
About 65,000 soldiers and family members live on the post.
Obama was informed of the shooting shortly after it occurred, a White House spokesman said.
**************************************************************************
What is happening to us?
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 5, 2009; 5:15 PM
At least one U.S. soldier in uniform opened fire on troops at Fort Hood, Tex., Thursday, killing at least 12 people and wounding more than 31 others, officials said.
Officials said two other soldiers suspected of being involved in the shooting were in custody. The shooting occurred at a processing center and nearby theater where soldiers were preparing to deploy to the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, officials said.
Lt. Gen. Bob Cone, the commanding general of Fort Hood, said one gunman was shot at the processing center and that two others suspected of involvement were apprehended later.
President Obama called the incident "a horrific outburst of violence."
"These are men and women who made the selfless and courageous decision" to risk their lives in the service of the nation, Obama said. "It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil."
Sgt. Maj. Jamie Posten, a base spokesman, earlier said that two gunmen opened fire at the post's Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Authorities said shots were also fired at the Howze Theater near the readiness center.
"At this time, Fort Hood is locked down to in-and-out traffic."
Inside the processing center, soldiers were preparing for deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Cone said he did not yet have information of which units were inside at 1:30 p.m., when the shooting took place.
Located near Killeen, Tex., Fort Hood is the U.S. military's largest installation and the only Army post in the United States that houses two divisions. It is also the home of III Corps headquarters.
About 65,000 soldiers and family members live on the post.
Obama was informed of the shooting shortly after it occurred, a White House spokesman said.
**************************************************************************
What is happening to us?
On the Hill, Protesters Chant ‘Kill the Bill’
November 5, 2009, 12:15 pm
By David M. Herszenhorn
Thousands of opponents of the Democrats’ health care legislation are gathered outside the Capitol, for a noon news conference and rally led by Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, and the chants are already underway, echoing across the Mall.
Kill the bill!” they are shouting. “Kill the bill!”
A series of spot interviews suggests that the protesters have come to Washington from all across the country – Texas, Ohio, Oregon and the greater Washington area. It’s a generally older crowd, many in their 50s and 60s, predominantly, white, and many self-identified as Christians. They are fiercely conservative and deeply skeptical of the government, many of them adamantly opposed to abortion rights.
“The government couldn’t even get the shots out,” said Karen Ambrose of Sunbury, Ohio, ridiculing the government’s efforts to vaccinate people for the H1N1 flu as an example of what government-run health care would look like. “Let’s just get the government out of all this.”
The crowd is waving signs, some predictable, others inventive.
“No Socialistic Health Care.” “Sweeping Away Socialism One Democrat at a Time.” “Politicians Lie, Patients Die”
“You lie!”
“All lies”
Jerry Hershberger, a market representative for an automotive company for Flower Mountain, Texas, said he flew up just to protest the health care bill. “A little expense now compared to a lot of expense later,” he said, explaining why the cost of the trip was worth it to him.
Mr. Hershberger, like many of the demonstrators, repeated some of the most common conservative and Republican talking points heard repeatedly on Fox News. “It’s not bipartisan,” he said, standing outside the Capitol wearing a Texas Longhorns baseball cap. “They are doing it behind closed doors.” He added: “It’s going to drive us into a super-deficit.”
Mr. Hershberger, who has health insurance through his employer, said that he believed some changes were needed to the health care system, but that Democrats were going about the process all wrong. “Scrap all this, start from the beginning, bring in the conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats and see what we need to do to care for the 12 to 14 million people who really need insurance.”
Asked what he thought about the three-month effort by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, work with Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to draft a bipartisan bill, Mr. Hershberger dismissed it, saying the resulting legislation proved the process had failed. “It doesn’t reflect what we want,” he said.
“Can you hear us now?” the crowd chanted behind him.
Mr. Hershberger said he was hoping to make a difference. “I literally got off my butt yesterday,” he said. “We might have an impact. A politician can’t be a politician if they get voted out of office.”
Many of the demonstrators, like Judith Garloch of Newark, Ohio, said they were opposed to an increasing government role in the health care. Many said they feared cuts to the Medicare program for Americans 65 and over. Many described themselves as conservative and opposed to higher taxes.
“We support our country and we’re patriots,” Ms. Garloch said. “And I don’t want my health care to be changed.”
Ms. Garloch, who has a combination of Medicare and private coverage, said insurance should be sold across state lines to increase competition.
But Ms. Garloch, like many in the crowd who while visibly angry. could not articulate the main problems in the health care system or how they should be solved.
Some of the same people warning of too much government spending also complained that Medicare does not provide sufficient coverage.
Ms. Garloch dismissed suggestions that some hospitals, like the Cleveland Clinic in her home state, had figured out ways to provide higher-quality medical outcomes at lower cost, indicating that there might be ways to cut costs without sacrificing patient care.
Her brother-in-law worked at the Cleveland Clinic for several years. “There’s a lot of bureaucracy there,” she said. “You don’t get everything you want.”
As for how to fix the health care system, she said “I think we need to fix what’s wrong now – I think we need to put a cap on the malpractice lawsuits. I just can’t see how adding more things, power to the government is going to help anything.”
Nearby, Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, who recently said the Democrats’ health care legislation was more frightening to her than terrorists, worked the crowd, shaking hands and offering warm greetings. It is a clear fall day, with a crisp breeze.
Alan R. Davis, of Chillicothe, Ohio, said he had a professional background in health care finance, and was attending the protest because of his deep concerns about that nation’s staggering debt. “The country is going broke,” he said.
As for controlling medical costs, Mr. Davis did not have any ready solutions. He said that last December, his wife, Jennifer, had a heart transplant at the Cleveland Clinic. But he said he had no idea what it had cost. Her insurance coverage has an annual deductible of $4,000. After that, he said, everything was covered “100 percent.”
Mr. Davis said he did not trust Democrats’ assertions that the health care bill would be deficit neutral. “Whether it’s deficit neutral at this stage is someone’s guess, it’s an educated guess,” he said.
Mr. Davis said Americans needed to think more about the quality of life, rather than the length of life. He said that he and his wife had just such a discussion before she went forward with her heart transplant, at age 55.
Art Scevola, a financial consultant from Portland, Ore., said that he felt a mission to come to Washington. “It’s time to make a stand,” he said. “We want to see limited government, not more taxes put in our face. We don’t believe our health care system entirely broken. We need to slow down, stop and start over with this legislation.”
Mr. Scevola said that he had health insurance through his employer. “Kaiser Permanente,” he said proudly. “They are the best on the West Coast.”
******************************************************************************
So, I am sitting at my dining room table with my girlfriend, and a couple of our close friends and two of our neighbors are over here, and we are listening to the Rush Limbaugh show, and we find out that the 'AARP' is supporting this "Obamacare Nightmare".
The conversation stopped, and we all just looked at each other in astonishment, and suddenly, the cell phones came out and calls to other friends who are AARP memberswere being made, and then our friends started calling the AARP offices and telling them that "if they continue to support this Obama Healthcare Plan, all memberships would be CANCELLED. And our friends started taking their AARP cards out and began CUTTING THEM UP! CUT THE CARDS UP! LOL!
This is a message to any insurance company that is supporting this healthcare nightmare--if you do, you lose our support.
My friends asked me to post this on here in order to help support them in this fight, so, that is why I posted this. Start calling the AARP and tell them that if they support this, you will drop your memberships.
Thank you.
By David M. Herszenhorn
Thousands of opponents of the Democrats’ health care legislation are gathered outside the Capitol, for a noon news conference and rally led by Representative Michele Bachmann, Republican of Minnesota, and the chants are already underway, echoing across the Mall.
Kill the bill!” they are shouting. “Kill the bill!”
A series of spot interviews suggests that the protesters have come to Washington from all across the country – Texas, Ohio, Oregon and the greater Washington area. It’s a generally older crowd, many in their 50s and 60s, predominantly, white, and many self-identified as Christians. They are fiercely conservative and deeply skeptical of the government, many of them adamantly opposed to abortion rights.
“The government couldn’t even get the shots out,” said Karen Ambrose of Sunbury, Ohio, ridiculing the government’s efforts to vaccinate people for the H1N1 flu as an example of what government-run health care would look like. “Let’s just get the government out of all this.”
The crowd is waving signs, some predictable, others inventive.
“No Socialistic Health Care.” “Sweeping Away Socialism One Democrat at a Time.” “Politicians Lie, Patients Die”
“You lie!”
“All lies”
Jerry Hershberger, a market representative for an automotive company for Flower Mountain, Texas, said he flew up just to protest the health care bill. “A little expense now compared to a lot of expense later,” he said, explaining why the cost of the trip was worth it to him.
Mr. Hershberger, like many of the demonstrators, repeated some of the most common conservative and Republican talking points heard repeatedly on Fox News. “It’s not bipartisan,” he said, standing outside the Capitol wearing a Texas Longhorns baseball cap. “They are doing it behind closed doors.” He added: “It’s going to drive us into a super-deficit.”
Mr. Hershberger, who has health insurance through his employer, said that he believed some changes were needed to the health care system, but that Democrats were going about the process all wrong. “Scrap all this, start from the beginning, bring in the conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats and see what we need to do to care for the 12 to 14 million people who really need insurance.”
Asked what he thought about the three-month effort by Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, work with Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee to draft a bipartisan bill, Mr. Hershberger dismissed it, saying the resulting legislation proved the process had failed. “It doesn’t reflect what we want,” he said.
“Can you hear us now?” the crowd chanted behind him.
Mr. Hershberger said he was hoping to make a difference. “I literally got off my butt yesterday,” he said. “We might have an impact. A politician can’t be a politician if they get voted out of office.”
Many of the demonstrators, like Judith Garloch of Newark, Ohio, said they were opposed to an increasing government role in the health care. Many said they feared cuts to the Medicare program for Americans 65 and over. Many described themselves as conservative and opposed to higher taxes.
“We support our country and we’re patriots,” Ms. Garloch said. “And I don’t want my health care to be changed.”
Ms. Garloch, who has a combination of Medicare and private coverage, said insurance should be sold across state lines to increase competition.
But Ms. Garloch, like many in the crowd who while visibly angry. could not articulate the main problems in the health care system or how they should be solved.
Some of the same people warning of too much government spending also complained that Medicare does not provide sufficient coverage.
Ms. Garloch dismissed suggestions that some hospitals, like the Cleveland Clinic in her home state, had figured out ways to provide higher-quality medical outcomes at lower cost, indicating that there might be ways to cut costs without sacrificing patient care.
Her brother-in-law worked at the Cleveland Clinic for several years. “There’s a lot of bureaucracy there,” she said. “You don’t get everything you want.”
As for how to fix the health care system, she said “I think we need to fix what’s wrong now – I think we need to put a cap on the malpractice lawsuits. I just can’t see how adding more things, power to the government is going to help anything.”
Nearby, Representative Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, who recently said the Democrats’ health care legislation was more frightening to her than terrorists, worked the crowd, shaking hands and offering warm greetings. It is a clear fall day, with a crisp breeze.
Alan R. Davis, of Chillicothe, Ohio, said he had a professional background in health care finance, and was attending the protest because of his deep concerns about that nation’s staggering debt. “The country is going broke,” he said.
As for controlling medical costs, Mr. Davis did not have any ready solutions. He said that last December, his wife, Jennifer, had a heart transplant at the Cleveland Clinic. But he said he had no idea what it had cost. Her insurance coverage has an annual deductible of $4,000. After that, he said, everything was covered “100 percent.”
Mr. Davis said he did not trust Democrats’ assertions that the health care bill would be deficit neutral. “Whether it’s deficit neutral at this stage is someone’s guess, it’s an educated guess,” he said.
Mr. Davis said Americans needed to think more about the quality of life, rather than the length of life. He said that he and his wife had just such a discussion before she went forward with her heart transplant, at age 55.
Art Scevola, a financial consultant from Portland, Ore., said that he felt a mission to come to Washington. “It’s time to make a stand,” he said. “We want to see limited government, not more taxes put in our face. We don’t believe our health care system entirely broken. We need to slow down, stop and start over with this legislation.”
Mr. Scevola said that he had health insurance through his employer. “Kaiser Permanente,” he said proudly. “They are the best on the West Coast.”
******************************************************************************
So, I am sitting at my dining room table with my girlfriend, and a couple of our close friends and two of our neighbors are over here, and we are listening to the Rush Limbaugh show, and we find out that the 'AARP' is supporting this "Obamacare Nightmare".
The conversation stopped, and we all just looked at each other in astonishment, and suddenly, the cell phones came out and calls to other friends who are AARP memberswere being made, and then our friends started calling the AARP offices and telling them that "if they continue to support this Obama Healthcare Plan, all memberships would be CANCELLED. And our friends started taking their AARP cards out and began CUTTING THEM UP! CUT THE CARDS UP! LOL!
This is a message to any insurance company that is supporting this healthcare nightmare--if you do, you lose our support.
My friends asked me to post this on here in order to help support them in this fight, so, that is why I posted this. Start calling the AARP and tell them that if they support this, you will drop your memberships.
Thank you.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
What will McChrystal do if he doesn't get more troops?
By Colbert King
November 2, 2009; 11:36 AM ET
Washington Post opinion Page
All eyes are on the White House, where President Obama will soon make a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. But it pays to keep an eye on the Kabul headquarters of senior American and NATO commander Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal. If, as is being widely rumored in Washington, Obama ends up not going along with McChrystal’s request for a reported 40,000 troops to support a sustained, substantial counterinsurgency commitment to achieve victory in Afghanistan, what will McChrystal do?
McChrystal is a consequential figure. He is one of the pioneers of counterterrorism and a highly intelligent, reliable, and well regarded general. His standing in the Pentagon and NATO and his professional reputation are on the line.
After all, McChrystal is the top military officer Obama dispatched to assess the Afghan situation on the ground. Having found a dangerously deteriorating situation, McChrystal, as instructed, proposed a strategy up through the chain of command to the White House that he concluded has the best chance of staving off defeat in what Obama has called a “war of necessity.” McChrystal wants to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting civilians, winning over cities and building infrastructure -- a strategy that calls for more manpower on top of the 68,000 U.S. troops already there and a much longer time horizon.
McChrystal has made it clear that he does not support the more limited campaign pushed by Vice President Biden that stresses a counterterrorism effort against Al Qaeda along the Pakistani border with missiles and drones.
If Obama agrees with McChrystal’s goals and strategy yet scales down the mission by sending fewer troops, will the general salute like a good soldier and carry on, as the White House would wish? Or will McChrystal conclude that he has been second-guessed by poll-driven civilians outside the military, that he has been handed a stripped-down mission that cannot succeed and which will only endanger the men and women entrusted to him?
Will he decide that he can no longer serve as Obama’s war commander? Because an Afghan strategy crafted around a table in the White House will be all Obama’s, even if it draws upon some ideas of McChrystal.
Yes, watch the White House. But keep a close eye on Stanley McChrystal.
*********************************************************************************
Wow. That is a really good question. What WILL General McChrystal do, if the Obama administration continues to procrastinate on this issue?
Now, I am by no means an expert on politics, war, or anything of that nature (which is the reason WHY I started this blog--to LEARN), but, if you appoint someone who is deemed as 'consequential' and considered to be highly intelligent, and reliable, and you tell him/her to make an assessment of the situation of a war, and they tell you what they need and when they need it, WHY in God's name would you continue to take your time on making a decision, knowing that this man is relying on YOU for help?
Now, my question is this: If Obama continues to put off making a decision on whether or not to send more troops to this Generaal (which he appointed) do you think it is fair to say that the General may decide to have an 'uprising' of his own? Would it be too far fetched to assume that General McChrystal may try to go against the Obama administration in some way, that may cause the president some major political problems?
Well, I think the next few days (or weeks) are going to be very crucial indeed, and we may see something very interesting start to transpire. What do you think?
November 2, 2009; 11:36 AM ET
Washington Post opinion Page
All eyes are on the White House, where President Obama will soon make a decision on the way forward in Afghanistan. But it pays to keep an eye on the Kabul headquarters of senior American and NATO commander Gen. Stanley H. McChrystal. If, as is being widely rumored in Washington, Obama ends up not going along with McChrystal’s request for a reported 40,000 troops to support a sustained, substantial counterinsurgency commitment to achieve victory in Afghanistan, what will McChrystal do?
McChrystal is a consequential figure. He is one of the pioneers of counterterrorism and a highly intelligent, reliable, and well regarded general. His standing in the Pentagon and NATO and his professional reputation are on the line.
After all, McChrystal is the top military officer Obama dispatched to assess the Afghan situation on the ground. Having found a dangerously deteriorating situation, McChrystal, as instructed, proposed a strategy up through the chain of command to the White House that he concluded has the best chance of staving off defeat in what Obama has called a “war of necessity.” McChrystal wants to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy that focuses on protecting civilians, winning over cities and building infrastructure -- a strategy that calls for more manpower on top of the 68,000 U.S. troops already there and a much longer time horizon.
McChrystal has made it clear that he does not support the more limited campaign pushed by Vice President Biden that stresses a counterterrorism effort against Al Qaeda along the Pakistani border with missiles and drones.
If Obama agrees with McChrystal’s goals and strategy yet scales down the mission by sending fewer troops, will the general salute like a good soldier and carry on, as the White House would wish? Or will McChrystal conclude that he has been second-guessed by poll-driven civilians outside the military, that he has been handed a stripped-down mission that cannot succeed and which will only endanger the men and women entrusted to him?
Will he decide that he can no longer serve as Obama’s war commander? Because an Afghan strategy crafted around a table in the White House will be all Obama’s, even if it draws upon some ideas of McChrystal.
Yes, watch the White House. But keep a close eye on Stanley McChrystal.
*********************************************************************************
Wow. That is a really good question. What WILL General McChrystal do, if the Obama administration continues to procrastinate on this issue?
Now, I am by no means an expert on politics, war, or anything of that nature (which is the reason WHY I started this blog--to LEARN), but, if you appoint someone who is deemed as 'consequential' and considered to be highly intelligent, and reliable, and you tell him/her to make an assessment of the situation of a war, and they tell you what they need and when they need it, WHY in God's name would you continue to take your time on making a decision, knowing that this man is relying on YOU for help?
Now, my question is this: If Obama continues to put off making a decision on whether or not to send more troops to this Generaal (which he appointed) do you think it is fair to say that the General may decide to have an 'uprising' of his own? Would it be too far fetched to assume that General McChrystal may try to go against the Obama administration in some way, that may cause the president some major political problems?
Well, I think the next few days (or weeks) are going to be very crucial indeed, and we may see something very interesting start to transpire. What do you think?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Karzai win complicates White House strategy for Afghanistan
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 2, 2009; 1:43 PM
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's election by default Monday confirms at least a week earlier than expected that the Obama administration will continue for the foreseeable future to have the same mercurial partner in Afghanistan.
Karzai was expected to win the Nov. 7 runoff election easily and continue in the role he has held for nearly eight years, just as President Obama enters the final stage of deciding whether to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.
But the departure of Karzai's chief rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, deprives him of a genuine win at the polls and potentially undermines the Obama administration's goal of building a legitimate government in Kabul.
Obama, congressional leaders and the U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, have made clear that the success of any strategy the White House eventually settles on will depend on the Afghan government's ability to improve its credibility among the people.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama planned to telephone Karzai shortly since the runoff election was called off.
Senior administration officials were encouraged last month when Karzai accepted a second round of voting following the deeply flawed August election. He won that vote with more than the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff, but a U.N.-backed review later determined that nearly a third of his votes were fraudulent.
His acceptance of a runoff, administration officials say, was far more important in ensuring the legitimacy of the election process than Abdullah's participation in it. Abdullah trailed Karzai by double digits after the first round even after Karzai was stripped of the fraudulent votes.
Karzai said Monday that he wanted the runoff to go forward, given that Abdullah's name would still appear on the already printed ballots. It was an acknowledgement that his victory without a vote will almost certainly leave his administration weaker among Afghans than it would have been after a clean election. Throughout the weekend, as Abdullah's threat to quit turned into his announcement to do so, senior administration officials drew parallels between the Afghan election tumult and domestic politics.
One senior administration official said Abdullah, who had been seeking a power-sharing arrangement with Karzai after the first round, was following a political strategy often seen in U.S. elections. At no time does a candidate not expected to win have more leverage than just before the vote, the official said.
"This does not, in our view, affect the legitimacy of the process," the official said. "It does present an opportunity to shift to a new phase in Afghanistan."
Whether it does undermine Karzai's legitimacy will be decided ultimately by the Afghan people. But the relatively mild way Abdullah left the race -- angry but never calling for a boycott -- could help Karzai and his U.S. partners consolidate power around his new administration.
Abdullah criticized Karzai for refusing to take the steps he had demanded to ensure a fair second-round of voting, but in a tone that administration officials described as "moderate."
One senior administration official involved in the review process said the administration hopes Abdullah "continues to remain involved in Afghan politics and have a voice in the country's future," a signal he would be more helpful on the inside of any Afghan government or political process than as an outside critic.
Obama is scheduled to take up the review again this week in meetings with military leaders and his civilian advisers.
He had planned to announce his decision on U.S. strategy for the country after the Nov. 7 vote, waiting for a government accepted by Afghans to emerge from what would likely have been a messy aftermath before doing so. That lengthy -- and potentially violent -- process has now been avoided.
Obama's advisers say it is unclear how the Independent Election Commission's declaration of Karzai as the winner will affect the timing of his decision or the shape of the strategy he endorses.
McChrystal has asked for tens of thousands of additional troops to support his counter-insurgency strategy that focuses on protecting the Afghan population from the Taliban.
A legitimate and effective Afghan government is essential to the strategy because, as McChrystal notes in his grim assessment of the eight-year war, the Afghan public must be given an alternative to the Taliban.
The Karzai administration is widely viewed within Afghanistan as corrupt, and the Obama administration's review is identifying local leaders who might serve as more effective partners than the central government.
Karzai's reelection by default underscores the importance of the provincial governments and tribal leaders, who have traditionally exerted the most authority in a country with a historically weak central government.
But Obama will also be asking Karzai to do far more to reform his government, which administration officials who favor a more narrow counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan have long criticized. Those officials include Vice President Biden, who has had a rocky relationship with Karzai, now set to assume another five-year term.
*************************************************************************
Ok, I have to ask this question, because I am not quite able to grasp the reason(s) as to 'why' this runoff election in Afghanistan affects the Obama administration's decision on whether or not to send General McChrystal more troops.
Also, I haven't been able to ascertain why Abdullah Abdullah even dropped out of the race. I mean, what (or who) made him suddenly decide to just back out of this election?
I know from reading this article a couple of times (and I am still reading it) that Karzai's administration had been viewed as 'corrupt'. So, if the Afghan people (and/or our own government) wanted to put an end to the political corruption in Afghanistan, why would Abdullah back out of the election? Especially if he [Abdullah] had a fair shake at winning and if he would have run a "non-corrupt government"?
For some reason, this just doesn't sit well with me. I wonder if, and I promise you I am NOT trying to resort to my famous 'conspiracy theories', but, I wonder if, MAYBE, Abdullah was 'pressured' into backing out of this election, and if that was the case, why, and who was responsible?
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 2, 2009; 1:43 PM
Afghan President Hamid Karzai's election by default Monday confirms at least a week earlier than expected that the Obama administration will continue for the foreseeable future to have the same mercurial partner in Afghanistan.
Karzai was expected to win the Nov. 7 runoff election easily and continue in the role he has held for nearly eight years, just as President Obama enters the final stage of deciding whether to escalate U.S. involvement in the war.
But the departure of Karzai's chief rival, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, deprives him of a genuine win at the polls and potentially undermines the Obama administration's goal of building a legitimate government in Kabul.
Obama, congressional leaders and the U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, have made clear that the success of any strategy the White House eventually settles on will depend on the Afghan government's ability to improve its credibility among the people.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama planned to telephone Karzai shortly since the runoff election was called off.
Senior administration officials were encouraged last month when Karzai accepted a second round of voting following the deeply flawed August election. He won that vote with more than the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff, but a U.N.-backed review later determined that nearly a third of his votes were fraudulent.
His acceptance of a runoff, administration officials say, was far more important in ensuring the legitimacy of the election process than Abdullah's participation in it. Abdullah trailed Karzai by double digits after the first round even after Karzai was stripped of the fraudulent votes.
Karzai said Monday that he wanted the runoff to go forward, given that Abdullah's name would still appear on the already printed ballots. It was an acknowledgement that his victory without a vote will almost certainly leave his administration weaker among Afghans than it would have been after a clean election. Throughout the weekend, as Abdullah's threat to quit turned into his announcement to do so, senior administration officials drew parallels between the Afghan election tumult and domestic politics.
One senior administration official said Abdullah, who had been seeking a power-sharing arrangement with Karzai after the first round, was following a political strategy often seen in U.S. elections. At no time does a candidate not expected to win have more leverage than just before the vote, the official said.
"This does not, in our view, affect the legitimacy of the process," the official said. "It does present an opportunity to shift to a new phase in Afghanistan."
Whether it does undermine Karzai's legitimacy will be decided ultimately by the Afghan people. But the relatively mild way Abdullah left the race -- angry but never calling for a boycott -- could help Karzai and his U.S. partners consolidate power around his new administration.
Abdullah criticized Karzai for refusing to take the steps he had demanded to ensure a fair second-round of voting, but in a tone that administration officials described as "moderate."
One senior administration official involved in the review process said the administration hopes Abdullah "continues to remain involved in Afghan politics and have a voice in the country's future," a signal he would be more helpful on the inside of any Afghan government or political process than as an outside critic.
Obama is scheduled to take up the review again this week in meetings with military leaders and his civilian advisers.
He had planned to announce his decision on U.S. strategy for the country after the Nov. 7 vote, waiting for a government accepted by Afghans to emerge from what would likely have been a messy aftermath before doing so. That lengthy -- and potentially violent -- process has now been avoided.
Obama's advisers say it is unclear how the Independent Election Commission's declaration of Karzai as the winner will affect the timing of his decision or the shape of the strategy he endorses.
McChrystal has asked for tens of thousands of additional troops to support his counter-insurgency strategy that focuses on protecting the Afghan population from the Taliban.
A legitimate and effective Afghan government is essential to the strategy because, as McChrystal notes in his grim assessment of the eight-year war, the Afghan public must be given an alternative to the Taliban.
The Karzai administration is widely viewed within Afghanistan as corrupt, and the Obama administration's review is identifying local leaders who might serve as more effective partners than the central government.
Karzai's reelection by default underscores the importance of the provincial governments and tribal leaders, who have traditionally exerted the most authority in a country with a historically weak central government.
But Obama will also be asking Karzai to do far more to reform his government, which administration officials who favor a more narrow counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan have long criticized. Those officials include Vice President Biden, who has had a rocky relationship with Karzai, now set to assume another five-year term.
*************************************************************************
Ok, I have to ask this question, because I am not quite able to grasp the reason(s) as to 'why' this runoff election in Afghanistan affects the Obama administration's decision on whether or not to send General McChrystal more troops.
Also, I haven't been able to ascertain why Abdullah Abdullah even dropped out of the race. I mean, what (or who) made him suddenly decide to just back out of this election?
I know from reading this article a couple of times (and I am still reading it) that Karzai's administration had been viewed as 'corrupt'. So, if the Afghan people (and/or our own government) wanted to put an end to the political corruption in Afghanistan, why would Abdullah back out of the election? Especially if he [Abdullah] had a fair shake at winning and if he would have run a "non-corrupt government"?
For some reason, this just doesn't sit well with me. I wonder if, and I promise you I am NOT trying to resort to my famous 'conspiracy theories', but, I wonder if, MAYBE, Abdullah was 'pressured' into backing out of this election, and if that was the case, why, and who was responsible?
Sunday, November 1, 2009
CIT files for bankruptcy; taxpayers may lose $2.3B stake
By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY
Contributing: Pallavi Gogoi, Reuters, Associated Press
Small- and midsize-business financier CIT Group's bankruptcy protection filing Sunday could put most of its clients back into the precarious position the federal government was trying to prevent with its $2.3 billion cash infusion late last year.
CIT is the largest of the so-called factoring companies that provide capital to clients based on their accounts receivable to tide them over until they're paid.
The filing by CIT, the leading provider of financing to retailers and their vendors, is one of the largest in U.S. history and affects 2,000 of these clients but not the company's other operating subsidiaries. CIT expects to reduce its total debt by about $10 billion.
CIT says its creditors have already approved its prepackaged Chapter 11 reorganization plan and that it plans to emerge by the end of the year.
Like its clients, CIT had been struggling to find funding of its own. Sources, such as short-term debt, that it used to be able to rely on had dried up in the credit crisis. Babson College management professor Peter Cohan says CIT "got distracted by subprime mortgages and student loans" and will now likely have to focus on lending to small and midsize businesses.
Even if it emerges intact, more than three-quarters of its clients will likely need alternative financing, says Joe Alouf, senior managing partner of the crisis turnaround and restructuring company Eaglepoint Advisors.
CIT has already scaled back on lending. In the first six months of 2009, CIT provided 1% of all Small Business Administration loans. In 2008, it provided 6% of all SBA lending, the National Small Business Association says.
"If you were a customer of CIT, and you haven't done so already, you're going to need to scramble to find someone," Alouf says. "A lot of these traditional asset-based borrowers will have the ability to go to a more traditional bank, but for the weaker, smaller ones, there is no guarantee a new institution is going to accept them and under what terms."
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, I had to break in right here because, as we all know, Obama thinks he is on some gigantic 'Monopoly' board, and is trying to 'take control' of every aspect of the business world, i.e. the automotive industry. Now, I have to ask, what will happen if these businesses end up having to go to a bank, if Obama has control over it, and they get turned down? Wouldn't that mean that small businesses would become a 'thing of the past'?)**
CIT clients and industry officials have rallied to its support as its fate grew more questionable this year.
"If CIT were to go away, it would take a financing option away from our franchisees who want to buy stores or expand their networks," Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman Michelle King said on CIT's website.
National Retail Federation CEO Tracy Mullin said "a failure of CIT would impact thousands of retailers and, consequently, the consumer spending that makes up two-thirds of our nation's economy. That cannot be allowed to happen at a time when retailers are already struggling to survive the national recession."
RECOVERY WATCH: Tracking the economy; see VIDEO
About the only option for retailers who can't get credit is raising equity, and that's a long shot these days, Alouf says. "The question is what do you do if you cannot find what is absolutely a lifeline to your business. It's like if someone told you the company that delivers oxygen tanks to your house is going out of business."
Along with where they shop, the filing is expected to have another effect on consumers: Their $2.3 billion investment is expected to be wiped out as well.
**************************************************************************
Ok, on that last line, does this really come as no surprise to any of you? We have alreaddy wittnessed what Obama's 'stimulus packages' create--Jack and Squat--so, does it really come as no surprise that we [taxpayers] are going to lose MORE money?
I mean, come on, someone please tell me that Obama cannot see this. Or, maybe he DOES see it, and he just doen't care, because he WANTS this country to go bankrupt to the point of no return.
How much longer are we going to put up with the crap that is happening to us?
Contributing: Pallavi Gogoi, Reuters, Associated Press
Small- and midsize-business financier CIT Group's bankruptcy protection filing Sunday could put most of its clients back into the precarious position the federal government was trying to prevent with its $2.3 billion cash infusion late last year.
CIT is the largest of the so-called factoring companies that provide capital to clients based on their accounts receivable to tide them over until they're paid.
The filing by CIT, the leading provider of financing to retailers and their vendors, is one of the largest in U.S. history and affects 2,000 of these clients but not the company's other operating subsidiaries. CIT expects to reduce its total debt by about $10 billion.
CIT says its creditors have already approved its prepackaged Chapter 11 reorganization plan and that it plans to emerge by the end of the year.
Like its clients, CIT had been struggling to find funding of its own. Sources, such as short-term debt, that it used to be able to rely on had dried up in the credit crisis. Babson College management professor Peter Cohan says CIT "got distracted by subprime mortgages and student loans" and will now likely have to focus on lending to small and midsize businesses.
Even if it emerges intact, more than three-quarters of its clients will likely need alternative financing, says Joe Alouf, senior managing partner of the crisis turnaround and restructuring company Eaglepoint Advisors.
CIT has already scaled back on lending. In the first six months of 2009, CIT provided 1% of all Small Business Administration loans. In 2008, it provided 6% of all SBA lending, the National Small Business Association says.
"If you were a customer of CIT, and you haven't done so already, you're going to need to scramble to find someone," Alouf says. "A lot of these traditional asset-based borrowers will have the ability to go to a more traditional bank, but for the weaker, smaller ones, there is no guarantee a new institution is going to accept them and under what terms."
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, I had to break in right here because, as we all know, Obama thinks he is on some gigantic 'Monopoly' board, and is trying to 'take control' of every aspect of the business world, i.e. the automotive industry. Now, I have to ask, what will happen if these businesses end up having to go to a bank, if Obama has control over it, and they get turned down? Wouldn't that mean that small businesses would become a 'thing of the past'?)**
CIT clients and industry officials have rallied to its support as its fate grew more questionable this year.
"If CIT were to go away, it would take a financing option away from our franchisees who want to buy stores or expand their networks," Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman Michelle King said on CIT's website.
National Retail Federation CEO Tracy Mullin said "a failure of CIT would impact thousands of retailers and, consequently, the consumer spending that makes up two-thirds of our nation's economy. That cannot be allowed to happen at a time when retailers are already struggling to survive the national recession."
RECOVERY WATCH: Tracking the economy; see VIDEO
About the only option for retailers who can't get credit is raising equity, and that's a long shot these days, Alouf says. "The question is what do you do if you cannot find what is absolutely a lifeline to your business. It's like if someone told you the company that delivers oxygen tanks to your house is going out of business."
Along with where they shop, the filing is expected to have another effect on consumers: Their $2.3 billion investment is expected to be wiped out as well.
**************************************************************************
Ok, on that last line, does this really come as no surprise to any of you? We have alreaddy wittnessed what Obama's 'stimulus packages' create--Jack and Squat--so, does it really come as no surprise that we [taxpayers] are going to lose MORE money?
I mean, come on, someone please tell me that Obama cannot see this. Or, maybe he DOES see it, and he just doen't care, because he WANTS this country to go bankrupt to the point of no return.
How much longer are we going to put up with the crap that is happening to us?
Afghan challenger Abdullah drops out of election
From staff and wire reports
Contributing: Jim Michaels in Kabul; Associated Press
KABUL — The main challenger to Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced Sunday that he was withdrawing from the Nov. 7 presidential runoff. The decision dealt a potential blow to the government's legitimacy at a time when President Obama is weighing a decision to send thousands of additional troops into the fight there.
Abdullah Abdullah made his defiant announcement inside a tent packed with hundreds of supporters, including tribal leaders wearing turbans who sat near the front of the audience. Supporters interrupted his speech with scattered applause and cries of Allah Akbar, God is great.
The decision leaves Afghanistan's government in a fragile position and heightens political tensions at a sensitive time. Karzai's popularity is waning amid charges of corruption and incompetence as it struggles against a growing insurgency.
"I think the government will have a difficult time," said Sayed Eshaq Gilani, an Abdullah supporter and member of parliament. "The most important thing is legitimacy."
Karzai's campaign spokesman, Waheed Omar, said it was "very unfortunate" that Abdullah had withdrawn but that the Saturday runoff should proceed.
"We believe that the elections have to go on, the process has to complete itself, the people of Afghanistan have to be given the right to vote," Omar said.
President Obama is considering a request from the top U.S. and NATO commander here, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to send thousands of U.S. troops to shore up the fight against the Taliban and other insurgencts. Having a credible local government to partner with is considered critical to defeating an insurgency.
At a news conference after the announcement Abdullah said he would advise his supporters not to take to the streets and said he remained committed to unifying the country. The capital appeared quiet and there were no reports of protests elsewhere in the country.
"We fully endorse his emphasis on national unity," the U.S. Embassy said in a statement.
A clouded electoral picture further complicates the Obama administration's efforts to decide whether to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan to battle the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies.
The White House has been waiting for a new government in Kabul to announce a decision, but the war has intensified in the meantime. October was the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces; there were at least 57 American deaths.
Before the announcement, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton downplayed the prospect of an Abdullah withdrawal, saying it would not undermine the legitimacy of the election.
"I don't think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election," Clinton told reporters Saturday in Abu Dhabi. "It's a personal choice."
Nevertheless, the contentious electoral process has divided anti-Taliban groups at a time when the U.S. and its allies are pressing for unity in the face of growing insurgent strength.
U.S. officials pressured Karzai into agreeing to a runoff after U.N.-backed auditors threw out nearly a third of his votes from the August ballot, citing fraud.
Despite the rhetoric it is impossible to rule out an accommodation between Karzai and Abdullah or his supporters. Afghanistan's history is replete with examples of factions continuing to talk even as they were killing each other.
"In Afghanistan even the people who have fought against one another sit together and they talk," Abdullah said. He said he hasn't ruled out talks in the future.
Abdullah had demanded that Karzai replace the election commissioners, whom he said were biased, and several ministers. Karzai had refused.
It is not clear whether election officials will go ahead with balloting on Saturday or whether Abdullah's name will be taken off the ballot.
Abdullah, the former foreign minister, said he made his decision after Karzai turned down his demands for changes to the Independent Election Commission and other measures that he said would prevent massive fraud, which marred the first round of balloting on Aug. 20.
Azizullah Lodin, the head of the Karzai-appointed commission, said he would have to confer with constitutional lawyers before deciding later Sunday whether the runoff would proceed without Abdullah.
Kai Eide, the top U.N. official in Afghanistan, said in a statement that the next step is to "bring this electoral process to a conclusion in a legal and timely manner."
The statement did not address whether the runoff should go forward, though U.N. spokesman Aleem Siddique said it looked impractical.
"It's difficult to see how you can have a runoff with only one candidate," Siddique said.
Abdullah also made no mention of agreeing to take part in any future unity government with Karzai, which the U.S. and its international partners believe is the best hope for curbing the Taliban insurgency.
Instead, Abdullah said Karzai's government had not been legitimate since its mandate expired last May. The Supreme Court, appointed by Karzai, extended his mandate after the election was put off from last spring until August.
"In one hour, all my conditions could have been implemented. Unfortunately, until the last moment we were waiting, but we heard they rejected our appeals," Abdullah said.
He said the people of Afghanistan "have the right" to a free and fair election but the last ballot "was a failure."
Obama administration officials said they would be receptive to a power-sharing deal to avoid a runoff if Karzai and Abdullah could agree on a formula.
But Abdullah decided to exit the race after talks between the two sides broke down Thursday, according to two people close to the negotiations. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak for the candidate.
*******************************************************************************
Ok, *(sighing)* I have read this news article (that I found on the USA Today site) twice, and I am still trying to get a handle on it.
I am trying to understand what this would mean to our military forces that are over ther now, and what it may mean to future troops [US] that may be sent over there.
How does this run-off election in Afghanistan affect our U.S. troops? Or better still, (since I am still trying to get a clear understanding of this whole thing) does this election run-off affect our troops?
The way I see it, and I could be mis-reading this, is that it could affect Obama's decision to send more troops, no matter what happens during or after the run-off. I think, and remember this is just my personal opinion, that it will have a negative affect on Obama's decision in such a way that he won't send the number of troops needed, or that he may decide to NOT send any additional troops at all.
Personally, if that is the case, I think that it would be an unwise decision for him [Obama] not to send the number of troops needed or to not send them. I believe that it would seriously hurt him politically.
So, now, you guys tell me what is really going on with this. Because I am really trying to learn and understand what is going on in our country and our world and I cannot succeed without the help of you guys.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
A New Storm Is On The Horizon--This Will Be A New Conservative Crusade
**(This is my 'rant' of the month)**
Someone tell me HOW disgraceful he is?
Someone tell me HOW dispicable he is?
Someone tell me HOW disrespectful he is?
Someone tell me HOW hateful he is?
Someone tell me HOW stupid he is?
And, someone try to tell me I am wrong for my angry rant about this picture and this healthcare nightmare?
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
Well, I do not need a 'story' or 'news article' to provide any commentary on this, folks, because just like that old saying--'A picture is worth a thousand words'. And boy, oh boy, do I EVER have some 'WORDS' for these Anti-American Communists who THINK they will conquer our Great Nation, or our lives.
Here we go, folks. Get ready to see me REALLY fired up, and ready to fight.
**************************************************************************
Oh REALLY Mr, SCARY Reid??? OH REALLY??? Well, just let me tell YOU what I think about you and those like you:
F*** YOU Nobama!
F*** YOU Nazi Pelosi!
F*** YOU Scary Reid!
F*** YOU Michelle 'My HELL' Obama!
F*** YOU TeleFarter!
F*** YOU Wimp House!
F*** YOU Thuggress!
F*** YOU Obamacare Nightmare!
F*** YOU Libturds!
F*** YOU Demoncraps!
But MOST of all--and this is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than those Marxists Morons in office--
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
GOD BLESS the U.S.A.!!!
GOD BLESS our FOUNDING FATHERS!!!
GOD BLESS the AMERICAN FLAG!!!
GOD BLESS the MILITARY!!!
If I have to stand alone in my crusade to get him impeached, I will. I am starting a NEW CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION. Because I am sick and tired of this whole Chicago thug-style communist bunch of evil beings who are trying to take over the world!
They are WORSE than Hitler!
They are WORSE than Mao Tse-Tung!
They are WORSE than Stalin!
They are WORSE than Castro!
They are WORSE than Chavez!
They are WORSE than Satan himself!!!!
I cannot take it anymore, ladies and gentlemen, and NEITHER SHOULD THE REST OF YOU!
This is OUR Country! Do you hear me, folks? THIS IS OUR COUNTRY! It belongs to us. Let's get it BACK!
Mr. Nobama, does not REALIZE that HE work for US! HE is OUR 'employee'. WE are HIS 'employer'. HE needs to either DO HIS JOB, and GET OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, or WE the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA will say only two words to him--
"YOUR FIRED"!!!
I will work day and night, night and day, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year to have him IMPEACHED if he continues to DESTROY our beloved Nation with his Marxist, Communistic, HATEFUL Socialist Fascism-like policies.
(Hell, my DOG could do a better job of running the Country!)
Someone tell me HOW disgraceful he is?
Someone tell me HOW dispicable he is?
Someone tell me HOW disrespectful he is?
Someone tell me HOW hateful he is?
Someone tell me HOW stupid he is?
And, someone try to tell me I am wrong for my angry rant about this picture and this healthcare nightmare?
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
Well, I do not need a 'story' or 'news article' to provide any commentary on this, folks, because just like that old saying--'A picture is worth a thousand words'. And boy, oh boy, do I EVER have some 'WORDS' for these Anti-American Communists who THINK they will conquer our Great Nation, or our lives.
Here we go, folks. Get ready to see me REALLY fired up, and ready to fight.
**************************************************************************
Oh REALLY Mr, SCARY Reid??? OH REALLY??? Well, just let me tell YOU what I think about you and those like you:
F*** YOU Nobama!
F*** YOU Nazi Pelosi!
F*** YOU Scary Reid!
F*** YOU Michelle 'My HELL' Obama!
F*** YOU TeleFarter!
F*** YOU Wimp House!
F*** YOU Thuggress!
F*** YOU Obamacare Nightmare!
F*** YOU Libturds!
F*** YOU Demoncraps!
But MOST of all--and this is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than those Marxists Morons in office--
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!
GOD BLESS the U.S.A.!!!
GOD BLESS our FOUNDING FATHERS!!!
GOD BLESS the AMERICAN FLAG!!!
GOD BLESS the MILITARY!!!
If I have to stand alone in my crusade to get him impeached, I will. I am starting a NEW CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION. Because I am sick and tired of this whole Chicago thug-style communist bunch of evil beings who are trying to take over the world!
They are WORSE than Hitler!
They are WORSE than Mao Tse-Tung!
They are WORSE than Stalin!
They are WORSE than Castro!
They are WORSE than Chavez!
They are WORSE than Satan himself!!!!
I cannot take it anymore, ladies and gentlemen, and NEITHER SHOULD THE REST OF YOU!
This is OUR Country! Do you hear me, folks? THIS IS OUR COUNTRY! It belongs to us. Let's get it BACK!
Mr. Nobama, does not REALIZE that HE work for US! HE is OUR 'employee'. WE are HIS 'employer'. HE needs to either DO HIS JOB, and GET OFF THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, or WE the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA will say only two words to him--
"YOUR FIRED"!!!
I will work day and night, night and day, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, 365 days a year to have him IMPEACHED if he continues to DESTROY our beloved Nation with his Marxist, Communistic, HATEFUL Socialist Fascism-like policies.
(Hell, my DOG could do a better job of running the Country!)
Friday, October 30, 2009
I Am One Who Stands Alone--For Freedom's Sake
Ladies and gentlemen of the United States of America, I stand before you now, a lone warrior in a fight to help keep our beloved U.S. Constitution safe and secure. And I have only one request of you--please help me, for I am afraid.
It is not very often that I endure sleepless nights, however, when those nights do occur, there is but one reason for it--FEAR of TYRRANY. Yes, I fear tyrrany and the loss of my Constitutional freedom.
The first sleepless night I encountered was the night of September 11, 2001. However, it was not your typical 'sleepless night'. No, it was more like a sleepless week. For seven days I could not sleep, for all I could do was live on coffee, cigarettes,news, and the sheer unbridled fear that life, liberty, and freedom were coming to an end.
And now, I have endured yet another sleepless and tearful night, sitting at my desk, my eyes burning from the light of my computer monitor, the tears rolling down my cheeks, and the grey-blue cloud of cigarette smoke that surrounds me like that famous London fog, as I drink cup after cup of strong black coffee, reading, researching, and fearing, yet again where our beloved Country is headed, and I think to myself, 'Am I the only one who is feeling this fear right now' ?
And as I read the articles from various news publications, I feel a fire and an anger and a rage that is being awakened from deep inside of me, and I stood up in the middle of my den and slammed my tightly closed fist down hard on the desk and I screamed out to no one in particular these words: "I REFUSE to allow Mr. Obama to get away with anything that seeks to undermine and destroy our Country, our Flag, our Military, our Constitution, and OUR FREEDOMS"!
And then all I could do was sit back down and bury my face in my arms on the desk and cry from the frustration and feeling of helplessness that threatens to enslave my heart.
I am but a lone warrior in this fight to preserve and protect our Nation, our Flag, our Constitution, and all that we, as Americans hold dear to our hearts, and I ask myself, 'Will anyone help me' ?
Ronald Reagan made a statement once about our government, and he said '... Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives...' And yet, we have in our midst, a government that wants to do exactly that...run our lives.
I am but one voice, I am but one person in this vast sea of humanity, and I am but one who is not afraid to stand up and declare mutiny against the tyrrany that threatens our Country.
In the great immortal words of Dr. Martin Luther King, '...I have a dream...' and my dream is to fight this impending threat upon us that will undermine, destroy and make null and void our very freedoms that our Founding Fathers put into place for us lo those many years ago when they gave birth to our Nation's Constitution that grants us our FREEDOM and our LIBERTY, a Constitution that our current government wishes to 'abort' and turn our Country into a Marxist communistic nation where the government can and will do anything and everything that they please to us, and there will be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that we can do to stop them.
Unless we work together right now, as one, we will lose everything our Founding Fathers granted and guaranteed us in our United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And know this, ladies and gentlemen, even though I stand alone at this time, my only hope is that I shall not remain alone in this fight, and if I do, I do it for you, and I do it for our Country.
And as you sit there at your computers, reading these words of my post, I ask you all to look deep inside yourselves, deep inside the very core of your Being, and search your hearts and souls for what you believe in. You must dig deeper than you ever have before and ask yourselves this:
"What would our Founding Fathers think of me, if I just sit back and do nothing to help preserve and protect our Country's Constitution? The very Constitution that grants me and my family our freedom"?
Even if our efforts fail, at least our Country and this Marxist-style government will know where we stand, and they will know that we will NOT back down, we will NOT give up, we will NOT surrender, we will NOT be silenced, and we will proudly and bravely stand tall and firm and deeply rooted in our beliefs and we shall shout it out loud to the Heavens "CAN YOU HEAR US NOW" !?!
And we shall fight the good fight to let our freedom ring like the sound of thousands of Liberty Bells and our voices shall reverberate all across the world as we stand proud, and tall, and strong and shout "GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"!!!
And again I ask, "Mr. Obama 'Can You Hear Us Now' as we proudly proclaim:
God Bless our Military!God Bless our Founding Fathers!God Bless our United States Constitution!And GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
For 'We the People' of the United States of America WILL NOT BE AFRAID any more, and 'We the People' of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA shall NOT BE SILENCED by those who would seek to demonize our Constitution! We are the Voice of the United States of AMERICA and WE WILL BE HEARD!
Please read more here:
http://wisdomofsoloman.blogspot.com/2009/10/american-sovereignty-glenn-beck.html
http://back2basicusa.blogspot.com/2009/10/oath.html
http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2009/10/lord-monckton-says-stop-obama-from.html
If I am not alone, please help me take back our Country before it is too late.
Thank you, and God Bless.
*************************************************************************************
Please click here to sign petition:
Save Our United Staes Constitution Now
Thursday, October 29, 2009
We Don't Want This Obamacare Nightmare!
Help Stop The Obamacare Nightmare
TN 8th Mr. Congressman John Tanner is in favor of the Obama Healthcare Plan Bill. Call his office and tell him that if he votes in favor of this bill, you will throw all your support to the other guy, and campaign against him. Even if you do not live in Tennessee, call him. Call 1-202-225-4714. If the line is busy, that is a good thing. Keep calling and don't let them have a minutes rest, and help us put an end to the Obamacare Nightmare.
TN 8th Mr. Congressman John Tanner is in favor of the Obama Healthcare Plan Bill. Call his office and tell him that if he votes in favor of this bill, you will throw all your support to the other guy, and campaign against him. Even if you do not live in Tennessee, call him. Call 1-202-225-4714. If the line is busy, that is a good thing. Keep calling and don't let them have a minutes rest, and help us put an end to the Obamacare Nightmare.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Dear President Obama--HOW DARE YOU FORGET!!!
I had a really hard time creating this particular post, because of the tears roling down my cheeks and flooding my eyes. I know that this particular post is a couple of months late, but I also had a difficult time trying to find the perfect videos to include here. This post is not just an "In Loving Memory', but it is also meant to be a letter to our President.
Please, let us all NEVER forget what happened that day, let us all NEVER forget how we felt when this happened, and let us all NEVER forget why we are REALLY at war.
In Loving Memory of the families, friends, co-workers, the victims and those who died trying to resue the survivers, and in loving memory of our brave men and women in uniform who serve in our military who have died trying to PROTECT our freedoms and our LIVES.
Mr. Obama, this is for you:
*******************************************************************
Dear President Obama,
How dare you forget what happened to our Nation on September 11, 2001. How dare you forget the REAL REASON we are fighting. And further more, how dare you take your sweet ass time sending in more troops--troops that we NEED-- to finish the job. I "HOPE" you are reading the blogs on GOOGLE, and that it will "CHANGE" your perspective on the war.
Mr. President, while our AMERICAN soldiers are being killed daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are too busy trying to get the Olympics in Chicago. You are too busy 'touring the world' and "APOLOGIZING" for America and It's PEOPLE. You are too busy whining and crying about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and trying to 'shut us up and shut us down. You are too busy out 'PLAYING GOLF' every 2nd or 3rd day of the week, and choosing a 'dog' for your family.
Mr. President, if you TRULY have a heart inside your body, you WILL NEVER FORGET what happened that day. If you truly have a BRAIN inside your head, you will THINK about how YOU and YOUR FAMILY felt that day, when our Nation was attacked so mercilessly, and so brutally.
Mr. President, WE THE PEOPLE will NEVER FORGET how we felt that day. We lost our families, our friends, and our co-workers. Who are we, you ask yourself? WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! WE ARE THE VOICE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! And I say this to you, so listen up very closely:
"MR. PRESIDENT, CAN-YOU-HEAR-US-NOW? We will NOT be silenced! We will NEVER forget! We will NOT allow you to forget! So, I ask you again, Mr. President...."CAN--YOU--HEAR--US--NOW!?! Because we are NOT going to take it ANYMORE!
Mr. President, you see fit to travel all over the world calling the AMERICAN PEOPLE the 'enemy'. Take a REALLY GOOD LOOK, Mr. President, because WE are NOT the ENEMY! The true enemy is the evil that attacked our Nation. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the enemy, yet you say that it is AMERICA who is to BLAME. HOW--DARE--YOU--BLAME--AMERICA! HOW--DARE--YOU--FORGET! And you may ask, 'Have you no respect for me as your President'? And my answer is simple, yet BRUTAL--
"NO! I have NO RESPECT for YOU or YOUR 'communist administration' and I absolutely WILL NOT support YOU or your 'communist administration'. You show our Nation no respect, you show our military no respect or support, so WHY SHOULD I RESPECT or SUPPORT YOU???? I have NO room for RESPECT or SUPPORT for a 'so-called' president who shows a total DISREGARD for our Nation and Military. And I NEVER will".
Take a REAL GOOD LOOK Mr. President, and listen VERY CLOSELY--
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NOT BE SILENCED by YOU or ANYONE!!!
Mr. President, I will ask you ONE LAST TIME---
"CAN--YOU--HEAR--US--NOW!?!
Sincerely,
We the People of the United States of AMERICA.
Please, let us all NEVER forget what happened that day, let us all NEVER forget how we felt when this happened, and let us all NEVER forget why we are REALLY at war.
In Loving Memory of the families, friends, co-workers, the victims and those who died trying to resue the survivers, and in loving memory of our brave men and women in uniform who serve in our military who have died trying to PROTECT our freedoms and our LIVES.
Mr. Obama, this is for you:
*******************************************************************
Dear President Obama,
How dare you forget what happened to our Nation on September 11, 2001. How dare you forget the REAL REASON we are fighting. And further more, how dare you take your sweet ass time sending in more troops--troops that we NEED-- to finish the job. I "HOPE" you are reading the blogs on GOOGLE, and that it will "CHANGE" your perspective on the war.
Mr. President, while our AMERICAN soldiers are being killed daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are too busy trying to get the Olympics in Chicago. You are too busy 'touring the world' and "APOLOGIZING" for America and It's PEOPLE. You are too busy whining and crying about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and trying to 'shut us up and shut us down. You are too busy out 'PLAYING GOLF' every 2nd or 3rd day of the week, and choosing a 'dog' for your family.
Mr. President, if you TRULY have a heart inside your body, you WILL NEVER FORGET what happened that day. If you truly have a BRAIN inside your head, you will THINK about how YOU and YOUR FAMILY felt that day, when our Nation was attacked so mercilessly, and so brutally.
Mr. President, WE THE PEOPLE will NEVER FORGET how we felt that day. We lost our families, our friends, and our co-workers. Who are we, you ask yourself? WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! WE ARE THE VOICE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! And I say this to you, so listen up very closely:
"MR. PRESIDENT, CAN-YOU-HEAR-US-NOW? We will NOT be silenced! We will NEVER forget! We will NOT allow you to forget! So, I ask you again, Mr. President...."CAN--YOU--HEAR--US--NOW!?! Because we are NOT going to take it ANYMORE!
Mr. President, you see fit to travel all over the world calling the AMERICAN PEOPLE the 'enemy'. Take a REALLY GOOD LOOK, Mr. President, because WE are NOT the ENEMY! The true enemy is the evil that attacked our Nation. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are the enemy, yet you say that it is AMERICA who is to BLAME. HOW--DARE--YOU--BLAME--AMERICA! HOW--DARE--YOU--FORGET! And you may ask, 'Have you no respect for me as your President'? And my answer is simple, yet BRUTAL--
"NO! I have NO RESPECT for YOU or YOUR 'communist administration' and I absolutely WILL NOT support YOU or your 'communist administration'. You show our Nation no respect, you show our military no respect or support, so WHY SHOULD I RESPECT or SUPPORT YOU???? I have NO room for RESPECT or SUPPORT for a 'so-called' president who shows a total DISREGARD for our Nation and Military. And I NEVER will".
Take a REAL GOOD LOOK Mr. President, and listen VERY CLOSELY--
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NOT BE SILENCED by YOU or ANYONE!!!
Mr. President, I will ask you ONE LAST TIME---
"CAN--YOU--HEAR--US--NOW!?!
Sincerely,
We the People of the United States of AMERICA.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Afghanistan Could Turn into Vietnam: Let's Hope So.
By Joshua Kurlantzick
Sunday, October 25, 2009
In a ceremony last week honoring a unit of Vietnam veterans for their heroism in a long-forgotten battle, President Obama offered a glimpse of how heavily the lessons of Vietnam weigh on him as he considers the way forward in Afghanistan.
"If that day in the jungle, if that war long ago, teaches us anything," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden, "then surely it is this: If we send our men and women in uniform into harm's way, then it must be only when it is absolutely necessary. And when we do, we must back them up with the strategy and the resources and the support they need to get the job done."
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I totally agree. I may not know a great deal about the Vietnam War, but I intend to do the research and 'do my homework, so to speak, about this, and if the president REALLY believeshis words, then WHY is he 'dragging his feet' and procrastinating on sending in more troops--troops that we NEED over there in Afghanistan--so that we can end this thing with a victory?)**
Vietnam is the nuclear option of historical analogies. Yet, rather than fear that Afghanistan will become another Vietnam, we should embrace the prospect. If the U.S. relationship with Afghanistan eventually resembles the one we now have with Vietnam, we should be overjoyed. Little more than a generation after a bloody, frustrating war, Vietnam and the United States have become close partners in Southeast Asia, exchanging official visits, building an important trading and strategic relationship and fostering goodwill between governments, businesses and people on both sides.
The lessons of the Vietnam War are clear and sobering, but history does not end in 1975, when the last American diplomats fled Saigon. Once large-scale fighting ends in Afghanistan, Washington should strive for the kind of reconciliation it has achieved with Vietnam. America did not win the war there, but over time it has won the peace. As unlikely as it seems today, the same outcome is possible in Afghanistan.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, but here's the thing. In my opinion, the people of Vietnam were a lot more civil toward us [America] than I think that Afghanistan or Iraq will be. Let's face it, the Taliban is over there using Afghanistan as a training camp for their militant terrorist groups, and those people HATE America and all that we [Americans] stand for. My question is this: Even if this war turns out the way the Vietnam War did, can we REALLY trust that Afghanistan and Iraq will show us the same respect that Vietnam did so long ago? Do we REALLY want to take the RISK of trusting our enemies?)**
Thirty-plus years ago, few would have predicted that Vietnam and the United States would someday come together. The long war of attrition left government ties strained, to put it mildly, and forever scarred both populations. In the United States, the war damaged the reputation of the military, severely dented America's own image of its power and undermined U.S. standing in the world. And for the loved ones of the 58,000 American servicemen and women killed, the war was a tragedy from which they may never recover.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Exactly. This is something else that I am afraid will happen. I mean, wasn't not too long ago that our Presidential Administration was already calling our military 'evil' and 'murderers'? Our military are the only ones, RIGHT NOW, who care enough to fight for our freedoms that we are granted under our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I have much--MUCH--respect and love for them [military], and it would simply break my heart if our military was shunned and disregarded, once again for the sacrifices that they make for all of us--even for those who are ungrateful.)**
Much like the airstrikes in Afghanistan, U.S. tactics in Vietnam -- such as the spraying of Agent Orange and bombings that caused widespread civilian deaths -- alienated the civilian population there. And even after the war officially ended, Washington continued to punish Hanoi, refusing to recognize the Vietnamese-installed government in Cambodia that had ousted the genocidal Khmer Rouge and slapping a trade embargo on Vietnam.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, and considering the type of Administration we have at the White House now, I believe that it is safe to say that the same thing will happen with them, only it won't be OUR government that will continue to punish them, it will be THEIR government--or the terrorists--who will continue to punish us by executing more and more terror attacks on U.S. soil. I mean, realistically, is this what we really want? Is this the risk we really want to take?)**
Today, however, 76 percent of Vietnamese say U.S. influence in Asia is positive, according to a 2008 study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs -- a greater percentage than in Japan, China, South Korea or Indonesia. When President Bill Clinton visited Vietnam in 2000, citizens greeted him like a rock star, mobbing him whenever he stepped out in public. Two-way trade now surpasses $15 billion annually, compared with virtually nothing in 1995, the year the two countries normalized diplomatic ties. American companies have descended upon Vietnam, and last year foreign direct investment in the country tripled compared with 2007.
U.S. Navy ships now call at Vietnamese ports, and the two governments have institutionalized high-level exchanges, including a 2003 Pentagon visit by Vietnam's defense minister -- the highest-level Vietnamese military trip to Washington since the war. Following up on Clinton's visit, President George W. Bush traveled to Vietnam in 2006; the previous year, Bush welcomed Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai on a visit to America.
Why the dramatic reversal? Time helped, certainly: Just as Americans will forget Mohammad Omar, eventually the images of tortured American POWs and massive bombing of the Vietnamese countryside began to fade on both sides. But more important, American war veterans publicly made peace with their old adversaries. In the Senate, vets John Kerry and John McCain pushed for the normalization of ties between the nations in the 1990s. And on the ground in Vietnam, groups of veterans met with civilians from the areas where they had served. These meetings had a profound impact on Vietnamese public opinion.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: While both sides after the Vietnam War were able to 'forgive and forget' what had happened, my thought about this when it concerns this current war(s) is that we [America] may be able to 'forgive and forget', but do we really believe that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will do the same? My guess is no, they won't. In theory I believe that what will actually happen is that they [terrorists organizations] will make us think that they have 'forgave and forgot' but the minute we [America] allows our guard to be let down, all hell will break loose and the next terror attack will be at least 10 times worse than the attacks executed on September 11, 2001)**
Hanoi reciprocated American goodwill and allowed a U.S. investigative commission to scour the country for any remaining prisoners of war, a major concern of the U.S. veterans community. The commission reported in 1993 that it had found little evidence that any POWs remained. The report, more than any other gesture, helped bring the American public on board for reengaging with Hanoi.
The George W. Bush and Obama administrations have continued to grapple with some of the old differences. The Bush administration, prodded by Congress, began funding efforts to study the extent of chemical contamination and clean up pollution in areas near a former U.S. facility in Da Nang. And this month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted Vietnam's foreign minister and vowed to expand trade links between the two countries.
At the same time, the large Vietnamese American community, many of whom fled to the United States after the communist takeover of their homeland in 1975, gradually abandoned their fears and began pouring investment into Vietnam in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This trade has helped heal old wounds, crowding out memories of war with new commercial influence, as American products compete for space in the shops and open-air markets of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.
Undoubtedly, Afghanistan would offer different postwar challenges than Vietnam. Of course, the campaign there is far from over -- it may even be escalated, if Obama agrees to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops -- and how and when it ends will shape Washington's future relationship with Kabul. The eventual results of Afghanistan's presidential election notwithstanding, the lack of a strong central government could make it difficult to build postwar ties, since there may be no leaders or institutions powerful or legitimate enough to sway the public.
Still, the parallels should not be ignored. After the war in Indochina, the United States wanted to build a close relationship with Vietnam, an important player in a critical region; Afghanistan has even higher strategic value. And much like Vietnam after the war, Afghanistan would have its own reasons for seeking strong ties to the United States. While Hanoi feared being dominated by its giant neighbor China, Afghanistan could use an outside power's help to hedge against the influence of regional powers such as Iran, Pakistan, India and China.
In Vietnam, just as the battle for public opinion was critical to the fight against an enemy enmeshed in the civilian population, it was also important to postwar reconciliation. Similarly, after the Afghan war, one can imagine U.S. investigations into the lasting impact of the conflict on the population, perhaps a well-publicized government study on the effects of airstrikes and an acknowledgement of the damage done on the ground.
Congress, meanwhile, could steal a page from the Vietnam Education Foundation Act of 2000, which established a foundation to support exchanges between the old adversaries, such as bringing Vietnamese graduate students to the United States and paying for American academics to teach in Vietnam. Such a program could ensure that the next generation of Afghan leaders sees an image of the United States beyond that of the war.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ah, but considering the fact that we may have a Marxist president in our midst, would this actually be a good idea? I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but if this were to happen, then our president's views of our own country and Constitution would do more harm than good in Afghanistan. He has made it quite clear that he is ashamed of America and shows his shame in the fact that he is always going on 'apology tours' and making our country look weak and vulnerable. So, I really do not understand how this Administration would be able to do any good for the Afghan people, especially if they end up hating us because of our president.)**
American servicemen and women often return to the United States seeking to improve lives and conditions in the countries where they served, and new vets could be critical to rebuilding ties with Afghanistan after the war. With support from the U.S. Agency for International Development or other aid agencies, veterans going back to Afghanistan to do nonprofit work could not only improve Afghans' standard of living but also promote the kind of healing that veterans groups fostered in Vietnam.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, I might be able to see this happening, and it being a good thing--HOWEVER--and this is my own 'personal opinion', could this type of mission even be a success? And if so, would we not have to disban the Taliban and Al-Qaeda first before it is a success? I mean, these terror organizations are going to continue to plan attacks, unless we put a complete end to them. So, how do we make this mission successful?)**
The stated goal of the Vietnam War was the defeat of communism. But three decades later, the United States has gotten much of what it really fought for: a stable friend who could prove an ally against China. After all, it was China, the expansionist giant, that terrified American policymakers and sparked U.S. interest in Indochina in the first place.
Of course, a close relationship with Vietnam will never erase the pain of the war, and the ability to forge closer links today does not mean that the United States was wise to escalate the conflict there decades ago. Still, once Washington decided to fight on in Vietnam, a postwar reconciliation made sense for both sides -- politically, strategically and economically. In Afghanistan, where the United States has been fighting for eight years, it makes sense to consider how to build a postwar relationship.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I kind of agree with this, but, again, how do we make this mission a successful one as long as the terror cells are still intact? I believe that we should first dismantle these terrorists, and then we can talk about some sort of postwar reconcilliation.)**
As in Vietnam, the stated aim of the Afghan war -- denying al-Qaeda a haven, thereby protecting the United States -- to some extent masks the larger goal: building a stable, pro-Washington nation that, in the long run, can provide enough political and economic success to dry up militant groups' recruiting pool. Reaching that goal will require as much savvy postwar planning as it does smart war-fighting.
*******************************************************************
**(Ok, first of all, I have been trying to get this article re-posted from the 'Washington Post' since 12:00am. It is now 11:25am (Memphis, TN time) and I am just now getting it posted here. Every time I tried to go back to the article, my computer would 'freeze up' or just completely 'shut down'. Which is very strange and unusual because this is a brand new computer. But it took me 16 tries to get this article from the Washington Post's Opinion Page.)**
Sunday, October 25, 2009
In a ceremony last week honoring a unit of Vietnam veterans for their heroism in a long-forgotten battle, President Obama offered a glimpse of how heavily the lessons of Vietnam weigh on him as he considers the way forward in Afghanistan.
"If that day in the jungle, if that war long ago, teaches us anything," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden, "then surely it is this: If we send our men and women in uniform into harm's way, then it must be only when it is absolutely necessary. And when we do, we must back them up with the strategy and the resources and the support they need to get the job done."
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I totally agree. I may not know a great deal about the Vietnam War, but I intend to do the research and 'do my homework, so to speak, about this, and if the president REALLY believeshis words, then WHY is he 'dragging his feet' and procrastinating on sending in more troops--troops that we NEED over there in Afghanistan--so that we can end this thing with a victory?)**
Vietnam is the nuclear option of historical analogies. Yet, rather than fear that Afghanistan will become another Vietnam, we should embrace the prospect. If the U.S. relationship with Afghanistan eventually resembles the one we now have with Vietnam, we should be overjoyed. Little more than a generation after a bloody, frustrating war, Vietnam and the United States have become close partners in Southeast Asia, exchanging official visits, building an important trading and strategic relationship and fostering goodwill between governments, businesses and people on both sides.
The lessons of the Vietnam War are clear and sobering, but history does not end in 1975, when the last American diplomats fled Saigon. Once large-scale fighting ends in Afghanistan, Washington should strive for the kind of reconciliation it has achieved with Vietnam. America did not win the war there, but over time it has won the peace. As unlikely as it seems today, the same outcome is possible in Afghanistan.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, but here's the thing. In my opinion, the people of Vietnam were a lot more civil toward us [America] than I think that Afghanistan or Iraq will be. Let's face it, the Taliban is over there using Afghanistan as a training camp for their militant terrorist groups, and those people HATE America and all that we [Americans] stand for. My question is this: Even if this war turns out the way the Vietnam War did, can we REALLY trust that Afghanistan and Iraq will show us the same respect that Vietnam did so long ago? Do we REALLY want to take the RISK of trusting our enemies?)**
Thirty-plus years ago, few would have predicted that Vietnam and the United States would someday come together. The long war of attrition left government ties strained, to put it mildly, and forever scarred both populations. In the United States, the war damaged the reputation of the military, severely dented America's own image of its power and undermined U.S. standing in the world. And for the loved ones of the 58,000 American servicemen and women killed, the war was a tragedy from which they may never recover.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Exactly. This is something else that I am afraid will happen. I mean, wasn't not too long ago that our Presidential Administration was already calling our military 'evil' and 'murderers'? Our military are the only ones, RIGHT NOW, who care enough to fight for our freedoms that we are granted under our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I have much--MUCH--respect and love for them [military], and it would simply break my heart if our military was shunned and disregarded, once again for the sacrifices that they make for all of us--even for those who are ungrateful.)**
Much like the airstrikes in Afghanistan, U.S. tactics in Vietnam -- such as the spraying of Agent Orange and bombings that caused widespread civilian deaths -- alienated the civilian population there. And even after the war officially ended, Washington continued to punish Hanoi, refusing to recognize the Vietnamese-installed government in Cambodia that had ousted the genocidal Khmer Rouge and slapping a trade embargo on Vietnam.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, and considering the type of Administration we have at the White House now, I believe that it is safe to say that the same thing will happen with them, only it won't be OUR government that will continue to punish them, it will be THEIR government--or the terrorists--who will continue to punish us by executing more and more terror attacks on U.S. soil. I mean, realistically, is this what we really want? Is this the risk we really want to take?)**
Today, however, 76 percent of Vietnamese say U.S. influence in Asia is positive, according to a 2008 study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs -- a greater percentage than in Japan, China, South Korea or Indonesia. When President Bill Clinton visited Vietnam in 2000, citizens greeted him like a rock star, mobbing him whenever he stepped out in public. Two-way trade now surpasses $15 billion annually, compared with virtually nothing in 1995, the year the two countries normalized diplomatic ties. American companies have descended upon Vietnam, and last year foreign direct investment in the country tripled compared with 2007.
U.S. Navy ships now call at Vietnamese ports, and the two governments have institutionalized high-level exchanges, including a 2003 Pentagon visit by Vietnam's defense minister -- the highest-level Vietnamese military trip to Washington since the war. Following up on Clinton's visit, President George W. Bush traveled to Vietnam in 2006; the previous year, Bush welcomed Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai on a visit to America.
Why the dramatic reversal? Time helped, certainly: Just as Americans will forget Mohammad Omar, eventually the images of tortured American POWs and massive bombing of the Vietnamese countryside began to fade on both sides. But more important, American war veterans publicly made peace with their old adversaries. In the Senate, vets John Kerry and John McCain pushed for the normalization of ties between the nations in the 1990s. And on the ground in Vietnam, groups of veterans met with civilians from the areas where they had served. These meetings had a profound impact on Vietnamese public opinion.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: While both sides after the Vietnam War were able to 'forgive and forget' what had happened, my thought about this when it concerns this current war(s) is that we [America] may be able to 'forgive and forget', but do we really believe that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will do the same? My guess is no, they won't. In theory I believe that what will actually happen is that they [terrorists organizations] will make us think that they have 'forgave and forgot' but the minute we [America] allows our guard to be let down, all hell will break loose and the next terror attack will be at least 10 times worse than the attacks executed on September 11, 2001)**
Hanoi reciprocated American goodwill and allowed a U.S. investigative commission to scour the country for any remaining prisoners of war, a major concern of the U.S. veterans community. The commission reported in 1993 that it had found little evidence that any POWs remained. The report, more than any other gesture, helped bring the American public on board for reengaging with Hanoi.
The George W. Bush and Obama administrations have continued to grapple with some of the old differences. The Bush administration, prodded by Congress, began funding efforts to study the extent of chemical contamination and clean up pollution in areas near a former U.S. facility in Da Nang. And this month, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted Vietnam's foreign minister and vowed to expand trade links between the two countries.
At the same time, the large Vietnamese American community, many of whom fled to the United States after the communist takeover of their homeland in 1975, gradually abandoned their fears and began pouring investment into Vietnam in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This trade has helped heal old wounds, crowding out memories of war with new commercial influence, as American products compete for space in the shops and open-air markets of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.
Undoubtedly, Afghanistan would offer different postwar challenges than Vietnam. Of course, the campaign there is far from over -- it may even be escalated, if Obama agrees to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for additional troops -- and how and when it ends will shape Washington's future relationship with Kabul. The eventual results of Afghanistan's presidential election notwithstanding, the lack of a strong central government could make it difficult to build postwar ties, since there may be no leaders or institutions powerful or legitimate enough to sway the public.
Still, the parallels should not be ignored. After the war in Indochina, the United States wanted to build a close relationship with Vietnam, an important player in a critical region; Afghanistan has even higher strategic value. And much like Vietnam after the war, Afghanistan would have its own reasons for seeking strong ties to the United States. While Hanoi feared being dominated by its giant neighbor China, Afghanistan could use an outside power's help to hedge against the influence of regional powers such as Iran, Pakistan, India and China.
In Vietnam, just as the battle for public opinion was critical to the fight against an enemy enmeshed in the civilian population, it was also important to postwar reconciliation. Similarly, after the Afghan war, one can imagine U.S. investigations into the lasting impact of the conflict on the population, perhaps a well-publicized government study on the effects of airstrikes and an acknowledgement of the damage done on the ground.
Congress, meanwhile, could steal a page from the Vietnam Education Foundation Act of 2000, which established a foundation to support exchanges between the old adversaries, such as bringing Vietnamese graduate students to the United States and paying for American academics to teach in Vietnam. Such a program could ensure that the next generation of Afghan leaders sees an image of the United States beyond that of the war.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ah, but considering the fact that we may have a Marxist president in our midst, would this actually be a good idea? I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but if this were to happen, then our president's views of our own country and Constitution would do more harm than good in Afghanistan. He has made it quite clear that he is ashamed of America and shows his shame in the fact that he is always going on 'apology tours' and making our country look weak and vulnerable. So, I really do not understand how this Administration would be able to do any good for the Afghan people, especially if they end up hating us because of our president.)**
American servicemen and women often return to the United States seeking to improve lives and conditions in the countries where they served, and new vets could be critical to rebuilding ties with Afghanistan after the war. With support from the U.S. Agency for International Development or other aid agencies, veterans going back to Afghanistan to do nonprofit work could not only improve Afghans' standard of living but also promote the kind of healing that veterans groups fostered in Vietnam.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, I might be able to see this happening, and it being a good thing--HOWEVER--and this is my own 'personal opinion', could this type of mission even be a success? And if so, would we not have to disban the Taliban and Al-Qaeda first before it is a success? I mean, these terror organizations are going to continue to plan attacks, unless we put a complete end to them. So, how do we make this mission successful?)**
The stated goal of the Vietnam War was the defeat of communism. But three decades later, the United States has gotten much of what it really fought for: a stable friend who could prove an ally against China. After all, it was China, the expansionist giant, that terrified American policymakers and sparked U.S. interest in Indochina in the first place.
Of course, a close relationship with Vietnam will never erase the pain of the war, and the ability to forge closer links today does not mean that the United States was wise to escalate the conflict there decades ago. Still, once Washington decided to fight on in Vietnam, a postwar reconciliation made sense for both sides -- politically, strategically and economically. In Afghanistan, where the United States has been fighting for eight years, it makes sense to consider how to build a postwar relationship.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I kind of agree with this, but, again, how do we make this mission a successful one as long as the terror cells are still intact? I believe that we should first dismantle these terrorists, and then we can talk about some sort of postwar reconcilliation.)**
As in Vietnam, the stated aim of the Afghan war -- denying al-Qaeda a haven, thereby protecting the United States -- to some extent masks the larger goal: building a stable, pro-Washington nation that, in the long run, can provide enough political and economic success to dry up militant groups' recruiting pool. Reaching that goal will require as much savvy postwar planning as it does smart war-fighting.
*******************************************************************
**(Ok, first of all, I have been trying to get this article re-posted from the 'Washington Post' since 12:00am. It is now 11:25am (Memphis, TN time) and I am just now getting it posted here. Every time I tried to go back to the article, my computer would 'freeze up' or just completely 'shut down'. Which is very strange and unusual because this is a brand new computer. But it took me 16 tries to get this article from the Washington Post's Opinion Page.)**
In His Own Image: Obama and the DNC
This is some scray stuff out here ladies and gentlement, and these are truly some very scary times we are living in. When a president wants to not only re-shape and re-make and re-write the values of the American people, the American Constitution, but also, now, the Democratic Party.
What kind of world are we living in when our 'Founding Fathers' are treated with the worst kind of disrespect and disregard as what they are being treated right now?
What kind of world are we living in when our freedoms are being ripped to shreds and torn out from underneath us at such an alarming rate that we can barely see what is going on?
What kind of world do we live in when our president refuses to focus on the REAL issues, the MAJOR issues, of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, but instead is more worried that 'FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio may be actually telling us, the American people, the truth because they don't want to?
What kind of world are we living in when someone [a LIBERAL] writes in to a conservative talk radio show and tells the people listening that 'anyone who is in the military and is on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan "GETS WHAT THEY DESERVE" when our solierds are over there fighting for and defending our rights and our freedom? Yes this actually happened, last night on the Ben Ferguson Show, someone actually had the AUDACITY to say that OUR SOLDIERS are getting WHAT THEY DESERVE.
In these dark days I find it harder and harder to stay sane in an insane world. I am finding it harder and harder to see the light in the vast darkness that surrounds our world as if the sun has been blotted out like so much black ink.
Every morning, I wake up and I wonder, 'What will happen to us today?' I am afraid to turn on my television, except to watch a dvd. I find comfort in listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ben Ferguson, and Micheal Savage, but when they go off, what else is there to comfort me in these trying times?
Here's an article I found that I am having a little bit of trouble getting my mind around. So, now, we have this person who is the president of the United States who is not only 'organizing' the DNC but is aslo working toward 'organizing' AMerica and our Constitution? Ladies and gentlemen, I will ask again...'What kind of world are we living in'? And furthermore, "What can we do about it"?
******************************************************************
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 10/24/09 6:32 PM EDT
The Democratic National Committee, often relatively inactive in the year after a presidential election, is ramping up its hiring and aggressively broadening its mission under the direction of Obama campaign veterans intent on applying the lessons of 2008 to races in 2010 and 2012.
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, the DNC chairman installed in January by President Barack Obama, has hired many of the top staffers, pollsters, ad makers and fundraisers who helped steer the Obama campaign, completing a takeover of the party machinery that began when Obama became the Democratic nominee 14 months ago.
A POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records found that since the beginning of the year, the committee has paid at least $5.9 million to staffers and firms that worked on the campaign – but had little to no independent history with the DNC – to do a range of work that will boost the party as a whole, and also lay the foundation for Obama’s reelection campaign.
Financed in part by money left over from Obama’s record-breaking fund-raising operation, the DNC has built a staff of about 380 employees across the country – a hiring pace that puts it on track to far surpass the staffs assembled by Kaine’s predecessors.
The lion’s share of the hiring is to support a new organizing project called Organizing for America (echoing the name of his presidential campaign, Obama for America) created within the committee to perpetuate the grassroots mobilization that played a key role in Obama’s capture of the White House. The project acts as the custodian for the campaign’s 13-million email address list.
Paul Begala, who became a DNC consultant after helping guide Bill Clinton to victory in the 1992 presidential campaign, said Obama has earned the right to remake the DNC in his image. “Yes, this is an Obama-centered DNC,” he said, “but it ought to be. To the winner goes the spoils.”
In the months after Clinton’s 1992 election victory, the DNC had more than 200 employees but was aggressively paring down its payroll, according to Bobby Watson, a top committee official in Clinton’s early years. “I had to get rid of close to 100 people,” Watson recalled.
Former DNC chairman Howard Dean caught some flak from Democrats for trying to buck that trend after taking over in the months after former President Bush’s 2004 reelection victory over Democratic nominee John Kerry.
The former Vermont governor, who had challenged Kerry for the Democratic nomination, began hiring staff to work around the cycle – and around the country – on an ambitious initiative called the “50 States Strategy,” intended to put traditionally Republican states in play in 2006 and 2008 – an effort continued by Obama’s campaign that stretched the inferior resources of his Republican opponent, John McCain.
Organizing for America, which is still hiring staffers in the states, is based on a similar idea as Dean’s project. But FEC reports covering September 2005 show that Dean’s DNC had only 217 staffers at a comparable point in his tenure as chairman.
Tom McMahon, who worked on Dean’s presidential campaign and then became DNC executive director when he was chairman, said Obama’s DNC “has been effective at moving more quickly in the hiring process” because it had a “willing work force of organizers and volunteers who were already schooled in the Obama way of organizing,” as well as more money.
“They were able to hit the ground running faster and they hit the ground running with cash in the bank.”
That’s thanks in no small part to Obama’s record-shattering campaign fundraising operation, which in some ways reversed the traditional dynamic in which presidential nominees are dependent on their national parties’ resources.
To be sure, after securing the nomination, Obama did integrate the committee’s voter file and field workers into his campaign’s state operations, and also installed Paul Tewes, a top staffer, at the DNC to begin the overhaul. But unlike previous nominees, Obama, whose campaign raised $750 million, had plenty of cash left over after Election Day – $18 million at the end of the year – allowing him to keep the DNC closer than usual in the cash race to the traditionally better-funded Republican National Committee.
This year, the Obama campaign has given nearly $5 million to the DNC, both by writing checks and picking up the tab for all manner of expenses, including ads and travel (it even donated the unused miles racked up during the campaign to the DNC), bringing the committee within $7 million of the $62 million raised by the RNC.
The cash has helped pay a DNC staff led by McMahon’s replacement as executive director, Jennifer O'Malley-Dillon, who oversaw Obama’s field operation, as well as finance director Rufus Gifford, whose California-based fundraising firm raised tens of millions of dollars for the campaign, and Organizing for America honchos Mitch Stewart and Jeremy Bird, who helped lead the Obama campaign’s efforts in Virginia and Ohio, respectively.
The DNC has made big payments to key Obama consultants, including Obama’s top campaign pollsters: Joel Benenson, David Binder and Paul Harstad.
Their three firms had not collected a dime from the DNC between 2002 and the time Obama secured the presidential nomination, but have raked in a combined $2.2 million for polling work this year. Another $376,000 in payments went to the ad firm credited with developing Obama’s messaging and media campaign, AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by Obama political guru David Axelrod, who steered campaign strategy and – since taking a top White House job – has convened weekly political messaging meetings with his former partners at the firm, as well as O'Malley-Dillon, Benenson and other DNC consultants.
Team Obama even installed its own lawyer at the DNC, replacing longtime general counsel Joe Sandler with Bob Bauer, an Obama insider who is married to White House communications director Anita Dunn, another participant in the weekly political meeting. Bauer’s firm has pulled in $306,000 in legal fees from the DNC this year.
His hiring caused some grumbling among Democratic loyalists, who were upset to see Sandler go. Other party faithful have complained that Obama’s team is over-reaching by deploying Organizing for America in the states to lobby lawmakers – including Democrats – to back the president’s legislative agenda.
A number of state party chairs “were not, frankly, overly enthused by the plans to unleash OFA across the country,” Rhode Island Democratic Party Chairman Bill Lynch wrote in a letter sent this month to other party leaders. He argues that much of OFA’s portfolio should be left to state parties.
DNC press secretary Hari Sevugan, himself a former Obama campaignspokesman, called OFA “an unprecedented effort in the history of any party committee” and said it required the staffing boost reflected in the DNC’s financial reports. But he stressed that OFA’s mission “is not about looking forward to the next election. It’s about following through on the last election.”
The line is sometimes blurry, however.
For example, at the DNC, Sevugan blasts out emails to reporters highlighting the committee’s efforts to help enact healthcare reform and elect Democrats to lower offices, but also acerbically ripping potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin.
Then there are the legions of mostly young Obama devotees around the country who worked low-paying jobs on his campaign and have transitioned to new low-paying jobs for Organizing for America.
Though OFA boasts they’ve organized thousands of house parties around the country to rally support for Obama’s agenda, turned out Democrats to counter angry Obama opponents at this summer’s raucous town hall meetings and generated 300,000 phone calls to congressional offices supporting Obama’s healthcare plan, organizers for the group have also been instructed to focus on Obama’s 2012 reelection, according to a former regional director, Jeremiah Anderson.
“Even in the midst of training, they were asking us to start thinking about 2011 and what our areas would look like then,” said Anderson, 28, who left the job last month to attend to family issues and eventually return to school. “I thought that was cool, because I’m not that big of a fan of advocacy. I’d much rather work for a candidate.”
But Begala cautions that 2012 is still three years away.
“Re-electing President Obama is ultimately somewhere on the mind of everyone at the DNC, but job one is 2010,” he said.
*********************************************************************
*(sighs)*
My mother told me there would be days like this.
What kind of world are we living in when our 'Founding Fathers' are treated with the worst kind of disrespect and disregard as what they are being treated right now?
What kind of world are we living in when our freedoms are being ripped to shreds and torn out from underneath us at such an alarming rate that we can barely see what is going on?
What kind of world do we live in when our president refuses to focus on the REAL issues, the MAJOR issues, of the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, but instead is more worried that 'FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio may be actually telling us, the American people, the truth because they don't want to?
What kind of world are we living in when someone [a LIBERAL] writes in to a conservative talk radio show and tells the people listening that 'anyone who is in the military and is on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan "GETS WHAT THEY DESERVE" when our solierds are over there fighting for and defending our rights and our freedom? Yes this actually happened, last night on the Ben Ferguson Show, someone actually had the AUDACITY to say that OUR SOLDIERS are getting WHAT THEY DESERVE.
In these dark days I find it harder and harder to stay sane in an insane world. I am finding it harder and harder to see the light in the vast darkness that surrounds our world as if the sun has been blotted out like so much black ink.
Every morning, I wake up and I wonder, 'What will happen to us today?' I am afraid to turn on my television, except to watch a dvd. I find comfort in listening to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ben Ferguson, and Micheal Savage, but when they go off, what else is there to comfort me in these trying times?
Here's an article I found that I am having a little bit of trouble getting my mind around. So, now, we have this person who is the president of the United States who is not only 'organizing' the DNC but is aslo working toward 'organizing' AMerica and our Constitution? Ladies and gentlemen, I will ask again...'What kind of world are we living in'? And furthermore, "What can we do about it"?
******************************************************************
By KENNETH P. VOGEL | 10/24/09 6:32 PM EDT
The Democratic National Committee, often relatively inactive in the year after a presidential election, is ramping up its hiring and aggressively broadening its mission under the direction of Obama campaign veterans intent on applying the lessons of 2008 to races in 2010 and 2012.
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, the DNC chairman installed in January by President Barack Obama, has hired many of the top staffers, pollsters, ad makers and fundraisers who helped steer the Obama campaign, completing a takeover of the party machinery that began when Obama became the Democratic nominee 14 months ago.
A POLITICO analysis of Federal Election Commission records found that since the beginning of the year, the committee has paid at least $5.9 million to staffers and firms that worked on the campaign – but had little to no independent history with the DNC – to do a range of work that will boost the party as a whole, and also lay the foundation for Obama’s reelection campaign.
Financed in part by money left over from Obama’s record-breaking fund-raising operation, the DNC has built a staff of about 380 employees across the country – a hiring pace that puts it on track to far surpass the staffs assembled by Kaine’s predecessors.
The lion’s share of the hiring is to support a new organizing project called Organizing for America (echoing the name of his presidential campaign, Obama for America) created within the committee to perpetuate the grassroots mobilization that played a key role in Obama’s capture of the White House. The project acts as the custodian for the campaign’s 13-million email address list.
Paul Begala, who became a DNC consultant after helping guide Bill Clinton to victory in the 1992 presidential campaign, said Obama has earned the right to remake the DNC in his image. “Yes, this is an Obama-centered DNC,” he said, “but it ought to be. To the winner goes the spoils.”
In the months after Clinton’s 1992 election victory, the DNC had more than 200 employees but was aggressively paring down its payroll, according to Bobby Watson, a top committee official in Clinton’s early years. “I had to get rid of close to 100 people,” Watson recalled.
Former DNC chairman Howard Dean caught some flak from Democrats for trying to buck that trend after taking over in the months after former President Bush’s 2004 reelection victory over Democratic nominee John Kerry.
The former Vermont governor, who had challenged Kerry for the Democratic nomination, began hiring staff to work around the cycle – and around the country – on an ambitious initiative called the “50 States Strategy,” intended to put traditionally Republican states in play in 2006 and 2008 – an effort continued by Obama’s campaign that stretched the inferior resources of his Republican opponent, John McCain.
Organizing for America, which is still hiring staffers in the states, is based on a similar idea as Dean’s project. But FEC reports covering September 2005 show that Dean’s DNC had only 217 staffers at a comparable point in his tenure as chairman.
Tom McMahon, who worked on Dean’s presidential campaign and then became DNC executive director when he was chairman, said Obama’s DNC “has been effective at moving more quickly in the hiring process” because it had a “willing work force of organizers and volunteers who were already schooled in the Obama way of organizing,” as well as more money.
“They were able to hit the ground running faster and they hit the ground running with cash in the bank.”
That’s thanks in no small part to Obama’s record-shattering campaign fundraising operation, which in some ways reversed the traditional dynamic in which presidential nominees are dependent on their national parties’ resources.
To be sure, after securing the nomination, Obama did integrate the committee’s voter file and field workers into his campaign’s state operations, and also installed Paul Tewes, a top staffer, at the DNC to begin the overhaul. But unlike previous nominees, Obama, whose campaign raised $750 million, had plenty of cash left over after Election Day – $18 million at the end of the year – allowing him to keep the DNC closer than usual in the cash race to the traditionally better-funded Republican National Committee.
This year, the Obama campaign has given nearly $5 million to the DNC, both by writing checks and picking up the tab for all manner of expenses, including ads and travel (it even donated the unused miles racked up during the campaign to the DNC), bringing the committee within $7 million of the $62 million raised by the RNC.
The cash has helped pay a DNC staff led by McMahon’s replacement as executive director, Jennifer O'Malley-Dillon, who oversaw Obama’s field operation, as well as finance director Rufus Gifford, whose California-based fundraising firm raised tens of millions of dollars for the campaign, and Organizing for America honchos Mitch Stewart and Jeremy Bird, who helped lead the Obama campaign’s efforts in Virginia and Ohio, respectively.
The DNC has made big payments to key Obama consultants, including Obama’s top campaign pollsters: Joel Benenson, David Binder and Paul Harstad.
Their three firms had not collected a dime from the DNC between 2002 and the time Obama secured the presidential nomination, but have raked in a combined $2.2 million for polling work this year. Another $376,000 in payments went to the ad firm credited with developing Obama’s messaging and media campaign, AKPD Message and Media, which was founded by Obama political guru David Axelrod, who steered campaign strategy and – since taking a top White House job – has convened weekly political messaging meetings with his former partners at the firm, as well as O'Malley-Dillon, Benenson and other DNC consultants.
Team Obama even installed its own lawyer at the DNC, replacing longtime general counsel Joe Sandler with Bob Bauer, an Obama insider who is married to White House communications director Anita Dunn, another participant in the weekly political meeting. Bauer’s firm has pulled in $306,000 in legal fees from the DNC this year.
His hiring caused some grumbling among Democratic loyalists, who were upset to see Sandler go. Other party faithful have complained that Obama’s team is over-reaching by deploying Organizing for America in the states to lobby lawmakers – including Democrats – to back the president’s legislative agenda.
A number of state party chairs “were not, frankly, overly enthused by the plans to unleash OFA across the country,” Rhode Island Democratic Party Chairman Bill Lynch wrote in a letter sent this month to other party leaders. He argues that much of OFA’s portfolio should be left to state parties.
DNC press secretary Hari Sevugan, himself a former Obama campaignspokesman, called OFA “an unprecedented effort in the history of any party committee” and said it required the staffing boost reflected in the DNC’s financial reports. But he stressed that OFA’s mission “is not about looking forward to the next election. It’s about following through on the last election.”
The line is sometimes blurry, however.
For example, at the DNC, Sevugan blasts out emails to reporters highlighting the committee’s efforts to help enact healthcare reform and elect Democrats to lower offices, but also acerbically ripping potential 2012 GOP presidential candidates like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Sarah Palin.
Then there are the legions of mostly young Obama devotees around the country who worked low-paying jobs on his campaign and have transitioned to new low-paying jobs for Organizing for America.
Though OFA boasts they’ve organized thousands of house parties around the country to rally support for Obama’s agenda, turned out Democrats to counter angry Obama opponents at this summer’s raucous town hall meetings and generated 300,000 phone calls to congressional offices supporting Obama’s healthcare plan, organizers for the group have also been instructed to focus on Obama’s 2012 reelection, according to a former regional director, Jeremiah Anderson.
“Even in the midst of training, they were asking us to start thinking about 2011 and what our areas would look like then,” said Anderson, 28, who left the job last month to attend to family issues and eventually return to school. “I thought that was cool, because I’m not that big of a fan of advocacy. I’d much rather work for a candidate.”
But Begala cautions that 2012 is still three years away.
“Re-electing President Obama is ultimately somewhere on the mind of everyone at the DNC, but job one is 2010,” he said.
*********************************************************************
*(sighs)*
My mother told me there would be days like this.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"The Limbaugh Ballad"--This is kind of cute
Ok, I am sure that everyone here who listens to the Rush Limbaugh Show that at times he play songs that school children were being indoctrinated to sing to 'the annointed one' [Obama], and now, (it was bound to happen) there surfaced a song being sung to Rush Limbaugh.
Well, I finally got a chance to record this song on cassette tape being sung to Rush. I did this because I happen to love the Rush Limbaugh Show, and I thought that the song was kind of cute, and I wanted to learn the words to it.
Well, here are the words to the song being sung to Rush Limbaugh (that I love to call 'The Limbaugh Ballad')
***************************************************************
Rush Hudson Limbaugh...um um um
Rush Hudson Limbaugh...um um um
'My ears have heard Rush Limbaugh
on my parent's radio
'He tells me that the left is wrong
and stuff I need to know
'We turn it off when he is done
cause there's no other show
'Rush keep brodcasting on
(chorus)
'Glory, glory hallelujah,
Gore and Clinton couln't fool ya,
Barack Obama can't ignore ya,
Rush keep broadcasting on'
*
' In 1951 he was born in Missouri,
now he's on the radio,
conducting E.I.B.,
**on the air in the street,
from sea to shining sea,
He keeps broadcasting on
(chorus)
'Glory, glory hallelujah,
Gore and Clinton couldn't fool ya,
Barack Obama can't ignore ya,
Rush keep broadcasting on...Rush keep broadcasting on'
**(I am not entirely sure about this one line--it is hard to really understand--but this is what it sounds like to me).
Well, I finally got a chance to record this song on cassette tape being sung to Rush. I did this because I happen to love the Rush Limbaugh Show, and I thought that the song was kind of cute, and I wanted to learn the words to it.
Well, here are the words to the song being sung to Rush Limbaugh (that I love to call 'The Limbaugh Ballad')
***************************************************************
Rush Hudson Limbaugh...um um um
Rush Hudson Limbaugh...um um um
'My ears have heard Rush Limbaugh
on my parent's radio
'He tells me that the left is wrong
and stuff I need to know
'We turn it off when he is done
cause there's no other show
'Rush keep brodcasting on
(chorus)
'Glory, glory hallelujah,
Gore and Clinton couln't fool ya,
Barack Obama can't ignore ya,
Rush keep broadcasting on'
*
' In 1951 he was born in Missouri,
now he's on the radio,
conducting E.I.B.,
**on the air in the street,
from sea to shining sea,
He keeps broadcasting on
(chorus)
'Glory, glory hallelujah,
Gore and Clinton couldn't fool ya,
Barack Obama can't ignore ya,
Rush keep broadcasting on...Rush keep broadcasting on'
**(I am not entirely sure about this one line--it is hard to really understand--but this is what it sounds like to me).
Public Option Annie, the musical health-care protest--Part 2
Ok, here is the article that goes along with the video, both of which I found on the 'Washington Post' web site. I just wanted to post the video first, for your enjoyment. LOL!
*************************************************************************
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Washington has long attracted demonstrations, but the contentious debates over health-care reform and climate change appear to be reanimating protesters' absurdist impulses.
There's public option street art in the Logan Circle and U Street neighborhoods in the District. The Yes Men impersonated the Chamber of Commerce at the National Press Club earlier this week, leading to a bizarre standoff. And now, in a video clip starting to circulate online, we have "Public Option Annie" -- the singing protest at the America's Health Insurance Plans state issues conference in Washington on Friday morning.
The protesters interrupted a presentation by Republican pollster Bill McInturff, whose work for AHIP on the series of early-90s "Harry and Louise" anti-health-care reform commercials has been called by Advertising Age "among the best conceived and executed public affairs advertising programs in history."
AHIP represents insurers who provide coverage to more than 200 million Americans, the group says. Singing out against them were a small group of protesters from the group Billionaires for Wealthcare, which specializes in dressing up as members of the groups it is critiquing (often in an exaggerated or satirical way, as with top hats or suspenders).
*************************************************************************
Ha ha ha, ya just gotta love those protesters! And what great choreography and lyrics. I mean, this, in my opinion, was an even better musical than my two all-time favorites 'GREASE' and 'GREASE 2'.
*************************************************************************
By Garance Franke-Ruta
Washington has long attracted demonstrations, but the contentious debates over health-care reform and climate change appear to be reanimating protesters' absurdist impulses.
There's public option street art in the Logan Circle and U Street neighborhoods in the District. The Yes Men impersonated the Chamber of Commerce at the National Press Club earlier this week, leading to a bizarre standoff. And now, in a video clip starting to circulate online, we have "Public Option Annie" -- the singing protest at the America's Health Insurance Plans state issues conference in Washington on Friday morning.
The protesters interrupted a presentation by Republican pollster Bill McInturff, whose work for AHIP on the series of early-90s "Harry and Louise" anti-health-care reform commercials has been called by Advertising Age "among the best conceived and executed public affairs advertising programs in history."
AHIP represents insurers who provide coverage to more than 200 million Americans, the group says. Singing out against them were a small group of protesters from the group Billionaires for Wealthcare, which specializes in dressing up as members of the groups it is critiquing (often in an exaggerated or satirical way, as with top hats or suspenders).
*************************************************************************
Ha ha ha, ya just gotta love those protesters! And what great choreography and lyrics. I mean, this, in my opinion, was an even better musical than my two all-time favorites 'GREASE' and 'GREASE 2'.
Public Option Annie: The Health Care Musical Protest
And now, for your viewing pleaseure, I present to you "Public Option Annie: The Health Care Protest Musical".
******************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Now, how cool is that? We'll be right back after this public service announcment.
******************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Now, how cool is that? We'll be right back after this public service announcment.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
White House Attacks Worry Moderate Democrats
By JONATHAN ALLEN | 10/23/09 4:47 AM EDT
A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Well, well, well. So, Mr. President, let me ask you this. If the Liberal Democrats are admonishing you for this, as well as the Republicans, wouldn't it be safe to say that maybe you should STOP with all this nonsense, and get down to REAL White House issues?)**
“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I totally agree Mr. Altmire, but let's be honest here. Is Mr. Obama even listening to you? I mean, it seems to me that he is letting this go in one big ear and out the other one. I mean, let's face it, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Obama only hears what he wants to hear.)**
Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Uh-oh. Mr. President, it looks to me like you are about to piss off some very important people here. Maybe you should back up a little and re-group. I mean, if these people [Chamber of Commerce] backed you during the Presidential Elections, I would say it is safe to say that they will pull their support and you will LOSE in 2012)**
“There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Oh, but yes there IS a reason to piss them off. One reason is because they 'oppose' Obama's agenda, and another is because Obama wants 'total control' over everything in sight. I mean, be realistic here. Obama sees the world [America] as one great big giant 'Monopoly' board, and he is moving right along and buying up everything he sees with OUR MONEY! It is a little thing we like to call 'GREED'. )**
POLITICO reported earlier this week on an all-fronts push by the White House to cut the legs out from under its toughest critics, whether it’s the Chamber, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News operation.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, now why is Obama so afraid of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? And I find it rather insulting that Sean Hannity, and Micheal Savage were not mentioned. How rude, indeed, and please let us not forget about the many 'bloggers' that are also helping them blow the whistle on the 'Wimp House'. Uhhh, Mr. Wussident, be careful who you declare war on)**
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has defended the push, saying the administration made “a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I thought this Maoist was a 'Czar'??? In any case, she is a blithering idiotic Obamabot who believes in a 'welfare state'. ATTACKING YOU??? Oh please. It is called 'TELLING the TRUTH', which is something that 'the annointed one' does not have the mental capacity to do)**
Congressional Republicans counterattacked Thursday. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration was “targeting those who don’t immediately fall in line” with “Chicago-style politics” aimed at “shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Dear Mr. President, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA--WILL NOT BE SILENCED! NOT NOW--NOT EVER! WE ARE HERE TO STAY, AND WE WANT TO KNOW ONE THING--"CAN--YOU--HEAR--US--NOW"???)**
Boehner’s No. 2, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) complained that the nation’s problems are growing while the White House “bickers with a cable news network.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I am beginning to smell a Conservative victory brewing on the horizon. I love the smell of bar-b-qued POTUS smothered with onions)**
Liberal Democrats have little heartburn over the administration’s attacks on Fox and Limbaugh. But the attacks make moderates uneasy — especially when they extend to the Chamber of Commerce.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Well, I can only suggest that the libturd demoncrap obamabot leftis lunatics go get them some 'R-O-L-A-I-D-S and stay away from 'Taco Hell' and the burritos)**
While Limbaugh and Fox commentators like Beck make no secret of their dislike for Democrats, the Chamber’s Republican lean is partially counteracted by nominal and financial support for pro-business Democrats who need to win votes from pro-business Republicans. The campaign websites of moderate Democrats from across the country are filled with endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce.
Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, for example, has this testimonial from a Chamber official on his site: “On issues ranging from lowering taxes to increasing trade, Indiana’s businesses and workers have no better friend than Brad Ellsworth.”
Ellsworth got a $5,000 campaign contribution from the Chamber in the past election.
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), another recipient of a Chamber contribution, said Thursday that he had no intention of stepping into the middle of a fight between the White House and the Chamber, but he did note that he had won an award for his voting record from the national Chamber of Commerce.
A senior House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity while questioning the wisdom of the White House strategy, said: “I have no problem with [going after] Rush at all. I don’t have much of a problem with Fox. I think the Chamber’s another story.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ha ha ha! I am absolutely certain that Rush Limbaugh could care less about the Wimp House's petty childishness. POTUS and FLOTUS and DOTUS do NOT scare him)**
The Democrat took issue with Chamber leaders in Washington, who he said “do not do a good job of representing the interests of their members.” But he also acknowledged the benefits the Chamber’s goodwill can confer on certain segments of the caucus.
He said that the White House is trying to “take advantage of the discontent within the Chamber. Several flagship companies, including Apple and PG&E, have cut ties with the Chamber to protest its opposition to the climate change legislation that passed the House earlier this year.
Some Democratic critics of the White House attacks say it may strengthen the relationship between the Chamber and moderate Democrats in Congress, who will fast become the organization’s best hope for addressing its concerns if it is frozen out by the White House.
“I don’t think the White House’s relationship with the Chamber will have any effect on individual members’ relationships with the Chamber,” said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat. “I think we’ll be judged on how we conduct ourselves.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Oh ho ho!!! YOU ARE ALREADY BEING JUDGED BY YOUR CONDUCT! AND, so far, YOU ARE FAILING MISERABLY! Ha ha ha ha!!!)**
****************************************************************
Ok, as always, I will come back later and get your thoughts on this. I want to know what you think about all this. Could this petty little fight possibly bring us a conservative victory in 2012?
A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Well, well, well. So, Mr. President, let me ask you this. If the Liberal Democrats are admonishing you for this, as well as the Republicans, wouldn't it be safe to say that maybe you should STOP with all this nonsense, and get down to REAL White House issues?)**
“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I totally agree Mr. Altmire, but let's be honest here. Is Mr. Obama even listening to you? I mean, it seems to me that he is letting this go in one big ear and out the other one. I mean, let's face it, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Obama only hears what he wants to hear.)**
Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Uh-oh. Mr. President, it looks to me like you are about to piss off some very important people here. Maybe you should back up a little and re-group. I mean, if these people [Chamber of Commerce] backed you during the Presidential Elections, I would say it is safe to say that they will pull their support and you will LOSE in 2012)**
“There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Oh, but yes there IS a reason to piss them off. One reason is because they 'oppose' Obama's agenda, and another is because Obama wants 'total control' over everything in sight. I mean, be realistic here. Obama sees the world [America] as one great big giant 'Monopoly' board, and he is moving right along and buying up everything he sees with OUR MONEY! It is a little thing we like to call 'GREED'. )**
POLITICO reported earlier this week on an all-fronts push by the White House to cut the legs out from under its toughest critics, whether it’s the Chamber, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News operation.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, now why is Obama so afraid of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? And I find it rather insulting that Sean Hannity, and Micheal Savage were not mentioned. How rude, indeed, and please let us not forget about the many 'bloggers' that are also helping them blow the whistle on the 'Wimp House'. Uhhh, Mr. Wussident, be careful who you declare war on)**
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has defended the push, saying the administration made “a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I thought this Maoist was a 'Czar'??? In any case, she is a blithering idiotic Obamabot who believes in a 'welfare state'. ATTACKING YOU??? Oh please. It is called 'TELLING the TRUTH', which is something that 'the annointed one' does not have the mental capacity to do)**
Congressional Republicans counterattacked Thursday. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration was “targeting those who don’t immediately fall in line” with “Chicago-style politics” aimed at “shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Dear Mr. President, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA--WILL NOT BE SILENCED! NOT NOW--NOT EVER! WE ARE HERE TO STAY, AND WE WANT TO KNOW ONE THING--"CAN--YOU--HEAR--US--NOW"???)**
Boehner’s No. 2, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) complained that the nation’s problems are growing while the White House “bickers with a cable news network.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I am beginning to smell a Conservative victory brewing on the horizon. I love the smell of bar-b-qued POTUS smothered with onions)**
Liberal Democrats have little heartburn over the administration’s attacks on Fox and Limbaugh. But the attacks make moderates uneasy — especially when they extend to the Chamber of Commerce.
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Well, I can only suggest that the libturd demoncrap obamabot leftis lunatics go get them some 'R-O-L-A-I-D-S and stay away from 'Taco Hell' and the burritos)**
While Limbaugh and Fox commentators like Beck make no secret of their dislike for Democrats, the Chamber’s Republican lean is partially counteracted by nominal and financial support for pro-business Democrats who need to win votes from pro-business Republicans. The campaign websites of moderate Democrats from across the country are filled with endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce.
Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, for example, has this testimonial from a Chamber official on his site: “On issues ranging from lowering taxes to increasing trade, Indiana’s businesses and workers have no better friend than Brad Ellsworth.”
Ellsworth got a $5,000 campaign contribution from the Chamber in the past election.
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), another recipient of a Chamber contribution, said Thursday that he had no intention of stepping into the middle of a fight between the White House and the Chamber, but he did note that he had won an award for his voting record from the national Chamber of Commerce.
A senior House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity while questioning the wisdom of the White House strategy, said: “I have no problem with [going after] Rush at all. I don’t have much of a problem with Fox. I think the Chamber’s another story.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ha ha ha! I am absolutely certain that Rush Limbaugh could care less about the Wimp House's petty childishness. POTUS and FLOTUS and DOTUS do NOT scare him)**
The Democrat took issue with Chamber leaders in Washington, who he said “do not do a good job of representing the interests of their members.” But he also acknowledged the benefits the Chamber’s goodwill can confer on certain segments of the caucus.
He said that the White House is trying to “take advantage of the discontent within the Chamber. Several flagship companies, including Apple and PG&E, have cut ties with the Chamber to protest its opposition to the climate change legislation that passed the House earlier this year.
Some Democratic critics of the White House attacks say it may strengthen the relationship between the Chamber and moderate Democrats in Congress, who will fast become the organization’s best hope for addressing its concerns if it is frozen out by the White House.
“I don’t think the White House’s relationship with the Chamber will have any effect on individual members’ relationships with the Chamber,” said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat. “I think we’ll be judged on how we conduct ourselves.”
**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Oh ho ho!!! YOU ARE ALREADY BEING JUDGED BY YOUR CONDUCT! AND, so far, YOU ARE FAILING MISERABLY! Ha ha ha ha!!!)**
****************************************************************
Ok, as always, I will come back later and get your thoughts on this. I want to know what you think about all this. Could this petty little fight possibly bring us a conservative victory in 2012?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
