U.C.A.--United Conservatives of America 2009

A Special Report found on A Motley Fool--sent to me via e-mail

2010-10-10T22:02:00.000-05:00

I will leave it up to my readers to determine whether or not this is a possibility. After all...in this day and age, almost anything is possible.

Or...is it?

**********************************************************************

The Two Words Bill Gates Doesn't Want You to Hear...
Plus, the 2 companies poised to rule the post-Microsoft world
On October 30, 2005, something incredible happened...

In Redmond, Washington, one of the world's richest -- and most powerful -- businessmen sent an urgent memo to his top engineers and most-trusted managers.

It sounded the alarm that a very disruptive "wave" was about to wash over the entire world -- forever changing the way we get information and do business.

It also warned this would wipe out the $200 billion business empire he'd spent his life building.

Meanwhile, a few hundred miles south, on the banks of the Columbia River, a mysterious outfit known only as "Design, LLC," quietly constructed two massive windowless warehouses.

This mammoth undertaking was code named "Project 2," and the International Herald Tribune described the towering monolithic structures as "looming like an information-age nuclear plant."

This may sound like something out of a Tom Clancy novel, but you'll want to have all the facts because...

Merrill Lynch estimates this "wave" has grown into a $160 billion tsunami.
And experts say it's going to upend a $1 trillion industry. Yet very few investors understand just how huge it's going to be.

That's why it's crucial to take the next few minutes to read this report in its entirety.

At the very least, you'll get the full story so you can decide for yourself if you'll be front and center when the big money starts rolling in.

But be warned, the smart money is on the move...

A handful of investors are already quietly positioning themselves to cash in on this incredible economic shift. Soon, tens of thousands will be rushing to join them.

One of the most lucrative investment opportunities we'll ever encounter
The next great technological revolution is already under way.

And now that the last pieces are falling into place, the floodgates are beginning to open.

Which is exactly where you come in...Just ask David Gardner, co-founder of The Motley Fool. He's convinced that this technological shift will dump millions of dollars into the portfolios of investors just like you.

You've probably seen David on CNBC discussing his favorite growth stocks with some of the nation's other top-tier equity analysts. Or perhaps you've read one of his many best-selling investment books...

Or maybe you're just familiar with some of his remarkable stock recommendations... eBay in 1999... Starbucks in 1998... AOL in 1994... Amgen in 1998... Amazon in 1997.

Regardless, it's not hard to see why Money.com says he's "among the most widely followed stock advisors in the world."

And surely you can understand why anytime David gets excited about an investment opportunity, people stand up and take notice...

He's been closely tracking the development of this blockbuster technology and the 3 dominant players heading the revolution.

These are the companies he believes will rule their respective industries over the next 5 to 10 years and hand investors life-changing wealth along the way.

Recent developments have him particularly excited about one of the companies. Right now he considers it the No. 1 way to profit from this coming technological boom. And he's telling his followers to snap up shares immediately.

To see why he's so convinced about this company, you must learn the six traits he looks for in a growth stock -- and how they have led him to companies that have soared 266%, 317%, 671% and even 769% in just the past four years.

But first, a little bit more about this amazing technology and why, once again...

The Unimaginable Is Fast Becoming a Reality
You probably remember when computers took up entire rooms and were used only by companies that needed to do intense mathematical calculations.

That all changed when Intel unveiled the microprocessor and a geeky college dropout started writing software with his former high school pal.

Thanks to the virtual desktop they developed, the PC quickly replaced the mainframe as the center of corporate computing and began showing up in homes across America.

Before long, companies began building interoffice networks so that their employees could run programs like Microsoft Word and Excel on their PCs and also access programs, files, and printers from a central server.

But this model was far from perfect.

Due to a lack of standards in computing hardware and software, competing products were rarely compatible -- making PC networks far more inefficient than their mainframe predecessors.

In fact, most servers ended up being used as single-purpose machines that ran a single software application or database.

And every time a company needed to add a new application, it was forced to expand its data centers, replace or reprogram old systems, and hire IT technicians to keep everything running.

As a result, global IT spending jumped from under $100 billion a year in the early 1970s to over $1 trillion a year by the turn of the century.

Here's the dirty secret behind this mind-boggling growth -- and the two words that will put an end to the party
IT consulting firm IDC reports that every dollar a company spends on a Microsoft product results in an additional $8 of IT expenses.

And one IT expert admits, "Trillions of dollars that companies have invested into information technology have gone to waste."

Yet, companies have had no choice but to run these obscenely expensive and highly inefficient networks.

But that's all about to change...

And that's precisely why the two words "cloud computing" scare the hell out of Bill Gates.

You see, thanks to the thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable laid during the late 1990s, the speed of computer networks has finally caught up to the speed of the computer processors.

Suddenly computers that were once incompatible and isolated are now linked in a giant network, or "cloud."

As a result, computing is fast becoming a utility in much the same way that electricity did...

"The next sea change is upon us." -- Bill Gates
Think back a few years -- anytime you wanted to type a letter, create a spreadsheet, edit a photo, or play a game, you had to go to the store, buy the software, and install it on your computer.

But nowadays, if you want to look up restaurants on Google... find directions on MapQuest... watch a video on YouTube... or sell furniture on Craigslist... all you need is a computer with an Internet connection.

Although these activities require you to use your PC, none of the content you are accessing or the applications you are running are actually stored on your computer -- instead they're stored at a giant data center somewhere in the "cloud."

And you don't give any of it a second thought... just like you don't think twice about where the electricity is coming from when you plug an appliance into the wall.
But cloud computing isn't going to be just a modern convenience -- it's going to be an enormous industry.

You see, everyone from individuals to multinational corporations can now simply tap into the "cloud" to get all the things they used to have to supply and maintain themselves. This will save some companies millions and make others billions.

"Is cloud computing the next big thing?"
That's the title of an article in PC Magazine.

The answer was an overwhelming yes. And PC Magazine isn't the only one taking note of this sweeping trend...

The Economist claims, "As computing moves online, the sources of power and money will increasingly be enormous 'computing clouds.'"

David Hamilton of the Financial Post says this technology "has the potential to shower billions in revenues on companies that embrace it."

And Nicholas Carr, former executive editor of the Harvard Business Review, has even written an entire book on the subject, entitled The Big Switch. In it, he asserts: "The PC age is giving way to a new era: the utility age."

He goes on to make this prediction: "Rendered obsolete, the traditional PC is replaced by a simple terminal -- a 'thin client' that's little more than a monitor hooked up to the Internet."

While that may sound far-fetched, in the corporate market, sales of these "thin clients" have been growing at over 20 percent per year -- far outpacing the sales of PCs.

According to market-research firm IDC, the U.S. is now home to more than 7,000 data centers just like the one constructed on the banks of the Columbia River in 2005.

And the number of servers operating within these massive data centers is expected to grow to nearly 16 million by 2010 -- that's three times as many as a decade ago.

"Data centers have become as vital to the functioning of society as power stations." -- The Economist
The simple truth is that cloud computing is becoming as big a part of our everyday lives as cell phones or cable television.

And one company is shaping up to be a remarkable way for investors like you to cash in on the fast-moving cloud computing technology.

You may already know what it is... and you may have even guessed that it's the real face behind Design, LLC.

But what you may not realize is that this is still an excellent time to get invested -- despite what many so-called "experts" in the financial media might be telling you...

Buying This Tech Juggernaut Today Is Like Buying Microsoft in 1990
Don't forget, even after the dot-com collapse and the recent market sell-off, every $10,000 invested in Microsoft would now be worth over $400,000.

Even a modest $3,000 investment would have grown into more than $120,000!

Just imagine what you could do with that kind of money...

Now imagine being given a second chance to secure that kind of profit.

Well, look here... this is your second chance.

You see, like Microsoft in the early 1990s, Google [Nasdaq: GOOG] is just getting started.

It's already won the search engine war, set the standard for online advertising, and turned the company's name into a word tens of millions of people use daily.

And now it's fast becoming synonymous with the future of computing...

Over 500,000 companies -- including GE [NYSE: GE] and Procter & Gamble [NYSE: PG] -- have already signed up for Google Apps.

This grab bag of business applications can be purchased and run over the Web for just $50 per year and is just one of many Google products now giving Microsoft a run for its money.

Considering that Google Apps costs just one-tenth of what a traditional business software suite does, it's no surprise that more than 2,000 businesses are signing up per day.

No wonder the Financial Post says, "The cost savings in offering scaled-down versions of large enterprise software is making cloud computing a huge business."

But at just $50 a pop, you might be wondering how big this business can really get.

Industry research firm Gartner, Inc., says the market for Internet-based software recently hit $5.1 billion and conservatively estimates it will more than double to $11.5 billion by 2011.

But don't forget, this is just one small part of the giant and highly profitable cloud computing world.

Given its dominance over the online world, massive network of strategic partnerships, and unmatched ability to innovate, you can bet the great majority of the fortunes generated by cloud computing will flow through Google's coffers.

Even so, you may be wondering...

Isn't it too late to buy Google?
Not at all!

Well, let's just say this isn't the first time David has recommended a stock after the hotshots on Wall Street declared it was "too late"...

Back in 2005, he recommended robotic surgery specialist Intuitive Surgical to a small group of opportunistic investors.

At the time, shares were selling for $44.17. One year prior, shares had sold for $17.46, and a year before that they were selling for just $8.68.

You read that right... Intuitive Surgical had risen 500% in the two years before he recommended it -- and that scared lesser investors off.

But this visionary investor recognized that Intuitive Surgical was both "top dog" and "first mover" in its industry and still had plenty of room to run...

Shares traded as high as $359.59, and even after the recent market downturn, those who followed his lead are sitting on a whopping 671% gain.

Had you joined them, you could have turned $10,000 into a brand-new car... or a year or two of college tuition... or a prestigious golf-club membership -- and all in just 3 short years.

And this wasn't just some sort of lucky break or fluke, either.

You see, David's world-famous career began when he caught the financial media's attention by recommending AOL in the summer of 1994 - after it had quadrupled in just 12 short months.

Of course, the story is the same with AOL -- he recognized it as both a top dog and a first mover in an important emerging industry and knew it was only getting started.

Six years later, AOL was a 200-bagger, turning every $10,000 invested into a whopping $2 million -- and this growth investor into a living legend.

Here are just a few more of the top dogs and first movers he's uncovered recently:

Myriad Genetics -- locked in 253% gains
MercadoLibre-- up 317% and counting!
Vertex Pharmaceuticals -- up 241%... and counting!
Surely you'd love to have gains like that in your portfolio... Any investor would.

Well, you're in luck because now David is extremely excited about the incredible profit potential of 3 companies he calls...

The 3 Kings of Cloud Computing
These are 3 exceptionally well-run companies that David and his team of cutting-edge equity analysts have identified as both top dogs and first movers in their respective industries.

You already heard about Google, and just ahead you'll get all the details on the others -- including David's No. 1 cloud computing pick.

But first, you're probably wondering how David can be so sure about these companies. It's quite simple really -- they all have...

The 6 traits of a Rule Breaker
David begins his search by looking for what equity analysts call "top dogs" and "first movers."

A "top dog" is a company that dominates its industry... and a "first mover" is a company with a technology or product so revolutionary that it disrupts an existing industry and creates an entirely new one.

On the rare occasion that you find a company that is both a top dog and a first mover, the chances are pretty good that you've found your next big winner...

Just think of eBay in the online auction market... Amazon in the online retail market... or Netflix in the DVD-rental market (David led investors to big gains on all three).

These companies redefined the way business was done, launched entirely new industries, and continue to dominate those industries to this day. And you don't need me to tell you how handsomely they've rewarded shareholders along the way.

So you can see why David and his Rule Breakers teamwork around the clock to find companies that are both top dogs and first movers.

But they don't stop there... Because David discovered long ago that in order to find companies that will deliver truly life-changing investment returns, you have to break the rules and go against much of what passes for "wisdom" on Wall Street.

That's why he searches for companies with...

a sustainable competitive advantage that can be exploited for years to come
strong past price appreciation
excellent management
strong consumer appeal
And here's the big one...

documented proof that the financial media thinks it's "overvalued"
Remember, many of David's biggest winners were recommended after all the fast-talking experts on Wall Street already declared you'd missed your chance to buy.

And it's much the same story with the second king of cloud computing he's recommending you buy today...

A Bona Fide Rule Breaker With Very Real Profits
Not only does this company meet all of David's criteria for a classic Rule Breaker, but it also has a stranglehold on a niche market that's absolutely essential to the future of cloud computing.

This rising tech superstar designs extremely complex software that allows central servers to function in the first place.

While the market for this software sits at roughly $1 billion today, it is estimated it will soar to $5 billion by 2011.

And thanks to various patents, a considerable head start, and immense technical know-how, there is very little chance competitors will be able to wrestle the lion's share of that $5 billion away from this company.

So it's no wonder over the past five years, VMware [NYSE: VMW] has seen its revenue climb at an annualized 56% clip.

David is also convinced another revolutionary company is changing everything about how we use computers. As more and more people and businesses go online, its rampant success will continue -- and richly reward savvy investors who buy shares now...

This Company Makes the Internet Fly
When David first recommended this company to the
Rule Breakers community back in 2005, he admitted it wasn't "cheap." Since then, it's up 266% -- handing our group some nice gains.

David still admits it's not cheap... but with the arrival of cloud computing, he's more excited than ever about its potential to make investors rich.

In fact, its potential currently outshines both Google and VMware -- making it the No. 1 cloud computing play for new money.

You see, it works behind the scenes to make sure you can access everything the Web has to offer at lightning-fast speeds.

And thanks to the ever-growing number of people now using the Internet to do everything from watch movies to buy houses, this once-flailing refugee of the dot-com meltdown is now one of the most important tech companies in the world.

Apple [Nasdaq: AAPL], Microsoft [Nasdaq: MSFT], Sony [NYSE: SNE], and Nintendo [NTDOY.PK] are among its top clients -- and they're all more than happy to pay up for the quality this company consistently delivers.

While this usually runs somewhere in the neighborhood of $275,000 per year, more and more complex applications are coming online all the time -- giving this company even greater pricing power.

At last count, it had more than 100 clients paying $1 million or more per year. So it's no wonder that cash from operations has more than tripled from $83 million in 2005 to over $420 million today... Or that the cash on its balance sheet has grown from just $92 million to over $170 million today.

You can bet that this growth will only accelerate as cloud computing becomes an even more vital part of our personal and professional lives.

And because it is both a top dog and a first mover, it has been able to gain an almost insurmountable lead in market share -- allowing it to sport superb operating margins.

Gross margins currently sit at an incredible 74%; meanwhile, net margins have climbed to 17% -- and continue to grow.

All things considered, you can understand why David thinks this will be one of the most dominant players in the cloud computing world for years to come.

And by becoming a Rule Breaker, you can get its name and stake your claim before the big money gets behind it.

But you may be asking yourself...

Is now really a good time to be buying growth stocks?
Sure, the market looks pretty grim.

But David's not worried.

For one thing, our current economic situation bears a striking similarity to the economic downturn of the early 1990s. And Morningstar reports that during that recession, growth stocks more than doubled the return of "value" stocks.

For another thing, SmartMoney recently confirmed that "growth stocks can excel even if the broad market continues to stumble." In fact, it reported that right now, "analysts expect better profit prospects for growth stocks than for value stocks."

Money manager Dan Becker says, "Growth is as rare as a diamond, and everyone's looking for it."

Meaning, right now, we have a historic opportunity to snap up Hope Diamond investments at cubic zirconia prices.

A small number of investors will build bold fortunes...
Will you be one of them? You could be.

How? Simply join our Rule Breakers community absolutely without any risk.

This is hands down your best opportunity to ride the wave of cloud computing all the way to massive profits -- and get full details on the No. 1 company spearheading the charge.

You see, at Rule Breakers, we stand behind every piece of advice, insight, and recommendation we make, with 100% confidence. Your complete satisfaction is guaranteed -- or your money back!

This is our "keep everything" & "risk nothing" DOUBLE GUARANTEE

Go ahead and take a good look at every breakout company we've uncovered -- including the No. 1 king of cloud computing you read about above. At Rule Breakers, you get all the details on the companies that will change the world over the next 10 to 15 years...

And then if for any reason you're not totally thrilled... just have us send your money back, up to the last day of your first month. NO QUESTIONS ASKED.

What's more, if you decide you'd like to opt out at any point after your first month, you'll be entitled to the full dollar value of the remainder of your membership term.

After all, you'll be the first to know about tomorrow's next great companies and have the rare chance to get these fortune makers into your portfolio before the masses catch on and drive prices out of reach.

How much are these potential fortune makers worth?
Thousands of dollars? Sure. But you won't have to pay thousands to get your hands on them.

That's because, when you join us at Rule Breakers, you can put a team of experts -- including Motley Fool co-founder David Gardner; tech guru Tim Beyers; biotech whiz Charly Travers; nanotech expert Karl Thiel; and early adopter expert Rick Munarriz -- to work for you for just a fraction of that.

No other team will work harder on your behalf -- doing all the research, making the contacts, poring over the financial books, doing the key calculations -- to make sure you get the best investments for the months and years ahead! Look at this...

You can gain access to every top recommendation on the
Motley Fool Rule Breakers scorecard, plus get all our updates and reports, plus access to the members-only website that archives everything covered by Motley Fool Rule Breakers, all at the regular membership rate of $199 -- a bargain in itself.

But when you join us through this special offer today... you can knock $50 right off the top!
There's only one catch: To take advantage of this remarkable offer, you must join through this report today!

Once you are a member, you'll receive...

High-growth stock opportunities in every issue: Every issue of Motley Fool Rule Breakers features two picks from sectors like biotech, nanotech, next-generation technologies, and alternative energy. We're not a fan of "sound bites." Every stock we select comes with an in-depth company profile, product description, competitive analysis, risk analysis, and discussion of the company's finances and sales prospects. Plus, you get your tough questions answered in the detailed Q&A.

Valuable insight and feedback from our Rule Breakers network: Got an investing question? Post it on the board. Odds are that another Rule Breaker or one of our analysts will have the answer you're looking for. Every day you can talk with folks who are out there in the market, digging deep to find those next breakthrough investments that could hand you a lifetime of wealth.

In-depth CEO interviews available nowhere else: Over the years, David Gardner has sat down with the top CEOs and power players like Jeff Bezos... Meg Whitman... Mark Cuban... John Bogle... Terry Semel... and Howard Schultz. As part of the Rule Breakers family, you'll have exclusive access to all the powerful moneymaking insights and timely profit opportunities they revealed to him.

As with any truly great offer -- this one's only available for a limited time!

Simply click here to join us and begin securing a lifetime of wealth today!

All returns as of June 18, 2010, unless otherwise stated.

TRIAL BLOG: Lester Street Trial - Day 1 - WMC-TV 5 - Memphis, TN

2010-10-07T00:00:00.004-05:00

Two years ago, on March 2, 2008, a horrifyingly tragic act occurred at 722 Lester Street in Memphis, TN.

Now, the evil monster responsible for the the horrific acts faces the possibility of the Death Penalty...and it is certainly no less than he deserves.

<-Cast your vote to the left.Find out more about the story out of Memphis, TN that made National News:I must warn you...some of the testimony and photos (if there are any posted in the link below) will sicken you to the very core of your heart. *******************************************************************TRIAL BLOG: Lester Street Trial - Day 1 - WMC-TV 5 - Memphis, TN

VIDEO: Moore attacks Reid

2010-09-26T23:00:00.001-05:00

********************************************************************

Enough said. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but this video is worth about 10,000 words, maybe 'more' (pun intended).

Urgent Message from Fred Thompsson

2010-09-25T11:17:00.001-05:00

Urgent Letter from Senator Fred Thompson

Dear Fellow American:

President Obama and the Congress have a nasty habit of doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time.

Here’s the perfect example.

Our economy is as weak as a kitten, crawling out of a horrible recession and Congress is on the verge of letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Yes, it's true. On Dec. 31 of this year, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire completely in one fell swoop.

Sen. Fred ThompsonUnless Congress acts, those tax hikes are going to hit like a ton of bricks.

When the Bush cuts expire, income tax rates will rise by 10 percent or more for every tax bracket.

Capital gains taxes will rise by one-third, and the top rate on dividend taxes will almost triple.

These tax increases will have a devastating effect on the economy.

They will crush jobs, deliver a fresh dose of misery to small business owners, and if you’re wondering whether or not your taxes are going to go up, here’s your answer:

If you pay taxes, your tax bill is going up — way up!

Liberals in the Obama administration say they just want to increase income taxes for the "rich." But Obama forgets that the "rich" include the most productive, most successful, and most entrepreneurial wage earners in the country.

If he raises their taxes, they will simply spend and invest less.

Even Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has testified before Congress that this is not the time to raise taxes — the economy is simply too fragile.

Many in Congress agree. Even three leading Democratic senators came out and said the Bush tax cuts should be fully renewed, even for those who are making high incomes.

These Democrats understand that raising taxes in the middle of a recession is a recipe for disaster.

President Obama doesn't get it. He is simply unwilling to take practical steps to protect the economy and reassure the markets.

I fear that unless Congress and the president act promptly, many investors may sell their stocks and bonds to lock in profits at lower rates this year, sparking a major market decline next year.

Clearly, the public wants to keep the Bush tax cuts. When they were implemented in 2001 and 2003 after the 9/11 attacks and the dot-com crash of the ’90s, they helped jump start the economy.

Some say that we need to worry about the deficit, and we should raise taxes to close this staggering burden to the economy.

The deficit is a real problem. But it wasn't caused by the Bush tax cuts. It was caused by out-of-control spending by Congress.

In fact, there have been three major tax cuts in recent history: the Kennedy cuts of the 1960s, the Reagan "Kemp-Roth" cuts of 1980s, and the Bush tax cuts. All helped spur economic activity and actually increased government revenues.

It's a simple truism of economics: If you tax something, you get less of it; if you subsidize something, you get more of it.

The Obama administration is dead-set on taxing consumer spending, productivity, and investment — while they want to dramatically increase spending on social programs.

Back in 2009, President Obama demanded that Congress pass the largest single spending bill in history — the $787 billion "stimulus" program.

He promised this would propel the U.S. economy and lower unemployment to 8 percent within 18 months.

The Obama stimulus has been a dud. Unemployment continues at almost 10 percent — and is much higher if you factor in all of those who have simply given up looking for work.

My friends, America is in serious trouble.

I don't get involved in many causes, but I feel this so important I have joined with the League of American Voters to support their national petition effort to renew the Bush tax cuts.

I need you to help us get our petition signed by millions of Americans so the League can tell Congress that you fully support the renewal of the Bush tax cuts.

To help our effort to Renew the Bush Tax Cuts — Go Here Now

The League of American Voters is conducting a massive grass-roots effort to extend the Bush tax cuts and make them permanent.

They will be airing national TV ads so that millions will hear the truth about the Bush tax cuts — facts they won't hear from the liberal media.

They will also conduct a major online, print, and mail campaign to wake up America to this massive Obama tax increase that is coming down the pike.

I know you will help.

The League of American Voters and I will deliver hundreds of thousands and hopefully millions of those petitions to Congress.

Help this urgent effort — Go Here Now.

One more thing: I support the League of American Voters, and I hope you will as well with a contribution so that they can reach millions of Americans with our urgent message.

The League of American Voters is a national, non-partisan organization that supports and educates Americans about the importance of limited government and a strong national defense — the principles of Ronald Reagan.

As you may recall, the League was one of the leaders that stopped Obama's public option from passing, which would have destroyed private healthcare in America.

Dick Morris, the Fox news analyst, says "The League is one of the most effective organizations in America. It deserves your support."

Unless we act, the Bush tax cuts will expire at midnight on Dec. 31.

We can stop this from happening, but we need to fight.

And when you sign the petition, be sure to include a contribution to the League of American Voters for for our national TV and media campaign to wake up the American people about the dangers of President Obama's policies.

A donation of $5000 can put our ad on a national cable TV news channel. A $1000 donation lets us buy
several ads in a major TV market. A donation of $500 or $250 will go along way. Even $25, $50, will help the League on this important mission.

And please remember, there's no limit on how much you or your company can donate to this important cause.

When you sign the petition and make a contribution, you’ll send a powerful message.

You aren’t undertaxed. The government overspends!

That’s a message the professional politicians in Washington need to hear right now. With an election coming up fast, a lot of the liberal spenders are feeling desperate — their jobs are on the line.

The long-suffering American taxpayers feel fed up, frustrated, taken for granted, and put upon, and if the politicians let the Bush tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, the outcry is going to hit them right between the eyes.

Here’s what I think:

The big spenders in Congress aren’t good at listening. But if we deliver hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of signed petitions right to their cozy D.C. offices we’re going to get their attention!

So let’s take care of business and let them know that there’s too much government now in all the wrong places, and it will be economic suicide to let the Bush tax cuts expire, effectively sending everybody’s tax bill soaring.

Sign your petition right away.

Be sure to include a contribution to the League of American Voters for $10 or $25 or $50 or $100 to keep letters like this one going out and to put our TV ads on the air.

In fact, there's no limit to how much you or your business can donate to the League, so help them on this important mission.

The congressional liberals are hungry for more of your money. Send them a message that it’s your money and not theirs. — Please Go Here Now.

Tell them in a loud, clear voice that the government spends too much now; it’s always a bad time to raise taxes and to raise taxes in these economic times is just plain stupid.

That’s just common sense. Like the Ivy League professor said, “It’s not rocket surgery.”

Yours for America,

Fred Thompson
U.S. Senator 1994 - 2003

P.S. When the government tells you that letting the Bush tax cuts expire is “for your own good,” you know it’s not. When they insist that “your taxes won’t go up, only rich people’s will,” don’t believe them. Take action. Share this letter with all your friends and family in your e-mail contacts list. You CAN make a difference — Please Go Here Now.
League of American Voters | 722 12th Street N.W. | 4th Floor | Washington, D.C. 20005

Refund Policy

Blog Update--New 9-11 Blog

2010-09-17T09:40:00.002-05:00

Good morning everyone...I just popped in to say that I have been working on a NEW blog...started on it this past 9-11 because it is strictly all about 9-11.

http://the911memorialblog.blogspot.com it is listed on my profile under the 'My Blogs' header.

The thing is, as you all know, I am a great lover of 'conspiracy theories',
and just plain old theories in general. The thing is, this past September 11 I spent all that day recording the 9-11 documentaries in the bedroom, while
watching C-Span News in the living room and doing some 9-11 research of my
own on the computer. I found some really good web sites and some even better
articles. Anyway, on my profile page is a link to the new blog that is about
nothing but 9-11, complete with a "disclaimer" and links to some very interesting web sites.
So, check out my new 9-11 information discussion blog and let me know what you think.

Thank you all for your support, and have a great weekend.

Democrats Invoking Palin to Stir Base

2010-09-14T17:34:00.003-05:00

Ok...someone tell me what is going on here. The Democrats want Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh et al to be speakers at some steak fry? What are the DemLibs up to now, exactly?

I was skimming through the articles in the New York Times and saw this title, and read the article. I decided to post the article here so that maybe someone could possibly help shed some light on this for me, because honestly, I ama just a little bit more than confused right now.

**************************************************************************

Democrats Invoking Palin to Stir Base
By JEFF ZELENY
Published: September 13, 2010

INDIANOLA, Iowa — Gone are the days when President Obama was the biggest source of motivation for Democrats.

The role now belongs to Sarah Palin.

That, at least, was the argument from David Plouffe, the architect of Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign, who appeared here on Sunday to deliver a fresh sense of urgency to Democrats in the final 50 days of the midterm election campaign.

“You have a good opportunity to remind your neighbors, your friends and your family members about who the real Republican Party is,” Mr. Plouffe said. “The very best organizer and fund-raiser in the Democratic Party is going to be here in Iowa — Sarah Palin.”

It was a telling moment at Senator Tom Harkin’s 33rd annual steak fry, where Mr. Plouffe, along with David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president, came to try to dispel the predictions of a dismal November for Democrats. They promoted the party’s accomplishments, but they suggested that if members needed more enticement for Election Day, they should keep Ms. Palin and other Republicans at the forefront of the conversation.

“Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are bad enough, but they’re not the real Republican Party,” Mr. Plouffe said. “It is Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. That is the power. All of these Republican candidates have to pledge allegiance to them, their intolerance and their backwards thinking.”

For months, Democratic leaders have tried several ways to rally their voters in hopes of closing the enthusiasm gap with Republicans. But as they head into the closing weeks of the midterm elections, hoping to shake Democrats into action, it’s clear that invoking the name of Ms. Palin has now become a central part of the party’s strategy.

“Right now, Republicans are coming out in big numbers,” Mr. Plouffe said. “We need to get Democrats excited.”

That was the point of the David-and-David show here on Sunday at one of Iowa’s premiere political events, where hundreds of Democrats gathered at the Warren County Fairgrounds about 20 miles south of Des Moines for an afternoon of steak and chicken, washed down by beer and lemonade. It was a rare back-to-back appearance by two men who built Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign and now are trying to save his presidency.

This year, Ms. Palin’s name came up again and again. She is set to make her first trip of the year to Iowa on Friday as the marquee speaker at the Republican Party’s annual Ronald Reagan Dinner, an appearance that will undoubtedly fuel a round of speculation — founded or not — about whether she intends to run for president in 2012.

The Democrats, starting with Mr. Harkin, practically salivated at the idea of it.

“We asked Glenn Beck to estimate the size of the crowd. He said 500,000,” Mr. Harkin said, taking a swipe at the conservative television host who held a large rally last month in Washington. “We asked Sarah Palin. She said it was so big that she could see it from Wasilla.”

It was four years ago that Mr. Harkin invited Mr. Obama, a junior senator from Illinois, to be the keynote speaker at the annual steak fry here. The response from the Democratic crowd back in 2006 was so overwhelming that one month later Mr. Obama disclosed publicly that he was considering running for president.

At the time, his candidacy was seen as a long shot, a historical point that Mr. Axelrod and Mr. Plouffe reminded the crowd of as they argued that this year’s crop of Democratic candidates can overcome their own challenging odds, too, and keep control of the House and Senate.

“It’s tougher when you got some headwinds, when the political situation is not as favorable, but that’s when we need you even more,” said Mr. Plouffe, who asked every person in the crowd to find 10 more Democrats who might not be planning to vote.

Their argument sounded reminiscent to one they often delivered in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses in 2008, where they warned against a rush to the judgment that Mr. Obama’s campaign could never survive the juggernaut of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Mr. Obama, of course, ultimately won.

“I’m asking you to do what you’ve done before. Ignore the pollsters and the punsters and the purveyors of gloom,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Go out and tell our story and tell it proudly. Make sure people understand what the choice is.”

By the time Mr. Axelrod arrived at the fairgrounds, he had changed out of the suit and tie that he had worn during a morning interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and into a red plaid shirt, complete with country western snaps, and jeans. He joined Mr. Plouffe in flipping a few steaks for a photo opportunity with Mr. Harkin and other Democrats.

“I know what the conventional wisdom is today, but we’ve made a good living betting against the conventional wisdom,” Mr. Axelrod said. “This election is not a referendum. This election is a choice between two very distinct paths.”

The weekend presence of both men here in Iowa — front and center, rather than in their usual roles of behind the scenes — suggested one thing: the next election, when Mr. Obama is on the ballot in 2012, is just around the bend.

Something Else to Consider about 9-11 (read as a part 2 from previous 9-11 post)

2010-09-13T09:32:00.004-05:00

On September 11, 2010 while watching the documentaries about the 9-11 attacks, I was also on my computer doing some 9-11 reasearch. I found quite a few websites pertaining to the 9-11-01 attacks. I found this other web site titled 9-11 Research.com. This web site is FULL of information that could make the hair on the back of your neck grow stiff.

This one particular article stood out to me and I read it, clicked on the links and sub-links etc...and I thought that I would copy and paste it here for you all to read, mainly because I don't know how many of you know about this site, so, I wanted to share this with you all.

***************************************************************************

Attack Foreknowledge

Actions Reveal Widespread Advance Knowledge of the Attack

Several events immediately preceding the September 11th attacks suggests many people other than Islamic extremists anticipated the attack. These include the following:

*1-Extremely large purchases of put options on stocks of American Airlines, United Airlines, and other companines hurt by the attack
*A surge in financial transactions on computers in the World Trade Center on the morning of 9/11/01
*Avoidance of the airlines and New York City on September 11th by a number of important people, some admitting to having been warned of an attack
*The behavior of five Israelis who appeared to be celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center as they filmed it from across the Hudson
*Donald Rumsfeld's disclosure on the eve of 9/11 that the Pentagon had lost over 2 trillion dollars
*A warning received by Rudolph Giuliani that the South Tower would collapse ten minutes before the event
*The privatization of the World Trade Center six weeks before the attack

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*1-Insider Trading
Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge
Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 The evidence of insider trading includes:

Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit.

Put and call options are contracts that allow their holders to sell and buy assets, respectively, at specified prices by a certain date. Put options allow their holders to profit from declines in stock values because they allow stocks to be bought at market price and sold for the higher option price. The ratio of the volume of put option contracts to call option contracts is called the put/call ratio. The ratio is usually less than one, with a value of around 0.8 considered normal. 2

Losers
American Airlines and United Airlines, and several insurance companies and banks posted huge loses in stock values when the markets opened on September 17. Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of these companies in great volume in the week before the attack.

United Airlines and American Airlines
Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL), the operator of Flight 175 and Flight 93. According to CBS News, in the week before the attack, the put/call ratio for American Airlines was four. 3 The put/call ratio for United Airlines was 25 times above normal on September 6. 4

This graph shows a dramatic spike in pre-attack purchases of put options on the airlines used in the attack. (source: www.optionsclearing.com)

The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.

On Sept. 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 put options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options -- essentially bets that the price will rise. On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records. 5
The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.

Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley "put" option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time. 6
When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share. 7

Reinsurance Companies
Several companies in the reinsurance business were expected to suffer huge losses from the attack: Munich Re of Germany and Swiss Re of Switzerland -- the world's two biggest reinsurers, and the AXA Group of France. In September, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle estimated liabilities of $1.5 billion for Munich Re and $0.55 bilion for the AXA Group and telegraph.co.uk estimated liabilities of £1.2 billion for Munich Re and £0.83 billion for Swiss Re. 8 9

Trading in shares of Munich Re was almost double its normal level on September 6, and 7, and trading in shares of Swiss Re was more than double its normal level on September 7. 10

Financial Services Companies
Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened. 11

Bank of America showed a fivefold increase in put option trading on the Thursday and Friday before the attack.

A Bank of America option that would profit if the No. 3 U.S. bank's stock fell below $60 a share had more than 5,900 contracts traded on the Thursday and Friday before the Sept. 11 assaults, almost five times the previous average trading, according to Bloomberg data. The bank's shares fell 11.5 percent to $51 in the first week after trading resumed on Sept. 17. 12
Winners
While most companies would see their stock valuations decline in the wake of the attack, those in the business of supplying the military would see dramatic increases, reflecting the new business they were poised to receive.

Raytheon
Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, saw its stock soar immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.

A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. 13
Raytheon has been fined millions of dollars inflating the costs of equipment it sells the US military. Raytheon has a secretive subsidiary, E-Systems, whose clients have included the CIA and NSA. 14

US Treasury Notes
Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volumes before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11. 15
The SEC's Investigation
Shortly after the attack the SEC circulated a list of stocks to securities firms around the world seeking information. 16 A widely circulated article states that the stocks flagged by the SEC included those of the following corporations: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns.

An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:

The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
...
In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. 17
Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:

What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. 18
Interpreting and Reinterpreting the Data
An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:

A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3
Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4

Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. 5

[Excerpted ENDNOTES]

3. "Mechanics of Possible Bin Laden Insider Trading Scam," Herzlyya International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), September 22, 2001. Michael C. Ruppert, "The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks," From the Wilderness April 22, 2002. Posted at Centre for Research and Globalization .

4. ICT, op. cit, citing data from the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE). [...] "Terrorists trained at CBPE." Chicago Sun-Times, September 20, 2001, . "Probe of options trading link to attacks confirmed," [...] Chicago Sun-Times, September 21, 2001, .

5. ICT, op. cit.

19
Ruppert then illustrates an apparent attempt to bury the story by explaining it away as nothing unusual. A September 30 New York Times article claims that "benign explanations are turning up" in the SEC's investigation. 20 The article blames the activity in put options, which it doesn't quantify, on "market pessimism," but fails to explain why the price of the stocks in the airlines doesn't reflect the same market pessimism.

The fact that $2.5 million of the put options remained unclaimed is not explained at all by market pessimism, and is evidence that the put option purchasers were part of a criminal conspiracy. 21

References

1. Insider Trading Apparently Based on Foreknowledge of the 9/11 Attacks, London Times, 9/18/01 [cached]
2. Put/Call Ratio, StreetAuthority.com,
3. Profiting From Disaster?, CBSNews.com, 9/19/01 [cached]
4. Prices, Probabilities and Predictions, OR/MS Today, [cached]
5. Exchange examines odd jump, Associated Press, 9/18/01 [cached]
6. SEC asks Goldman, Lehman for data, Bloomberg News, 9/20/01 [cached]
7. Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?, ict.org.il, September 19, 2001 [cached]
8. Suspicious profits sit uncollected Airline investors seem to be lying low, San Francisco Chronicle, 9/29/01 [cached]
9. Profits of doom, telegraph.co.uk, 9/23/01 [cached]
10. Profits of doom ..., 9/23/01
11. Black Tuesday ..., 9/19/01
12. Bank of America among 38 stocks in SEC's attack probe, Bloomberg News, 10/3/01 [cached]
13. Bank of America ..., 10/3/01
14. Raytheon, corpwatch.org,
15. Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks, wsws.org, 10/5/01 [cached]
16. Bank of America ..., 10/3/01
17. SEC wants data-sharing system Network of brokerages would help trace trades by terrorists, San Francisco Chronicle, 9/19/01 [cached]
18. Crossing the Rubicon, , page 243
19. Crossing the Rubicon, , page 238-239,634
20. Whether advance knowledge of U.S. attacks was used for profit, New York Times, 9/30/01 [cached]
21. Suspicious profits ..., 9/29/01

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*2-

Hidden Transactions
Financial Transactions on WTC Computers Surged Before Attack
Computer systems in the World Trade Center processed an unusual volume of credit card transactions in the minutes before the planes crashed into the towers on 9/11/01. The computer systems were destroyed in the subsequent collapses of the towers. Although details of the surge remain unknown, reports speculate that the transactions may have amounted to more than $100 million in value, with both the volume and sizes of transactions surging. 1 2

In December of 2001, press reports noted that Convar Systeme Deutschland GmbH was working on recovering data from some hard drives extracted from the destroyed computer systems. Unlike conventional data recovery efforts, the German company used laser scanning to read drive surfaces in order to create virtual disks. These virtual disks were then read to recover data. As of December 20th, 2001, Convar had completed processing 39 out of 81 drives, and expected to receive 20 more drives in January. These reports do not indicate how many drives were believed lost or destroyed in the collapses. Companies paid Convar between $20,000 and $30,000 per drive for the work. 3

References

1. German Firm Probes Final World Trade Center Deals, Reuters, 12/16/01 [cached]
2. The Myth of WTC, Shanghai Star, 12/20/01 [cached]
3. Computer disk drives from WTC could yield clues, CNN.com, 12/20/01 [cached]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*3-

Attack Warnings
People Who Avoided the Airlines and the Twin Towers
Much has been reported about how warnings of attacks by Muslim extremists in the year leading up to 9/11/01 were ignored. So far no official has been fired or otherwise punished for his or her failure to act on such information.

What is more informative than who failed to act on a tip, is who acted on a tip. A number of people apparently knew to stay clear of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.

Government Officials and Business Leaders
There is evidence that a group of Pentagon officials was warned to avoid the attack targets. Newsweek reported:

Three weeks ago there was another warning that a terrorist strike might be imminent - On September 10, Newsweek has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. 1
A number of business leaders who would normally have been in the World Trade Center, were instead at a meeting hosted by Warren Buffett on September 11th at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska. That group included Anne Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust Inc., a company that occupied five floors on or above the 90th floor of the South Tower. 2 3 (This is the same Air Force Base that George W. Bush would fly to later that day. It has an underground command center.) 4

San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown admitted to having received a warning from what he described as his airport security late Monday evening, just hours before the attack. 5

Salman Rushdie, who is under the continuous protection of Scotland Yard, was prevented from flying on September 11th, 2001. 6

On 9/11/01, Jim Pierce, cousin of President Bush, was scheduled to attend a conference on the 105th floor of the South Tower, where his company's New York offices were based. But the conference was moved across the street to the Millennium Hotel, because, the story goes, the group was too large. 7

Privileged Companies
Another group of people that received warnings in advance of the attack were employees of Odigo, the instant messaging service. Two employees received e-mail messages two hours before the first World Trade Center assault, predicting the attack. 8

According to reporter Christopher Bollyn, Zim American Israeli Shipping Co. broke a lease in order to vacate the World Trade Center just days before the attack. Bollyn's source claims that Zim's lease extended through the end of the year and that the termination cost $50,000. 9

The company heading a consortium that had just obtained a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center was supposedly spared by a last-minute cancellation. According to the New York Times, Silverstein Properties had planned to meet on 9/11/01 on the 88th floor of one of the towers to "discuss what to do in the event of a terrorist attack," but cancelled the meeting Monday night "because one participant could not attend." 10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References

1. Bush: We're at War, Newsweek, 9/24/01 [cached]
2. '9/11' Facing our Fascist State, I/R Press, 2002, page 52
3. Franklin unit rebuilds after 9/11 tragedy, San Francisco Business Times, 2/1/02 [cached]
4. September 11th: The President's Story, CBS, 9/11/02 [cached]
5. Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel, SFGate.com, 9/12/01 [cached]
6. , London Times, 9/27/01 [cached]
7. President's cousin escaped death thanks to schedule change, Ananova, 9/18/01 [cached]
8. Odigo says workers were warned of attack, HAARETZ.com, [cached]
9. Israeli Company Mum About WTC Pullout, American Free Press,
10. Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort Out Cost of Damage, New York Times, 9/12/01, page C6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*4-

Israeli Spies
Five Men Including Mossad Agents Documented the WTC Attack
On the day of the attack a resident of Jersey City reported suspicious behavior by a group of men who appeared to be celebrating as they filmed the destruction across the Hudson. Mainstream media initially reported that the men, who were arrested around 4:30 PM, were Arabs. In fact the men were Israelis. The FBI released them 71 days later. The FBI also detained other groups of Israelis before and after 9/11/01, concluding some were part of an "organised intelligence-gathering operation" designed to "penetrate government facilities." 1

The following excerpt from a 2003 version of Paul Thompson's 9-11 Timeline summarizes reports of the group of Israelis who filmed the World Trade Center attack from New Jersey. 2

September 11, 2001 (W): Five Israelis are arrested for "puzzling behavior" related to the WTC attacks. They are arrested around 4:30 P.M. after having filmed the burning WTC from the roof of their company's building near Liberty State Park, then shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. They were spotted by a neighbor who called the police and the FBI. The police tracked them down in a van with the words "Urban Moving Systems" written on the side. [ Bergen Record, 9/12/01, Ha'aretz, 9/17/01] One man was found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box cutter was found in the van. [ ABC News, 6/21/02] Investigators say that "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted... It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen." [ Bergen Record, 9/12/01] One of these Israelis later says, "Our purpose was to document the event." [ ABC News, 6/21/02] The FBI later concludes at least two are Mossad agents and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. The FBI interrogates them for weeks. [ Forward, 3/15/02] They are held on immigration violation charges and released 71 days later. [ ABC News, 6/21/02] Their names are later identified as Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel. [ Forward, 3/15/02]

References

1. Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 ..., SundayHerald.com, 11/2/03 [cached]
2. , Center for Cooperative Research,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*5-

Missing Trillions
Rumsfeld Buries Admission of Missing 2+ Trillion Dollars in 9/10/01 Press Conference
On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. 1 2

Such a disclosure normally might have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror."

The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. 3 4 Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor." 5

Estimates of the sums of money missing vary wildly. A 2003 report put the amount missing at "more than a trillion dollars." 6

References

1. The War On Waste, CBSnews.com, 1/29/02 [cached]
2. Vince Gonzales Investigates The Pentagon's War On Waste, CBSNews,
3. Radar Physics Group, sysplan.com, [cached]
4. Flight Termination System, sysplan.com, [cached]
5. Profile, Dov S. Zakheim, rightweb.irc-online.org, 11/22/03 [cached]
6. Military waste under fire: $1 trillion missing, San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, May 18, 2003 [cached]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*6-

Giuliani Warned
Mayor Giuliani Had Privileged Warning of Unprecedented Collapse
Warnings of the imminent collapse of the South Tower are inherently suspicious, given how unexpected that event was.

No skyscraper in the world had ever collapsed for any reason, other than controlled demolition.
Later revisions notwithstanding, the collapse took almost everyone by surprise.
Firefighters and emergency workers did not receive warnings.
Such warnings indicate foreknowledge, whether or not one believes any of the official theories of the collapses of the Twin Towers.

Rudolph Giuliani's Warning
Rudolph Giuliani, mayor of New York City on 9/11/01, has stated that he was at the base of the Twin Towers just minutes before the explosive collapse of the South Tower and then went to 75 Barclay Street -- where he had a makeshift command center.

QUESTION: Mr. Mayor, just to clarify something that Mr. Kerik said you were about 10 minutes past when you were standing with several of the high ranking officers who you lost and then you went to Barkley [sic] Street, have you thought about that 10 minute gap, how you were 10 minutes from being in a horrible situation?

GIULIANI: I haven't had a chance to think about it.

QUESTION: Then that could of evacuate the 10--you would have been with them 10 minutes earlier before the building collapsed?

GIULIANI: The--some of the people that we lost we saw like Father Judge (ph) and Chief Gansy (ph), Bill Fehan (ph), we saw them about 10 minutes before--before we went over to 75 Barkley [sic] street. And I talked to their families and I explained to them that they were working very hard and they were working at what they loved to do. And I'm sure their efforts will end up having saved other lives and their families can be very proud of them.

1
In an ABC News interview, Giuliani states that he was "told that the World Trade Center was gonna' collapse," and that it did collapse, referring to the 9:59 destruction of the South Towers, and implies that the warning was not well in advance of the event.

I .. I went down to the scene and we set up a headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna' to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit, got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.
The OEM
Who warned Giuliani? To our knowledge, no reporter working for any mainstream media organization has put that question to Giuliani. However there are passages from the Oral Histories of emergency responders that shed light on the question. The account of Richard Zarillo contains the following:

As I was walking towards the Fire command post, I found Steve Mosiello. I said, Steve, where's the boss? I have to give him a message. He said, well, what's the message? I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out.

He escorted me over to Chief Ganci. He said, hey, Pete, we got a message that the buildings are going to collapse. His reply was who the f___ told you that? Then Steve brought me in and with Chief Ganci, Commissioner Feehan, Steve, I believe Chief Turi was initially there, I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down. 2
Although Zarillo describes being directly questioned, both by Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello and by Chief Peter Ganci, about who told him that the buildings were going to collapse, he does not clarify the source of the message beyond the OEM (Office of Emergency Management), where he was "just with John."

Steven Mosiello's account corroborates Zarillo's:

A. At that point I don't know exactly when the Commissioner and Mayor had left. It was pretty soon after they had left that Richie Zarillo, who works with EMS -- I believe he's an OEM liaison -- came running up to me. I was not on the ramp at this time. I was like almost at the sidewalk location.

He said Steve, where's the Chief? I have to tell him, you know -- I said tell him what, Richie? These buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. I said how do you know that, you know? So he ran with me. I ran over and grabbed Chief Ganci and said Chief, these buildings are in imminent danger of collapse. He looked up at me. 3

References

1. Text: Giuliani on Rescue Efforts, WashingtonPost.com, 9/12/01 [cached]
2. World Trade Center Task Force Interview: EMT Richard Zarrillo, New York Times, 10/25/01
3. World Trade Center Task Force Interview: Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello, New York Times, 10/23/01

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*7-

Controlling Interests
Ownership, Control, and Insurance of The World Trade Center
The World Trade Center complex came under the control of a private owner for the first time only in mid-2001, having been built and managed by the Port Authority as a public resource. The complex was leased to a partnership of Silverstein Properties and Westfield America. 1 2 The new controllers acquired a handsome insurance policy for the complex including a clause that would prove extremely valuable: in the event of a terrorist attack, the partnership could collect the insured value of the property, and be released from their obligations under the 99-year lease. 3

Ownership Change
Author Don Paul investigated this and related issues for his 2002 book, which contains the following passage detailing financial aspects and ownership changes of the complex preceding the attack.

On April 26 of 2001 the Board of Commissioners for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded Silverstein Properties and mall-owner Westfield America a 99-year-lease on the following assets: The Twin Towers, World Trade Center Buildings 4 and 5, two 9-story office buildings, and 400,000 square feet of retail space.

The partners' winning bid was $3.2 billion for holdings estimated to be worth more than $8 billion. JP Morgan Chase, a prestigious investment-bank that's the flagship firm of its kind for Rockefeller family interests, advised the Port Authority, another body long influenced by banker and builder David Rockefeller, his age then 85, in the negotiations.

The lead partner and spokesperson for the winning bidders, Larry Silverstein, age 70, already controlled more than 8 million square feet of New York City real estate. WTC 7 and the nearby Equitable Building were prime among these prior holdings. Larry Silverstein also owned Runway 69, a nightclub in Queens that was alleged 9 years ago to be laundering money made through sales of Laotian heroin. 4

In December 2003, the Port Authority agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that the consortium headed by Silverstein originally invested to buy the lease on the World Trade Center. The Port Authority rejected a request by the Wall Street Journal to review the transaction. 5 A press report from November 2003 about the same transaction noted that it would allow Silverstein to retain development rights. 6

The lease deal didn't close until July 24th, just 6 weeks before the attack. 7

Insurance Payouts
Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8
The insurance money flows involved in the destruction of the original six World Trade Center buildings were far greater. Silverstein Properties, the majority owner of WTC 7, also had the majority interest in the original World Trade Center complex. Silverstein hired Willis Group Holdings Ltd. to obtain enough coverage for the complex. Willis undertook "frenetic" negotiations to acquire insurance from 25 carriers. The agreements were only temporary contracts when control of the WTC changed hands on July 24. 9

After the attack, Silverstein Properties commenced litigation against its insurers, claiming it was entitled to twice the insurance policies' value because, according to a spokesman for Mr. Silverstein, "the two hijacked airliners that struck the 110-story twin towers Sept. 11 were separate 'occurrences' for insurance purposes, entitling him to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies." This was reported in the Bloomberg News less than one month after the attack. 10

The ensuing legal battle between the leaseholders and insurers of the World Trade Center was not about how the 9/11/01 attack on the WTC could be considered two attacks, when the WTC was only destroyed once. Rather it seemed to revolve around whether the beneficiaries thought it was one or two "occurrences." The proceedings before U.S. District Judge John S. Martin involved a number of battles over the insurers' discovery rights regarding conversations about this issue between insurance beneficiaries and their lawyers. 11 12

In December 2004, a jury ruled in favor of the insurance holders' double claim. 13

A Parable
To put these events in perspective, imagine that a person leases an expensive house, and immediately takes out an insurance policy covering the entire value of the house and specifically covering bomb attacks. Six weeks later two bombs go off in the house, separated by an hour. The house burns down, and the lessor immediately sues the insurance company to pay him twice the value of the house, and ultimately wins. The lessor also gets the city to dispose of the wreckage, excavate the site, and help him build a new house on the site.

References

1. Westfield Nabs Trade Center mall, ICSC.org, 6/2/2001 [cached]
2. Governor Pataki, Acting Governor DiFrancesco Laud Historic Port Authority Agreement to Privatize World Trade Center, Port Authority on NY & NJ, 7/24/01 [cached]
3. Reinsurance Companies Wait to Sort Out Cost of Damage, New York Times, 9/12/01, page C6
4. Facing Our Fascist State, I/R Press, 2002, page 38
5. MetLife Will Sell Sears Tower, Wall Street Journal Online, 3/12/04 [cached]
6. Most of WTC Down Payment to Be Returned, 11/22/03 [cached]
7. Insurers Debate: One Accident or Two?, Bloomberg News, 10/10/01
8. Facing Our Fascist State, , page 47
9. Double Indemnity, law.com, 9/3/02 [cached]
10. Judge John S. Martin Jr.'s Latest Opinion in Swiss Re v. WTC., Newsday, 09/25/02 [cached]
11. Twin Tower Insurers Win Discovery Fight, 6/20/02 [cached]
12. World Trade Center's Mortgage Holder Loses Discovery Fight, 7/8/02 [cached]
13. Jury Awards $2.2 Billion in 9/11 Insurance, United Press International, 12/6/04 [cached]

************************************************************************

Is it just me, or does this all sound just a little bit TOO coincidental that all these transactions and avoidences just so happened to take place only days and hours BEFORE the attacks?

Hello My Loyal Readers

2010-09-12T18:13:00.002-05:00

Ok, I know that I have been away from here a very long time...9 months...well, I got busy working long hours for little pay, and then I started doing a lot of yard sales to make extra money. My computer broke down again and had to get it fixed...then on April 6 of this year, my brother was driving me to work and we were in a bad car accident.

We both had to be transported to the hospital by ambulance. His injuries were not as bad as the injuries I sustained on the right side of my body, because all of the damage to his car was on the passenger side.

I had a fractured right foot...4 dislocated ribs (right side)...right knee was dislocated...a fracture in my upper right arm...a dislocated right wrist and assorted other cuts and briuses. Thank God for seat belts and air bags. The driver of the truck made an illegal left turn at the last minute right in front of us and we smashed into him. His truck actually flipped up on the 2 driver's side wheels. Thankfully, the force of the impact pushed us backward and his truck did not land on top of the car or I would have been hurt a LOT worse.

Anyway, while I was here at home mending, I just watched a lot of NCIS, CSI, Law anmd Order and started playing a lot of different 'war' games such as Evony, King and Conqueror, Lords Online, Tribal Wars, and Grepolis.

But, I found my way back to the blog world. So, I am trying to manage my time better so that I can take care of my games and my blog.

Anyway, hello everyone.

9/11: THREATS ABOUT AIRPLANES AS WEAPONS PRIOR TO 9/11

2010-09-11T14:45:00.001-05:00

Here is an interesting article that I found this morning. I wanted to share it with you all, and see what you think.

*******************************************************************************

9/11: THREATS ABOUT AIRPLANES AS WEAPONS PRIOR TO 9/11

By: Dr. Matthew Robinson

Associate Professor of Criminal Justice
Appalachian State University
robinsnmb@appstate.edu

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”

Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”

Further, Vice President Cheney advised Democrats in Congress to “be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions ... that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11.” He also said that any serious probe of 9/11 foreknowledge would be tantamount to “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”

So, read the following reports, all from major news agencies in the United States, and see if you think they are telling the truth (just don’t conduct any serious probe into this foreknowledge, or you might be considered the enemy!) Yes, many of the reports came before Bush became President, but the point is, he knew. Everyone in the White House and Congress knew.
What is really amazing is that people who were there and who had access to the information – in the White House and in the Congress – have provided strong evidence that the statements above are false. For example, White House Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke acknowledges that the CIA knew there were al Qaeda terrorists in the US, and the FBI knew there were Arabic people taking lessons at flight schools, including some asking strange questions about crashing planes. Clarke says “red lights and bells should have been going off. They had specific information about individual terrorists from which one could have deduced what was about to happen” (p. 237).
Clarke offers the following as evidence·

In 1995, Clarke asked the FAA to ground all US flights over the Pacific because of a terrorist threat against airliners. This “Bojinka Plot” was discovered by Philippine police responding to a fire in an apartment building in Manilla. This was a plan by al Qaeda to blow up 12 commercial airliners and 9/11 mastermind KSM.

In 1996, while preparing for the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, Clarke asked the Special Agent in Charge of the Atlanta FBI Field Office and the head of FAA security, “What if somebody blows up a 747 over the Olympic stadium, or even flies one into the stadium?” Admiral Cathal Flynn, head of FAA security, replied, “... we could ban aircraft from over the stadium during the events ...”. The FBI agent also added: “Don’t let them hijack an aircraft in the first place.” (pp. 106-107). The preparations made to prevent this kind of attack became the “Atlanta Rules.” These rules were used in several CSG designated “National Security Special Events.” Clarke says: “The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington.” The Treasury Department did not want to pay for the permanent air defense unit so it was not established (p. 131).

In 1996, President Clinton established new security mechanisms at the nation’s airports. They included not allowing passengers to board planes without a government issued photo ID that matched the name on the ticket, increases in random passenger and cargo searches, a temporary ban on parked cars near terminals, and temporary discontinuation of curbside check-in. Also Vice President Al Gore would head a Commission on Aviation Safety and Security that would recommend permanent changes to airport security. According to Richard Clarke this Commission “requested and got funding for programs involving baggage screening, carry on luggage checks, passenger profiling, screener training, research on aircraft hardening, and to hire more FAA security agents.” It did not “agree to recommend that the federal government assume the role of airport passenger and luggage screening ... It was clear even at the time that the Gore Commission had not been sufficiently ambitious about the job of airport security and passenger screening” (p. 130).

Further, former Senator Bob Graham, who held the highest Democratic position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and who organized and co-chaired the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (House-Senate Congressional Inquiry), asserts that President Bush’s statements and those of his Administration about the 9/11 attacks are inaccurate. Graham says: “The first was that it was a surprise, a bolt from the blue. The second was that no one could have imagined such an attack carried out in such a manner. The third, that since no one could have envisaged the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction, no one could be held accountable. The forth was that for all of the devastation, the attack was basically quite simple, requiring nineteen people and a sum of money estimated between $175,000 and $250,000" (p. 112). These are all false!

In fact, the threats were many, and we knew it was coming ... Graham says there were at least 12 instances in which intelligence found information outlining terrorist plans to use airplanes as weapons, there were at least 12 instances in which the plot could have been interdicted but mistakes by individual people assured it did not happen (and yet not a single person has been held accountable for their failures), and the plot was very complex and resilient. In fact, as Graham notes: “I find a pattern of substantial logistical, personnel, and kills development and financial support consistent with what the President was told in his fateful August 6 briefing. I further suspect that the pattern of such support was more pervasive than is currently known or acknowledged” (p. 113). Graham also says this structure of support was maintained by a nation-state [and no he does not say it was Iraq!].

Graham asserts that “after September 11, members of the Bush administration would claim that nobody could have imagined that planes might be used as weapons, during the course of our inquiry, we found that the possibility had been imagined, investigated, and interdicted more than once, and that in one case the Pentagon had been a target”! His examples include:

Algerian terrorists who in 1994 tried to fly an Air France plane into the Eiffel Tower;

Project Bojinka in 1995 to blow up 11 planes simultaneously and crash a twelfth into CIA headquarters and thirteenth into the Pentagon;

An August 2001 plot to fly a plane into a US embassy in Nairobi or bomb it from a plane (p. 81).

But of course, there is much, much more evidence! Consider for yourself the following:

• 1990-1996: Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General for U.S. Dept. of Transportation (1990-1996) resigned after the FAA tried to classify her report detailing lax security at the nation's major airports. Agents were able to sneak fake bombs, hand grenades, guns and knives through metal detectors. Congress, according to Schiavo, was not interested in making it hard on the airline industry, so they swept it under the rug!

• 1993 – A Pentagon expert postulates that an airplane could be used as a missile to bomb national landmarks. This idea is not published in the “Terror 2000" report.

• 1994 – Phoenix FBI discovers videotapes two men trying to recruit an FBI informant to be a suicide bomber, one of which is linked to Sheikh Abdul-Rahman (the blind Shiekh incarcerated in New York for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993).

• 1994 – Three planes are crashed or attempted to crash into buildings this year. A Fed Ex employee tries to crash a DC-10 into a company building in Memphis but is overpowered by the crew. A lone pilot crashes a small plane onto the White House grounds. An Air France flight is hijacked by terrorists linked to al Qaeda, with the goal to crash it into the Eiffel Tower, but French Special Forces storm plane before it takes off.

• Bob Graham asserts that since at least 1994, intelligence agencies received information indicating terrorists were contemplating using aircraft as weapons, and this information did not lead to any specific intelligence assessment of this form of threat or any government reaction to it.

• December 1994 – Ramzi Yousef plants a small bomb on Philippine Airlines flight to Tokyo as part of a trial run of Operation Bojinka.

• January 1995 – Philippines disrupts Operation Bojinka to explode 11 or 12 passenger planes over the Pacific Ocean and to crash others into prominent US buildings. Philippines warns US of targets for attack, including CIA headquarters, Pentagon, nuclear power plant, TransAmerica Tower (San Francisco), Sears Tower (Chicago), and World Trade Center. Plotter Abdul Hakim Murad is handed over to FBI in April 1995 and he identifies 10 other men in flight training who were involved.

• April 1995 – Senator Sam Nunn outlines an attack on the US Capitol using a radio-controlled airplane (idea taken from Tom Clancey’s book, Debt of Honour).

• 1996 – FBI investigates US flight schools after finding a business card for a school in the possession of Abdul Hakim Murad (who had been training at about 6 schools since 1990).

• January 1996 – US intelligence receives information of a planned suicide attack on the White House by a plane flying from Afghanistan.

• July - August 1996 – US officials identify crop dusters and suicide flights as threats to the Atlanta Olympics. They ban planes from getting too close to events, deploy Black Hawk helicopters and US Customs jets to intercept suspicious aircraft, monitor crop-duster flights near downtown, place armed fighter jets on standby at local air bases, screen passengers to Atlanta more carefully, and send law enforcement agents to regional airports to make sure nobody hijacked a small airplane (these become known as the “Atlanta Rules”).

• October 1996 – US intelligence learns of an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and to crash it into Tel Aviv.

• November 1996 – Ethiopians take over a passenger airliner, let it run out of fuel, and crash it into Indian Ocean off Comoros Islands.

• 1997 – FBI and CIA have concerns that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) will be used to attack a US embassy or delegates overseas.

• January 1997 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Clinton inauguration.

• February 1997 – White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security (Gore Commission) issued its final report, reference failed Operation Bojinka, and call for increased aviation security. The commission “believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”

• December 1997 – Retired CIA agent and counter terrorism consultant Randy Baer meets with a former police chief from Qatar and learns that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed (KSM) was sheltered in Qatar by Interior Minister Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani. He is also told that KSM is a key aide to UBL and that KSM “is going to hijack some planes.”

• 1998 – FAA “Red Teams” conduct testing of screening checkpoints at domestic airports and successfully smuggle through guns, bombs, etc. and are successful in some case 85% of the time ... high level FAA officials are made aware of the problem and do nothing

• 1998 – FBI’s international terrorism squad investigates possible Middle Eastern man taking flight lessons at a Phoenix airport. FBI agent Ken Williams starts an investigation into the possibility of terrorists learning to fly.

• 1998 – President Clinton is warned of a possible plan to hijack a plane to gain the release of Oman Abdul Rahman.

• May 1998 – A FBI pilot sends a memo to a supervisor warning of a large number of Middle Eastern men receiving flight training in Oklahoma airports.

• August 1998 – CIA asserts Arab terrorists plan to fly a bomb-laden plane from a foreign country to the World Trade Center ... FBI and FAA do not think the state of aviation in unstated country makes the attack possible.

• September 1998 – US intelligence learns that UBL’s next operation might be a crashed airliner loaded with explosives into a US airport.

• October 1998 – FAA issues 3 warnings to airports and airliners urging a high degree of vigilance against threats to civil aviation posed by al Qaeda ... threat specifically mentioned a metropolitan airport in the Eastern US.

• Fall 1998 – US intelligence learns of a plot to attack New York and Washington DC with airplanes ... learns that plans to attack are preceding well and 2 individuals have successfully evaded checkpoints at a New York airport.

• November 1998 – US intelligence learns of a plan by a Turkish extreme group to crash an airplane packed with explosives into a famous tomb during a government ceremony.

• 1998-1999 – FBI issues warnings of possible terrorists training at US flight schools.

• 1999 – US intelligence learns that an al Qaeda agent studied at a flight school in Norman, Oklahoma (hijackers Mohammed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi visited school there in 2000 and Zacarias Moussaoui trained there in 2001).

• September 1999 – FBI in Oklahoma City visits a flight school in Norman Oklahoma to investigate UBL’s personal pilot Ihab Ali who attended there in 1993.

• 1999 – Britain’s M16 domestic intelligence agency reports to US that al Qaeda plans to use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways possibly as flying bombs.

• 1999 – FBI learns that terrorists are planning to send students to US for flight training. FBI’s Counterterrorism Section issues a notice to 24 field offices to pay close attention to Islamic students from the target country engaged in training. Ken Williams’ squad receives this memo too. No investigation is conducted by any office. A 2000 notice sent out shows there was no indication uncovered that terrorist group is recruiting students.

• September 1999 – US intelligence suggests “Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land aircraft packed with high explosives ... into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House...”. Report is made by the National Intelligence Council which advises the President and US intelligence on emerging threats.

• October 1999 – EgyptAir flight 900 crashes into the Atlantic Ocean off of Massachusetts. The eventual conclusion of the National Transportation Safety Board is it was intentional crash, which killed 33 Egyptian military officers.

• 1999 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 50th Anniversary in DC.

• 2000 – FBI learns that a Middle Eastern nation has been trying to purchase a flight simulator in violation of US restrictions.

• April 2000 – Niaz Khan, a British citizen from Pakistan, tells FBI of a plot to fly airliners into building. He was trained on a mock cockpit of 767, including how to hijack a plane and how to smuggle guns and other weapons on board. He flew to US and was told to meet with a contact to then meet up with others to fly a plane into a building. He passes a polygraph given by FBI but he is deported to London.

• July–August 2000 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against airplane attack for Republican Convention in Philadelphia and Democratic Convention in New York.

• August 2000 – Italian intelligence wiretaps al Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy and overhears plan to attack enemies of Islam with aircraft. Warning is sent to US in March 2001.

• October 2000 – Pentagon conducts an emergency drill for a crashed airline that had been hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.

• September 2000 - September 2001 – NORAD conducts regional war games exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets; one target is World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets conduct a mock shoot down of airliners over Atlantic Ocean. In another, the Pentagon is the target (but this one was called off). Exercises are called Vigilant Guardian and Northern Vigilance, and another is being held at the National Reconnaissance Office which included an airplane being used as a flying weapon.

• January 2001 – “Atlanta Rules” used to protect against an airplane attack for Bush inauguration.

• January - August 2001 – FAA issues 15 warnings to airliners ... Bush officials claim information is so vague it does not warrant additional security ... but the warnings remain classified today.

• February - July 2001 – Trial of embassy bombers in New York features testimony of 2 UBL associates that received flight training in Texas and Oklahoma. One UBL aide gives evidence to government about pilot training.

• March 2001 – Fox’s show The Lone Gunmen depicts an attack by terrorists using a remote-controlled 727 aircraft against the World Trade Center (the real attackers turn out to be US government agents who want to justify continued, large military budgets by creating fear of terrorism).

• April 2001 – NORAD special operations personnel imagine a scenario where a terrorist group hijacks plane and flies it into the Pentagon ... the plan is rejected as too unrealistic.

• April 2001 – FBI translators Sibel Edmonds and Behrooz Sarshar learn of a warning given to FBI by an FBI informant that al Qaeda is planning to attack US and Europe with airplanes and that al Qaeda agents are being trained in US as pilots. Edmonds says: “President Bush said they had no specific information about September 11, and that’s accurate. However, there was specific information about use of airplanes, that an attack was on the way two or three months beforehand, and that several people were already in the country by May of 2001." Says US claims about not knowing of 9/11 plan were outrageous lies ..."That's an outrageous lie and documents can prove it's a lie."

• April 2001 – FAA sends a warning to US airlines that Middle Eastern terrorists could try to hijack or blow up US planes and that carriers should demonstrate a high level of alertness.

• May 2001 – Pentagon practices for crashed 757 into Pentagon.

• June 2001 – German intelligence warns CIA, M16, and Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols, which stand out.”

• June 2001 – NORAD conducts Amalgam Virgo 01 and Amalgam Virgo 02, the latter of which involves two simultaneously hijacked commercial airliners. Fighters are to respond and consider shooting down planes.

• June 2001 – Men in Cayman Islands are overheard by Cayman Islands and British intelligence discussing plans to conduct hijacking attacks in New York City. Information is forwarded to US intelligence.

• June 2001 – Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke gives a direct warning to FAA to increase security measures in light of impending terrorist attack and FAA refuses to implement them.

• July 2001 – Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircraft due to an unknown threat assessment ... Ashcroft will not answer questions about it.

• July 2001 – FBI agent Ken Williams sends a message warning of suspicious activities involving group of Middle Eastern men taking flight training lessons in Arizona: subtitle of memo is “Osama bin Laden and Al-Muhrjiroun supporters attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona.”

• July 2001 – US intelligence reports a spike in warnings against G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy. Head of Russia’s Bodyguard Service reports that al Qaeda will try to kill President Bush ... Egyptian intelligence discovers communication from UBL saying he would assassinate Bush and other leaders during the G-8 summit using an “airplane stuffed with explosives” ... US and Italy are sent urgent warnings ... Germany sends warning of UBL paying German neo-Nazis to fly remote-controlled aircraft packed with explosives into conference hall ... Bush and other leaders stay on an aircraft carrier and a luxury ship away from the area.

• July 2001 – FAA issues a warning telling airlines to use the highest level of caution and another saying “terror groups are known to be planning and training for hijackings, as we ask you therefore to use caution.”

• July 2001 – Egyptian intelligence passes on message to CIA that 20 al Qaeda members had slipped into US and that 4 of them were training on Cessnas.

• August 2001 – Britain warns US of al Qaeda attack involving multiple airline hijackings.

• August 2001 – Russian President Vladimir Putin warns US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US.

• August 2001 – US intelligence learns of a plot to crash airplane into US Embassy in Nairobi.

• August 2001 – Actor James Woods relays concerns of four Arabic-looking men who look suspicious in first class aboard his flight ... flight staff notifies FAA ... Woods is not interviewed by FBI until after 9/11 ... all four are believed to have been involved on 9/11 and were believed to be on one of their practice runs for 9/11.

• August 2001 – the “bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” memo is given to President Bush while he was on vacation at his ranch in Crawford, Texas ... it reads in part: “bin Laden wanted to hijack US aircraft to gain the release” of Oman Abdul Rahman and others and tells of “suspicious activity in the US consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

• August 2001 – Zacarias Moussaoui is arrested in Minneapolis, MN with letters that connect him to Malaysia (where a meeting of al Qaeda operatives occurred under the watch of the CIA in 2000) and some of the hijackers. He also has an unexplained $32,000 bank balance, two knives, fighting gloves, shin guards, and has prepared for violence through physical training. He paid $8,300 for flight training, mostly in cash, to use a 747 aircraft simulator. He asked “how much fuel is on board a 747 and how much damage could it cause if it hit anything”? He has no aviation background, little previous training, and no pilot’s license, he wants to fly only as an ego-boosting thing, he is extremely interested in the operation of the plane’s doors and control panel, and wants to know how to communicate with flight tower. He is evasive and belligerent when asked about his background. He mostly practices flying in the air rather than taking off or landing. The flight school sends information to the FBI and receives little interest, so it contacts them again as says: “Do you realize how serious this is? This man wants training on a 747. A 747 fully loaded with fuel could be used as a weapon.” Moussaoui is arrested but not connected to the 9/11 attackers until after 9/11.

• August 2, 2001 – FBI headquarters Radical Fundamentalist Unit agent calls FBI Minneapolis office supervisor that he is getting people “spun up” over Zacarias Moussaoui. The supervisor says he is trying to get people at FBI headquarters “spun up” because he is trying to make sure Moussaoui does “not take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center.”

• August 23-27, 2001 – FBI agents in Minneapolis are convinced Zacarias Moussaoui is planning to do something with a plane. One agent writes he might “fly something into the World Trade Center.” They decide to pursue a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant – in more than 10,000 requests over 20 years, every single warrant has been granted – yet FBI headquarters decides against it due to a mistaken understanding by its legal experts of the FISA rules.

• August 24, 2001 – A Minneapolis FBI agent contacts CIA’s Counter Terrorism Center and calls Moussaoui a “suspect 747 airline attacker” and a “suspect airline suicide attacker.” FBI headquarters chastises the Minneapolis office for contacting headquarters without permission.

• Bob Graham explained the Moussaoui failure by the FBI, and in doing so, discussed in depth the warnings that should have been clear. From June to July 2001, the National Security Agency (NSA) noted an increase in threat activity (the third such rise since the winter). The US military declared ThreatCon Delta and all ships in the Persian Gulf were sent to sea. And Attorney General John Ashcroft began traveling only on government jet. Graham says this was “opposed to the commercial aircraft Attorneys General normally take, despite the fact that senior FBI and CIA officials knew of no specific threat against the Attorney General” (p. 72). In July 2001, when the FBI’s Phoenix office sent a memo voicing concern that UBL might be using US flight schools to infiltrate America’s civil aviation system, it was ignored by superiors and never reached the FBI’s Minneapolis office (which arrested Zacarias Moussaoui one month later for suspicious activities at a flight school). This is called stove-piping (when information did not move across FBI field offices).

• This “Phoenix memo” was sent by Kenneth Williams, who first became concerned with Libyans with suspected terrorist ties working for US aviation companies in the 1990s. Williams was later told about Arabs in a local mosque involved in aviation training. In April 2000, Williams watched a man name Zakaria Mustapha Soubra, a Lebanese national studying aeronautical safety in Arizona. Williams interviewed Soubra at his apartment and Soubra was defiant. He had photos of UBL and injured mujahedeen fighters on his wall. Soubra’s car outside had a license plate on it that came back of a man named Mohammed al-Qudhaeein who had been detained in 1999 for trying to get into the cockpit of an America West flight from Phoenix to Washington, DC. Al-Qudhaeein was traveling to a party at the Saudi embassy and his ticket had been paid for by the Saudi government. The FBI did not even investigate the case! In 2000, al-Qudhaeein was put on the State Department’s TIPOFF terrorist watch list after US intelligence learned he might have received explosives and car bomb training in Afghanistan. In August 2001, al-Qudhaeein applied for a visa to reenter the US but was denied entry! Perhaps he was an additional hijacker?

• Williams was taken off of counterterrorism to work an arson case in early 2001. The arson case was closed in April 2001 and he wrote an electronic communication (EC) to FBI headquarters in Washington, DC (this is the Phoenix memo). The continuing investigation of Soubra found six associates also involved in aviation training. While Williams did not know it, it was discovered that Soubra knew Hani Hanjour through a local religious center and carpooled with him to flight school. On at least five occasions, they were at the same flight school on the same day and at least once, they flew together! In July 2001, Williams finished his EC and sent it to the Counterterrorism Division at FBI headquarters. READ the memo on pp. 44-45. Williams’ recommendations, if followed, would have prevented 9/11. Graham says that “had William’s recommendations been acted upon promptly, liaisons with the flight schools would have found at least one and perhaps as many as three other hijackers still developing their flying skills” (p. 47). ECs are sent to the specified units and then forwarded to the individual assigned to the lead. Williams sent the EC and requested that both the Radical Fundamentalist Unit and the Usama bin Laden Unit consider his recommendations. Both of these are operational units (that investigate specific crimes) but it did not go to an analytic unit (which considers long-term, strategic issues). It was ultimately forwarded to an FBI intelligence analysts in Portland, Oregon along with a note specifying Williams’ theory. The agent did not take any action or share it more widely and the lead was closed by officers in the RFU and UBLU on August 7, 2001. As it turns out, way back in 1983, the INS asked the FBI for assistance in locating Libyan nationals engaged in aviation or nuclear-related education! In 1998, the head of the FBI Oklahoma City Field Office contacted headquarters to express concern about the large numbers of Middle Eastern males at Oklahoma flight schools. In 1999, the FBI received word that a terrorist organization was planning to send students to the US for aviation training. In response, the Counterterrorism Division at FBI headquarters sent a communication to twenty-four field offices asking them pay close attention to Muslim students from the country who were engaged in aviation training in their areas. No FBI field offices followed up on this instruction. The investigation was dropped in November 2000 when the INS failed to respond to an FBI letter asking them to search databases for individuals from the target country studying in the US!

• Graham asserts that had the Minneapolis FBI Field Office seen these memos and requests, it might have broken the 9/11 plot when it arrested Zacarias Moussaoui. Moussaoui was not a typical flight school student for he did not have a pilot’s license, was not employed by an airline, and had not logged any flight hours. His suspicious activities concerned flight school employees – he had extreme interests in operation of the plane’s doors and control panel, he repeatedly said he would love to fly from London’s Heathrow Airport to JFK Airport in New York, and he paid $6,800 in cash. Employees say he discussed how much fuel is on a Boeing 747 and the damage such a plane could do if it were to hit something. A flight manager contacted a friend at the FBI and Moussaoui was arrested for being “out of status” (overstayed his visa). Minneapolis informed FBI headquarters of Moussaoui’s detention by the INS and it asked the CIA and the FBI’s legal attache in Paris for any information they could get on him. The FBI and INS went to his hotel and seized his laptop computer and belongings, yet they were told they need a warrant to search them. The FBI could have gotten a FISA warrant but it decided against this route! So they decided for the French to search his belongings and not get a FISA warrant. According to Graham, the FBI’s legal attache in Paris reported that Moussaoui had been in Chechnya assisting Chehen rebels which could have been enough to secure a FISA search warrant. The FBI mistake was thinking that Moussaoui had to be connected to an organization that the State Department listed as a foreign terrorist organization (which was not a FISA requirement). FISA does not require it be a “recognized foreign power” just a foreign power. So they spent about 3 weeks trying to connect the Chechen group to al-Qaeda! The FBI did not even try for a normal criminal search warrant and did not even make his presence public, which could have disrupted the plot!

• According to Graham, Minneapolis sent a memo to FBI headquarters stating that Moussaoui’s “possession of weapons and his preparation through physical training for violent confrontation” gave them reason to believe he “and others yet unknown” were conspiring to take control of an airplane. Minneapolis contacted the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center for more information on Moussaoui and a Minneapolis case agent sent an email on August 21, 2001 to the supervisory special agent in the RFU who was handling the matter. It said: “It is imperative that the [US Secret Service] be appraised of this threat potential indicated by the evidence ... if [Moussaoui] seizes an aircraft from Heathrow to NYC, it will have the fuel on board o reach DC.” Yeah, not to mention the World Trade Center! On August 23, two FBI agents visited the Airman Flight School in Oklahoma City where Moussaoui first learned to fly ... one of the agents had visited the school in 1999 to investigate the training there of UBL’s personal pilot!

• August 2001 – FAA issues a warning to airlines that terrorists have made breakthroughs in disguising weapons as cell phones, key chains, and pens.

• August 2001 – Spanish police record conversations from calls in Britain to Spain saying “in our classes, we have entered the field of aviation, and we are even going to cut the Eagle’s throat.”

• August - September 2001 – NORAD practices for hijackings of planes from the states of Utah and Washington.

• September 2001 – NSA intercepts phone calls from Abu Zubaida, UBL’s chief of operations, into US (which are still classified) ... British intelligence intercepts call from UBL to man in Pakistan with specific information as to attack including time frame (which are still classified).

• September 2001 – Author Salman Rushdie is banned by US from taking internal US flights due to “intelligence of something about to happen.”

• September 2001 – Sydney Olympics officials reveal that “A fully loaded, fueled airliner crashing into the opening ceremony before a worldwide television audience at the Sydney Olympics is one of the greatest security fears for the Games.” Australia puts 6 planes in the air at all times to intercept wayward aircraft (planning is also underway for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah to defend against plane attacks when 9/11 occurs).

• September 4, 2001 – FBI headquarters sends a message to US intelligence community about the Zacarias Moussaoui investigation. Warning is given to the FAA but the FAA does not issue a security alert to the nation’s airports.

• September 9-11, 2001 – NORAD runs Operation Northern Vigilance which deploys fighters to Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor Russian air force exercise in Russian arctic. US fighters are thus diverted from US. Exercise is cancelled at 9 am on 9/11.

• September 10, 2001 – Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives warning from his security people at the airport to be cautious when traveling ... he is headed for New York

• September 10, 2001 – President Bush is staying at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort on Longboat Key, FL. Surface to air missiles are placed on roof of the resort.

• September 2001 – Pentagon officials, including US generals, are warned not to fly and cancelled trips for the morning of September 11

So, there it is. Tell me again how we did not see this coming and how President Bush and members of his Administration can honestly say they had no idea using commercial planes as missiles was even a possibility?!?

Off Topic--I'm back!

2009-12-09T02:09:00.002-06:00

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.

To Die, or Not to Die...THAT is the Question

2009-11-21T08:37:00.003-06:00

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.

Off Topic--I am 42 Today--Happy Birthday to me.

2009-11-16T15:18:00.003-06:00

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.

The Soul of Your Freedom Flies Forever

2009-11-14T20:55:00.002-06:00

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.

Now here is a POTUS we can believe in.

2009-11-13T23:45:00.003-06:00

*********************************************************************************

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.

Plan B--A "Conservative revolution"-style 'Wheel of Fortune' Game

2009-11-11T12:41:00.002-06:00

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!!!

Hello Blogofriends--I'M BAAACCCKKKKKKK!!!!!

2009-11-09T16:19:00.002-06:00

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.

Blogging Will Be On Hold Until Monday Night

2009-11-05T18:27:00.003-06:00

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.

At least twelve killed in shooting at Fort Hood, Tex.

2009-11-05T16:22:00.005-06:00

"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?

On the Hill, Protesters Chant ‘Kill the Bill’

2009-11-05T13:04:00.007-06:00

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.

What will McChrystal do if he doesn't get more troops?

2009-11-03T17:42:00.005-06:00

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?

Karzai win complicates White House strategy for Afghanistan

2009-11-02T16:39:00.012-06:00

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?

CIT files for bankruptcy; taxpayers may lose $2.3B stake

2009-11-01T20:45:00.006-06:00

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?

Afghan challenger Abdullah drops out of election

2009-11-01T20:09:00.003-06:00

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.

A New Storm Is On The Horizon--This Will Be A New Conservative Crusade

2009-10-31T11:28:00.012-05:00

**(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!)

I Am One Who Stands Alone--For Freedom's Sake

2009-10-30T07:57:00.035-05:00

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

We Don't Want This Obamacare Nightmare!

2009-10-29T20:43:00.001-05:00

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.

Dear President Obama--HOW DARE YOU FORGET!!!

2009-10-28T11:01:00.008-05:00

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.

Afghanistan Could Turn into Vietnam: Let's Hope So.

2009-10-26T20:36:00.000-05:00

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.)**

In His Own Image: Obama and the DNC

2009-10-26T14:52:00.000-05:00

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.

"The Limbaugh Ballad"--This is kind of cute

2009-10-25T17:27:00.005-05:00

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).

Public Option Annie, the musical health-care protest--Part 2

2009-10-25T13:30:00.003-05:00

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'.

Public Option Annie: The Health Care Musical Protest

2009-10-25T13:25:00.003-05:00

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.

White House Attacks Worry Moderate Democrats

2009-10-24T21:13:00.003-05:00

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?

Just Another Way to Ensure that MORE Jobs Will Be Lost as Businesses SHUT DOWN

2009-10-24T11:06:00.007-05:00

Disapproving Michelle Obama To Be Printed On All Fast Food Containers

***************************************************************

Wow, way to go guys. This is just another GREAT and FANTASTIC way to make sure that MORE companies will go OUT OF BUSINESS, and that even MORE JOBS WILL BE LOST.

And, you know, I have often wondered (even when I was a child) why it was that the two political parties were represented by some kind of animal, such as an 'elephant' for the Republican Party, and a 'donkey' for the Democratic Party.

Well, after viewing this absolutely amazing and lovely picture of FLOTUS on a McDonald's container, I am now completely able to understand exactly WHY the Democratic Party is represented by a 'donkey'.

BECAUSE WASHINGTON IS FULL OF "JACK-ASSES" RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Battle Between the White House and Fox News

2009-10-24T10:36:00.003-05:00

By DAVID CARR
Published: October 17, 2009

The Obama Administration, which would seem to have its hands full with a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, opened up a third front last week, this time with Fox News.

Until this point, the conflict had been mostly a one-sided affair, with Fox News hosts promoting tax day “tea parties” that focused protest on the new president, and more recently bringing down the presidential adviser Van Jones through rugged coverage that caught the administration, and other news organizations, off guard. During the health care debate, Fox News has put a megaphone to opponents, some of whom have advanced far-fetched theories about the impact of reform. And even farther out on the edge, the network’s most visible star of the moment, Glenn Beck, has said the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Administration officials seemed to have decided that they had had enough.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Ah, but pretending has traditionally been a valuable part of the presidential playbook. Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence.

Not that they haven’t tried. In his second Inaugural Address, Ulysses S. Grant said he had “been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history.” President William McKinley labeled a gathering of the press a “congress of inventors,” and President Franklin D. Roosevelt assigned less favored press members to his “Dunce Club.” Sometimes the strategy worked — or caused no lasting damage. McKinley, like Grant, was elected to a second term. Roosevelt also won a third and fourth.

As Americans turned to TV for news, enmity from presidents soon followed. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said “self-appointed analysts” at the Big Three networks exhibited undisguised “hostility” toward President Richard M. Nixon, subjecting his speeches to “instant analysis and querulous criticism.” Later, in the dispute with The Times over the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, accused the newspaper of treason.

Neither of the Bush presidents had a particularly cozy relationship with the press. George H.W. Bush finished the campaign in 1992 with a bumper sticker that suggested, “Annoy the Media. Vote Bush.” And George W. Bush, in the words of ABC’s Mark Halperin, viewed “the media as a special interest rather than as guardians of the public interest.” Bill Clinton, too, distrusted the press, as did others in his administration. When Vincent Foster, Mr. Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, committed suicide in 1993, he left behind a note accusing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page of lying.

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Yeah, but you are not listening to anyone, because you are too busy TALKING. A person cannot 'listen' if all they are doing is 'talking', and I just want to know, Mr. Wussident, what will it take to get you to shut up and listen? Oh, I know! We could always put some 'duct tape' over your mouth, or just turn off your microphone).

Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party.”

The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. But Fox News, as many have pointed out, is not in the access business. They are in the agitation business. And the administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight.

Tactics aside, something more fundamental is at risk. Even the president’s most avid critics admit he exudes a certain cool confidence. The public impression of him is that if anyone were to, say, talk trash on the basketball court with Mr. Obama, he would not find much space for rent in Mr. Obama’s head.

Mr. Obama has also shown a consistent ability to disarm or at least engage his critics. When he eventually sat for an interview with the Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly two months before the election, it made for great television. But for the time being, détente seems very far away and the gap seems to be widening.

On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.

***********************************************************************

Meanwhile, our country is going bankrupt because of the frivolous and unneccessary spending of tax dollars for stimulus packages that go 'belly-up' like a dead guppy in a gold fish bowl, and our troops are getting hammered over in Iraq and Afghanistan and are in dire need of extra help, and unemployment is going through the roof as thousands upon thousands of more jobs are being lost, and more and more people are losing their homes, their families, their lives to rising crime rates, and losing their children to pedophiles who are killing them and throwing them in landfills, and what is the Wussident of the United States more worried about???

He's more worried that someone is SMART enough and INTELLIGENT enough and BRAVE enough to stand up and say NO WE WON'T instead of 'Yes We Can'. He is more worried that WE THE PEOPLE are OPPOSED to his crap and refuse to smoke the Obamacrack he tries to force on us, and we refuse to drink the Obamade that he tries to force us to drink.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!! WAKE THE H*** UP AND TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY!!!

I'll get your thoughts and be back.

Stanley McChrystal’s Long War

2009-10-24T10:29:00.004-05:00

By DEXTER FILKINS
Published: October 14, 2009

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal stepped off the whirring Black Hawk and headed straight into town. He had come to Garmsir, a dusty outpost along the Helmand River in southern Afghanistan, to size up the war that President Obama has asked him to save. McChrystal pulled off his flak jacket and helmet. His face, skeletal and austere, seemed a piece of the desert itself.

He was surrounded by a clutch of bodyguards, normal for a four-star general, and an array of the Marine officers charged with overseeing the town. Garmsir had been under Taliban control until May 2008, when a force of American Marines swept in and cleared it. Since then, the British, then the Americans, have been holding it and trying, ever so slowly, to build something in Garmsir — a government, an army, a police force — for the first time since the war began more than eight years ago.

The Marines around McChrystal, including the local battalion commander, Lt. Col. Christian Cabaniss, looked surprised, even alarmed, when McChrystal removed his protective gear. But as the group walked the rutted streets into Garmsir’s bazaar, they began taking off their helmets, too.

“Who owns the land here?” McChrystal asked, peering up the street and into the shops. “Is it owned by the farmers or by landlords?”

It was the sort of question a sociologist, or an economist, would ask. No one offered an answer.

“If you owned 200 acres here, would you live on it, or would you live somewhere else?” McChrystal asked.

The entourage entered the bazaar. The Afghans sensed that an important American had arrived, and they began to gather in groups inside the stalls. Then the general stopped and turned.

“What do you need here?” McChrystal asked.

A translator turned the general’s words into Pashto.

“We need schools!” one Afghan called back. “Schools!”

“We’re working on that,” McChrystal said. “Those things take time.”

McChrystal walked some more, engaging another group of Afghans. He posed the same question.

“Security,” a man said. “We need security. Security first, then the other things will be possible.”

“That is what we are trying to do,” McChrystal said. “But it’s going to take time. Success takes time.”

The questions kept coming, and the answer was the same. After a couple of hours, McChrystal put on his helmet and flak jacket, boarded the Black Hawk and flew to another town.

Success takes time, but how much time does Stanley McChrystal have? The war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth year. The Taliban, measured by the number of their attacks, are stronger than at any time since the Americans toppled their government at the end of 2001. American soldiers and Marines are dying at a faster rate than ever before. Polls in the United States show that opposition to the war is growing steadily.

Worse yet, for all of America’s time in Afghanistan — for all the money and all the blood — the lack of accomplishment is manifest wherever you go. In Garmsir, there is nothing remotely resembling a modern state that could take over if America and its NATO allies left. Tour the country with a general, and you will see very quickly how vast and forbidding this country is and how paltry the effort has been.

And finally, there is the government in Kabul. President Hamid Karzai, once the darling of the West, rose to the top of nationwide elections in August on what appears to be a tide of fraud. The Americans and their NATO allies are confronting the possibility that the government they are supporting, building and defending is a rotten shell.

In his initial assessment of the country, sent to President Obama early last month, McChrystal described an Afghanistan on the brink of collapse and an America at the edge of defeat. To reverse the course of the war, McChrystal presented President Obama with what could be the most momentous foreign-policy decision of his presidency: escalate or fail. McChrystal has reportedly asked for 40,000 additional American troops — there are 65,000 already here — and an accelerated effort to train Afghan troops and police and build an Afghan state. If President Obama can’t bring himself to step up the fight, McChrystal suggested, then he might as well give up.

“Inadequate resources,” McChrystal wrote, “will likely result in failure.”

The magnitude of the choice presented by McChrystal, and now facing President Obama, is difficult to overstate. For what McChrystal is proposing is not a temporary, Iraq-style surge — a rapid influx of American troops followed by a withdrawal. McChrystal’s plan is a blueprint for an extensive American commitment to build a modern state in Afghanistan, where one has never existed, and to bring order to a place famous for the empires it has exhausted. Even under the best of circumstances, this effort would most likely last many more years, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and entail the deaths of many more American women and men.

And that’s if it succeeds.

**************************************************************

Ok, here we are, trying to dismantle the Taliban and help build a better state in Afghanistan, and General McChrystal is begging (in a way) for more troops because he is getting his rear-end handed to him on a stick and what is our 'communist-in-chief' doing?

He is too busy over here stomping his feet, and whining and crying like a little 2-year old boy because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are 'holding him accountable' for his actions and his in-actions.

Our Wussident of the United States is MORE worried about winning a popularity contest, than he is about winning this war and making America safe and protecting our citizens.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if the Wussident is indeed making an 'Enemies List', shouldn't he be adding the names of the many 'terror organizations' that would attack us for no other good reason other than the fact that we even exist???

What is it going to take to get him out of office? Because, quite frankly, and to be perfectly blunt, I want his resignation, like YESTERDAY, and to get someone in there [White House] who is going to go over there [Iraq and Afghanistan] and kick some SERIOUS ass and win this f***ing war.

Pelosi Intensifies Pressure for Public Health Plan

2009-10-24T10:20:00.002-05:00

By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: October 23, 2009

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped up the pressure on House Democrats on Friday to support her preferred version of legislation that would require the federal government to sell health insurance in competition with private insurers.

Her action came amid indications that Ms. Pelosi had not locked down the votes for the proposal, the most contentious element in a bill that would provide health insurance to more than 35 million people, at cost of nearly $900 billion over 10 years.

Other provisions of the bill, including enhanced Medicare benefits, could take the total cost over $1 trillion, Democrats said. But they promised to offset the cost and avoid any increase in federal budget deficits.

At a meeting Friday, the chairman of the House Democratic caucus, Representative John B. Larson of Connecticut, called the roll and asked lawmakers to say whether they would vote for a bill including the most liberal, “robust” version of a government insurance plan, similar to Medicare. The results were not definitive because many members were missing and some supported the bill but called for changes. Ms. Pelosi finds herself once again caught between two wings of her caucus: the progressives, who demand a Medicare-like public option, and moderate-to-conservative Democrats, including many from rural areas, where hospitals say they could not survive on Medicare payment rates.

At a meeting with Ms. Pelosi on Thursday, liberal Democrats like Representatives Yvette D. Clarke of New York and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois spoke forcefully for a robust public option.

Ms. Pelosi told them that she had well over 200 votes, but that it was proving difficult to reach the goal of 218.

The House Democratic whip, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, said Friday that party leaders were considering four variations of the public insurance plan.

“We are trying to find out which one of these approaches will best suit the most people in our caucus,” Mr. Clyburn said.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, is going through a similar exercise, polling his caucus.

In a shift, Mr. Reid told colleagues on Thursday that he was inclined to include a government-run insurance program in the bill that he would take soon to the Senate floor. States would be allowed to opt out if they wanted.

Asked about Mr. Reid’s idea, Ms. Pelosi said, “I don’t think there’s much problem with that.”

Ms. Pelosi said that in shaping the House bill, she was already thinking about “the endgame.” If the two chambers pass disparate bills, as Democrats expect, negotiators from the House and the Senate would try to reconcile the differences.

When it appeared that the Senate bill might not have any government insurance plan, Ms. Pelosi said, it was essential for the House to pass a strong public option, as a counterweight to the Senate. Now, she said, she will consider an alternative favored by some centrist Democrats, who contend that the government plan should not set prices but negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals, as private insurers do.

Ms. Pelosi set the health care legislation in its historical context, saying it “sits very comfortably in the path of Social Security and Medicare,” created in 1935 and 1965, respectively.

Mr. Clyburn said the squabbles among Democrats on health care were like the disagreements in the 1960s among civil rights leaders, who had the same goals but sometimes differed on legislative strategy.

The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said Friday that the House could take up the health care legislation as soon as Nov. 6 and might meet on Saturday, Nov. 7, to continue work on it.

But Democrats in both chambers have missed many self-imposed deadlines. And many hurdles remain.

House Democratic leaders are still trying to figure out exactly how to limit the use of federal money for abortions. In addition, before taking their bill to the House floor, Democrats need to get a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

Ms. Pelosi said she had not decided whether lawmakers would be allowed to offer amendments on the House floor.

In the Senate, Mr. Reid is considering several alternatives to his proposal for a national public insurance plan. Under one alternative, the public plan would be established, or triggered, only in states that failed to meet certain goals for insurance coverage.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said this approach would allow health insurance companies to continue price-gouging for several years.

“A trigger simply delays price competition,” Mr. Rockefeller said. “It is not a substitute for a strong public health insurance option.”

Mr. Reid talked Friday with several moderate Democrats, including Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana. Ms. Landrieu has said she strenuously opposes “a government-run, taxpayer-supported public option,” but Mr. Reid hopes to change her mind.

*************************************************************************

*(sighs)*

I'll get your thoughts on this before I say anything, because as of right now, I no clear idea on what to say, or how to say it, and I don't want to sound like a complete idiot (which in truth, I kind of am when it comes to issues like this) but I will say this much...I still believe that all of this is a really bad idea, and mainly because the 'House' refuses to allow the American people to actually read what is in the 'bill'.

So, I will get your thoughts and be back.

Government Bailouts...Good for America?--Here are the results!

2009-10-23T22:36:00.002-05:00

Well, looks like Obama is not as popular as everyone thinks he is.

********************************************************************

The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 622,308

1) Who is most to blame for America’s current economic crisis?
65% voted: Clinton Administration and the Democrats in Congress
12% voted: The Bush Administration
3% voted: Wall Street
15% voted: Banks and sub-prime lenders
2% voted: Real estate and mortgage professionals
0% voted: Investors
1% voted: Home buyers
2) Do you agree government bailouts are the answer to America’s financial crisis?
7% voted: Yes
88% voted: No
5% voted: Undecided
3) Do you believe the American taxpayers should have to foot the bill for our financial systems mistakes?
7% voted: Yes, we have to or we’ll end up in a prolonged recession or worse a depression.
22% voted: No, America is too far in debt already.
69% voted: Absolutely not, the American people should never be responsible for bailing out the private sector.
2% voted: Undecided
4) Do you believe the government bailouts will ultimately rescue our country's financial system?
8% voted: Yes
86% voted: No
6% voted: Undecided
5) Do you believe Barack Obama was the best choice to handle the country's future economic policy?
13% voted: Yes
85% voted: No
3% voted: Undecided

Thank you for your participation.

"Twelve Months of Obama" (Twelve Days of Christmas) Contest

2009-10-23T21:49:00.002-05:00

Ha ha ha! Oh yes oh yes oh yes, I am running my first contest!

I would like for all my readers to come up with the BEST 'Twelve Days of Christmas' parody relating to Barak Obama and his...uhhh...accomplishments (or lack thereof).

I know it may be a little unethical to distort the sanctity of such a lovely song, but then, the Lie House and the Obamabot Administration are unethical, so I guess it will be ok.

Make your parody as funny and as silly as you possibly can, and submit them to me through my e-mail listed in my profile--with the word 'parody' in the subject line.

The winning parody will be displayed on my blog (and I may even submit it to a conservative talk show host, in the hopes that it will be read on the air).

Thank you and have a great weekend.

The Lie House

2009-10-23T15:10:00.014-05:00

Ok, it is absolutely amazing what kind of videos you can find when you search for one specific thing, and all of a sudden, you just keep finding more.

Well, I have no idea (right now) what to say myself, so I will just let the videos ddo the talking for me, while I work on my next blog topic.

And now, without further ado, I present you with the following videos for your viewing pleasure.
*********************************************************************

Obama on Healthcare

Obama on Iran 'Not Interested in Victory'

Obama Apology Tour

Obama quote...'We are out of money now'

Top Obama Contradictions

Obama Speaks about the U.S. Constitution

Obama About 'ACORN'

Obama and Marxism

OMG!--You Have to See and Read to Believe--Here's Some 'Hope & Change' For Ya!!!!

2009-10-22T20:10:00.005-05:00

"Obama Administration Believes Blacks Too Stupid To Know For Whom To Vote Without A Big D"

(MY THOUGHT ON THIS: Oh man, ya just gotta love a title like this one, huh? Wow, I bet Obama's voter's didn't see THIS ONE coming. How do ya like yo 'homeie' now, mane?)

Just when you think the most corrupt administration in history can sink no lower, here they go. This is an incredible over-reach by Barack Obama’s “Department of Justice”. Rush Limbaugh touched on this briefly on his show Tuesday.

From the Washington Times:

“KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.”

You read that right. Without the all loving, all caring, all benevolent plantation owners of the democrat party, blacks cannot have equal rights. Blacks obviously, according to Barack Obama, are simply not capable of making these tough decisions.

More from the Times:

“The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.”

“The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.”

“Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters’ election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

“Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision ‘racial as well as partisan.’”

“’On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,’ he said. ‘That is un-American.’”

“The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

“In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston – a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches – residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.”

Let me get this straight, you have a typical small town, where just about everybody either knows everybody else, or at least knows of them, a town that is most made up of black residents, and yet, Barack Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are telling them they are too stupid to know who to vote for without a big (D) beside the candidate’s name?

What next from our Dear Leader and his “Ministry of Justice,” will it simply be illegal to BE anything but a democrat?

The Times goes on to say:

“Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

“Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.”

“’The determination of who is a “candidate of choice” for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,’ he said.

“Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. ‘The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,’ said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. ‘There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.’”

“Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.

“In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department’s answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change’s ‘effect will be strictly racial.’”

“’Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,” Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

This is more than a simple insult to blacks every where, this is a usurpation of our Constitution and a very dangerous development. This sets up a precedent that allows serious manipulation and intimidation by the federal government. And as we are witnessing on a daily basis, Barack Obama and his people only know how to function through threats and intimidation.

I know most of you have heard about the case against the New Black Panthers In Philadelphia, but just in case, let me refresh your memory:

******************************************************************

Hey, I just don't know what to say. For once, I think I am actually speechless. I can't even think of any 'one-liners' for this. It is really sad that the President would treat his own voters like this.

But hey, YOU VOTED FOR HIM! How's that 'hope & change' working out for you, now, since your own Prez thinks you are just too 'dumb' to vote for him (or any other libturd demoncrap for that matter) all on your own?

I'll have to get my readers thoughts on this one for sure, because I honestly do not know how to approach this without their help.

Conservatives ROAR; Republicans Tremble

2009-10-22T08:22:00.004-05:00

***SORRY THIS IS SO LONG BUT I HAD TO ADD SOME 'COMMENTARY' AT THE END OF CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS***

Ha ha ha...Oh, you just got to love the headline in this article. It almost reminds me of that old saying--'I am woman, hear me roar'. But, I have to point out that in the second paragraph, they mentioned Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck--but they forgot about Sean Hannity, Ben Ferguson, Andrew Clark senior, Micheal Savage, and Bill Cunningham.

*****************************************************************

Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen Jim Vandehei, Mike Allen – Thu Oct 22, 5:51 am ET

Many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities, according to interviews with GOP officials and operatives.

(MY THOUGHT ON THIS: Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the fact that the President is trying to re-shape and re-make America? Could it be the fact that he [President] is trying to 'force' us [Americans] to just 'lie down like whipped dogs'? How about this Mr. President--we [conservatives] ARE angry because you DO NOT LISTEN TO REASON!)

Congressional leaders talk in private of being boxed in by commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — figures who are wildly popular with the conservative base but wildly controversial among other parts of the electorate, and who have proven records of making life miserable for senators and House members critical of their views or influence.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Uhhh, hey libterds, you forgot about Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, Ben Ferguson, Bill Cunningham, and Andrew Clark Sr. They are all opposed to your 'agendas' as well).

Some of the leading 2012 candidates are described by operatives as grappling with the same tension. The challenge is to tap into the richest source of energy in the party — the disgust of grass-roots conservative activists with President Barack Obama and their hunger for a full-throated attack on his agenda — without coming off to the broader public as cranky and extreme.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Oh, well, maybe that is because we [conservatives] care MORE about America and the people than we do about 'LINING OUR POCKETS WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S HARD EARNED MONEY'! Face it you libturd demoncraps, we "don't work hard so YOU don't have to"!)

Mitt Romney has purposely kept a lower profile and stuck to speeches on specific policy issues, in part to avoid the early trade-off between placating party activists and appearing presidential. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, one of the most active potential opponents for Obama in 2012, said that media portrayals of a narrow-minded party could make it harder to attract the middle-of-the-road voters needed to make the GOP a majority party again.

“The commentators are part of the coalition, not the whole coalition,” Pawlenty said in a phone interview. “The party needs to be about addition, not subtraction — but not at the expense of watering down its principles.”

“We need more voices,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of the party’s up-and-coming leaders. “Our party’s challenge has been that we need to be more inclusive — we need to attract the middle again. ... When one party controls all the levers of power in Washington, they’re going to try and villainize whoever they can on our side. It gives us an opportunity now to try and harness the energy and point it in a positive direction, so that we can attract the middle of the country to the common-sense conservative views that we have been about as a party.”

Political operatives of all stripes like to fancy themselves as coolly controlling practitioners — who can shape public images and direct the activities of party regulars from their perches in Washington.

But the reality of the GOP during the Obama presidency is that the party’s image and priorities are in many ways being imposed on Washington — driven by grass-roots energies that lawmakers and strategists can scarcely control.

At the same time, there are powerful incentives for Washington politicians to play to the crowd and bow to the influence of commentators like Beck, who at the moment is far more famous than any of the GOP’s congressional leaders.

When Republicans such as Rep. Phil Gingrey have complained about these figures in public, most have quickly apologized in the face of outraged phone calls and e-mails from conservative activists.

House and Senate Republicans both seized on the issue of federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now after Obama critic Andrew Breitbart launched the controversy on his site BigGovernment.com with video of two people posing as a pimp and a prostitute in the group’s offices.

As vividly illustrated by Rep. Joe Wilson, elected Republicans are seeing the benefits — national media attention and fundraising — from embracing the trash-talking style of talk show hosts. Wilson went from being a little-known member of the House minority who had repeatedly failed to get on the A-list committees to a cause célèbre for the right wing because he shouted “You lie” at Obama during a joint session of Congress.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, and why not mention the 'trash-talk' coming out of the libturd Wimp House from Obama, et al who have been using 'profanity' and vulgar language? Oh, but I guess THAT is 'OK' , right? Guess what? IF IT IS WRONG FOR ONE IT IS WRONG FOR ALL!)

Though he apologized to the president through chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Wilson moved quickly to exploit his brush with fame, posting Web videos to raise money, appearing on Sean Hannity’s show, getting a coveted invite on “Fox News Sunday” — and even being asked to raise money for some of his conservative colleagues. Most rank-and-file Republicans have to spend hours on the phone pleading for money and relish the chance to be taken seriously by a major Sunday show.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ha! If I had been in Rep. Joe Wilson's shoes, I would NOT have apologized. Apologize for WHAT??? Telling the TRUTH? Give me a FREAKING break! I am sick and tired of the libcraps always whining and crying because we [conservatives] have 'hurt their feelings'. Oh 'boo hoo'--dry it up and GROW UP!)

But some Republicans worry the party could squander an opportunity to capitalize on voters’ concerns about Obama and the Democratic Congress because they come off looking shallow, sharply partisan or just plain odd to persuadable voters.

Warning of the influence of the Fox host, who recently accused Obama of racism against whites, George W. Bush White House veteran Peter Wehner wrote last month: “Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment and anger — the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.”

Still, these concerns apparently are not powerful enough to prompt most elected Republicans to take public stands against the rhetoric coming from the web of conservative talk show hosts, websites and public activists.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Maybe that is because OUR numbers are growing, and in the end, you libturds may 'win the battle, but we [conservatives] will win the WAR'.

Ed Gillespie, who was counselor to Bush and has started a conservative group called Resurgent Republicans, said his polling shows rising numbers of persuadable voters who are growing disenchanted with the Obama administration’s policies but nevertheless remain invested in the president.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Gee, imagine that. Now, I wonder WHY that could be?)

“Our party has to bring those voters along with a critique of policies, not the kind of harsh rhetoric the left used against former President Bush,” Gillespie said.

“Without a good slice of the independents, we are doomed,” said former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).

The only Republicans standing up to Beck and other conservative activists right now are familiar iconoclasts like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and New York Times columnist David Brooks — both of whom are distrusted by many Republicans for their frequent departures from conservative orthodoxy.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Maybe that is because they are actually 'CLOSET LIBTURD DEMONCRAPS in 'conservative clothing'. I usually have a pretty jazzy way of putting things-lol)

Graham, earlier this month, mocked Beck’s famous on-air cry and warned that the Fox News talk show host is “not aligned with any party as far as I can tell. He’s aligned with cynicism.” Not long afterward, he was heckled by conservatives at a political event back home.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Hahahahahahahahaha!!!)

Brooks, a Republican who has written both favorably and critically about Obama, amplified Graham’s concern with the party’s obsequious relationship with Beck and Limbaugh. “It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness,” he wrote. “It is a story as old as ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.”

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I always think of an episode of 'Charmed' when I read an article that proclaims that the Democrats are running scared. I always imagine the 'liberal democrats' as the "nasty demons and warlocks" that the Charmed Ones are after with their trusty old 'vanquishing potions', and it just makes me laugh, because NOW, when I watch 'Charmed' on dvd, that is EXACTLY how I envision it--the 'Charmed Ones' are the "conservatives" and the 'vanquishing potions' are the 'Constitution-Bill of Rights', and the Liberals are the demons and warlocks who are about to be 'banished or vanquished' by REAL DEMOCRACY).

Allies of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have detailed for POLITICO how the former GOP presidential nominee is dismayed with the direction of the party and put an unusual amount of time and effort into trying to push the party in a more centrist direction.

All three figures are often irritants to establishment Republicans — but in this case, many Republicans said privately they were in agreement that they need to move beyond the hard-core right to succeed.

But this critique goes to a major fault line within the party. Many activists believe the party lost because McCain failed to present a clear and genuine ideological contrast — and that the party abandoned principles through excessive spending during the Bush years.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: No, the REAL REASON that McCain/Palin lost the election is because "THEY ACTUALLY TOLD THE TRUTH"--in my opinion).

The debate means the argument over whether outspoken talk show hosts are reviving a beaten party or trashing its brand is likely to persist through the 2010 midterms and into the 2012 presidential primary.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Uhhh, excuse me, libturds,but could you please refrain from 'counting-your-chickens-before-they-hatch', because we [conservatives] are not a 'beaten, trashed, or dead' party just yet. We have only just begun to fight, and guess what? We are not wearing boxing gloves--we are wearing "BRASS KNUCKLES").

On the one hand, the GOP seems to be surging a bit as it sharpens its attacks. The party is doing better than it has in recent history when it comes to generic matchups for the 2010 midterms. Beck, other Fox News commentators and Breitbart are clearly landing some punches on Obama.

Their efforts helped stoke turnout at the August town halls, forced the mainstream media and Obama himself to reckon with a scandal at ACORN and incendiary comments and led to the resignation of green jobs czar Van Jones.

On the other hand, the party’s image more broadly remains in the dumps. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this week found that only 20 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republicans. A larger study by the Pew Research Center this spring captured a similar trend: The share of independents in the electorate is the highest in 70 years (36 percent), while the share of voters who call themselves Republicans is the lowest in 30 years (23 percent, compared with 35 percent for Democrats).

Republicans in Congress are even more unpopular than the very unpopular Democrats who are running the House and the Senate. This suggests something has to change for a true GOP resurgence to take place.

Karl Rove, the chief political strategist for Bush, said impressions of the Republican Party as a captive of a fringe reflect “a cynical and dismissive and small-minded view of who the American voter is.

“The question will be whether the Republican candidates next year can talk about a lot of kitchen-table issues and the deficit and spending,” Rove said. “Rush Limbaugh won’t be on the ballot.”

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Which is UNFORTUNATE for America, because he [Rush Limbaugh] is just too damned honest to be a politician. Although he would make a DAMNED FINE President).

This big tension is playing out in a smaller way in the special election in upstate New York. Congressional leaders are backing moderate Dede Scozzafava, despite her liberal views on abortion and other issues, because they think she has the best chance of winning this swing district. Conservatives, including many who participated in the much-publicized “tea party” protests, are convinced she is insufficiently Republican, so they are throwing their support and money to third-party candidate Doug Hoffman.

The result: Polls show the Republican vote could be so split that a lackluster Democratic candidate could pull off a win. If Republicans blow this race, it will leave the GOP holding only two of New York’s 29 House seats. A decade ago, it had 14, most of which were occupied by Northeast moderates who no longer feel welcome in the party and were voted in by independents who remain very skeptical of the party’s policy solutions.

Jonathan Martin contributed to this story.

This is the second of a two-part look at the marginalization of the GOP. Part I: Obama strategy: Marginalize critics.

*************************************************************************

Well, well, well. Is it truly possible that we have the republicans trembling at the mere sound of our outraged voices? All of this also kind of reminds me of a song that I would now like to dedicate to the lunatic leftist libturd demoncraps--

"All Hell's Breaking Loose" by KISS.

Key Senators May Rebuff Obama on Health Care

2009-10-22T08:18:00.002-05:00

Hey, is it just me, or does it look and sound like Obama is losing his control over the House? It seems to me that the more he tries to 'push' or 'force' this issue, the more his OWN PEOPLE are pushing back and saying 'no' to him.

I may be wrong (and God I "hope" I'm not) but I think I smell a victory on the horizon for America if these Obama opposers vote against this Obamacare plan.

*********************************************************

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Democrats' control of a hefty majority in the Senate — plus the House — would suggest that President Barack Obama is within reach of overhauling the nation's health care system this fall.

But the numbers mask a more complicated reality: Obama and Democratic leaders have modest leverage over several pivotal Senate Democrats who are more concerned about their next election or feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.

One is still smarting from being forced to abandon next year's election. Another had to leave the Democratic Party to stay in office. And some are from states that Obama lost badly last year.

These factors will limit the President's ability to play his strongest card — an appeal for party loyalty and Democratic achievement — in trying to muster the 60 votes his allies will need this fall to overcome a Republican filibuster in the 100-member Senate.

'When lawmakers face a tough vote, their uppermost thought is "survival,"' said Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican who spent three terms in the Senate.

On very few occasions, Simpson said, then-President George H.W. Bush asked him to cast a vote likely to cause him political problems back home. That was perhaps three times in 18 years, said Simpson, who held a GOP leadership post. "I swallowed hard and went over the cliff," he said.

But it's a sacrifice that presidents and party leaders should not count on, he said.

The Democratic leaders' limited leverage will complicate the push for allowing the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies. Some Senate Democrats who oppose the idea are from states that voted heavily against Obama last fall.

Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a potentially tough re-election race next year in Arkansas, where Obama lost to Republican John McCain by 20 percentage points. She says she will base her health care votes on what is best for Arkansans.

Choice and competition among insurers are good, Lincoln said, but "I've ruled out a government-funded and a government-operated plan."

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Obama lost by a similar margin, said she might be willing to let some states try "fallback or trigger" mechanisms that would create a public option if residents don't have enough insurance choices.

But she told reporters, "I'm not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be."

Another Democratic senator, who also may prove wary of Obama's overtures, takes the opposite stand.

"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," said Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill. "That position will not change."

Burris' willingness to bend could prove crucial this fall if Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., need every possible vote in crafting a compromise, such as a national public option that is triggered if certain insurance availability targets aren't met.

But Burris may be in no mood to play ball. Obama and other top Democrats sharply criticized his appointment to the Senate in December by an ethically tainted governor, Illinois' Rod Blagojevich, and they forced Burris to abandon hopes of winning election in 2010 by making it clear they would not back him.

In short, Burris, 72, has virtually nothing to lose by defying his party's leaders and voting as he pleases.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is another potentially crucial senator with tenuous ties to the Democratic Party's hierarchy. Rejected by Connecticut's Democratic voters in the 2006 primary, he kept his Senate seat by running as an independent. He now calls himself an Independent Democrat.

Lieberman has criticized the health care bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee, but it and other health bills are undergoing changes.

Another centrist Democrat whose vote is uncertain is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a political battleground state.

"I want to know what works for families and small businesses," said Bayh, adding that he might back public insurance options run by states, not the federal government.

It's possible that Obama and party leaders eventually will ask Democrats such as Bayh, in the name of party loyalty, to vote to block a GOP filibuster of a health bill even if they plan to vote against the bill on final passage. The strategy might enable Democrats to muster the 60 votes needed on a crucial procedural question and then pass the bill with a simple majority.

Bayh said that if a party leader "is asking some of us to enable the passage of legislation that we think would be harmful to the people of our state, I don't think that's a fair thing to ask."

It's possible that centrist Democrats are holding out for favors from Obama and party leaders, such as pet projects for their states or help in their next campaign. Obama already has lavished special attention on some of them.

He invited Bayh to the White House last week for a chat about health care and the deficit. In an interview that led to good publicity back home, Bayh told Indiana reporters that the president "was asking for my leadership on both of those issues."

*********************************************************************

Ok, after reading (and re-reading) this article, I just want to say that right now, my only 'hope & change' is the "hope" that these Dems who are in opposition of Obamacare will "change" IN FAVOR of the rest of America who opposes this healthcare plan/bill.

What do you all think of this? Is it possible that Obama is losing control over his 'Obamabots' in the Senate? Is there even a small chance that we [conservative America] will be able to declare a victory over this Obamanation that has befallen our beloved country?

PURE EVILNESS (Story Out of South Memphis TN)--UPDATE

2009-10-21T22:25:00.003-05:00

***UPDATE***

Ok, here is an update on the story I posted the other day about the house fire that left a three-year old boy dead.

This story is from the WREG News Channel 3 Memphis website.

*******************************************************************

Danya.bacchus@wreg.com
(Memphis 10/21/2009) Monday, two toddlers who are left home alone are trapped in a duplex as flames shot through the roof.

Three-year-old LaDareon Dunn died. His two year old brother is left clinging to life in intensive care.

The story is already emotional but for many it turns to outrage after hearing Marilyn Wilson, the woman who was with the children's mother as she ran errands, say this. "I really need to get in there to see did my purse burn up because I had my food stamp card and everything in there."

50-year-old Marilyn Wilson's words sent chills down the spines of those who watched the news in horror Monday but Wilson's family says it's not what it seems. Linda Hays, a family friend, says Marilyn Wilson has a long history of mental illness.

"I think she's been crucified and the people don't really understand that she doesn't even understand what's happening yet. Her mind is gone and she needs help," says Hays.

"It's not fair because you're listening to what she said and me knowing that she doesn't even have a food stamp card. She doesn't realize that these are her nieces and nephews at this point. She doesn't even know what's going on," Hays continued.

That could explain the confused look Wilson had as she faced a judge Wednesday morning. While questioning her about the fire, police realized she had a three-year-old warrant for theft of property, driving on a suspended license and violation of vehicle registration. The family hopes she gets the help she needs.

"She has real issues that need to be dealt with. She needs help," said hays.

The outrage also continues over Shelby County District Attorney Bill Gibbons not charging the mother in the case. Gibbons issued a statement Wednesday morning.

In it he says that it would not be appropriate to make a decision to charge the mother or anyone else in this case without having all the facts.

Harold Collins, a spokesperson for the DA's office, says they understand how emotional this case is but they cannot let their emotions determine the kind of action they make. Right now, they are waiting on reports from other agencies before they make a decision.

"Before we make a decision we have to have those reports. The Memphis Police Department we're still waiting on the Memphis Fire Department report. We're also waiting on the Shelby County Medical Examiners report," said Collins.

GOP Senator Says Obama Showing Nixonian Tendencies

2009-10-21T17:37:00.003-05:00

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – 3 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The third-ranking Senate Republican said Wednesday the Obama administration appears to be launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an "enemies list" of people who disagree with the president.

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who once worked in President Nixon's administration, warned the White House that such a "street brawl" approach of attacking political opponents "can get you in a lot of trouble."

Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, "I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing."

"It's a mistake for the president of the United States," he said. "Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list."

White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai responded that it's Republicans who "seem to be formulating lists of people and policies to oppose" while the president "is focused on tackling the list of critical priorities that Washington has ignored for too long."

The president "remains committed to working with Republicans to include their best ideas, even if he doesn't get their support," Tseggai said.

Alexander's criticism, which echoed weekend remarks from Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor, comes amid an unusual public feud between Fox News and the White House. Alexander also cited widening disputes between the administration and business groups such as the insurance industry, Wall Street banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Several top administration officials have sharply criticized Fox News in recent days, saying the cable television channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party and shouldn't be viewed as a legitimate news organization.

The president bypassed "Fox News Sunday" during a string of appearances on news shows recently, and Fox News officials have said the White House threatened a boycott. The White House has denied that and says it will book administration officials on Fox News shows.

The administration also has taken on the Chamber of Commerce, for example, suggesting the group is out of touch with the business community on health care, climate change and other issues.

*********************************************************************

Ok, if anyone remembers the 'Nixon Years'--and "Watergate"--I just have one (maybe two) questions:

If this is in fact true, and Obama is sporting a 'Nixonian' Tendency here, could it be that we MAY just have another "Watergate" on our hands??? If so, does anyone else besides me smell another "RESIGNATION" brewing on the horizon--IF THIS IS INDEED TRUE???

Ok, ok, ok---I admit it---I am in love with 'conspiracy theories'. So sue me (since I work for Pizza Hut, you won't get much! LOL!).

Big Government May Set Your Salary

2009-10-21T17:02:00.004-05:00

From the "Washington Examiner"-----

Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
March 31, 2009
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., left, talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, right, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 24,2009. Frank's committee has passed a bill giving Geithner extensive control over salaries of employees working at companies receiving government bailout funds. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.

Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.

"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."

After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at ExaminerPolitics.com.

**********************************************************************

Ok, Ben Ferguson is discussing this on his show right now here in Memphis, and I have been trying to listen to it (between going back and forth cleaning my house and cooking dinner and trying to post on the blog--I am such a multi-tasker) that if I am reading and understanding this all correctly (and to hear Ben tell it on his show) this is absolutely crazy.

Now, the question that Ben asked is 'If the government came into your company and started telling you how you are going to run your company and said to "cut" peoples' salaries by 90%--would you continue to stay and work there'?

My guess is not 'no', but "HELL NO"!!! Now, I am absolutely terrible at mathematics (even in school it was my WORST subject as I was very lucky to make as high a grade as a 'D') but someone who makes $100,000 a year or more--to take a 90% pay cut is a hell of a lot of money. I mean I work at Pizza Hut for peanuts and a 90% pay cut for me, I would be litterally working FOR FREE. I may as well not even clock in (or show up for that matter).

But this has nothing to do with Pizza Hut, but with these other major, major businesses and companies that got bailouts and I really think this is just wrong. It is not the governments' business--they [government] they just have no place in our private owned businesses.

I mean, correct me if I am wrong, PLEASE, but since when is it the government's business how we own, operate, and run our companies or how much we pay our employees?????? Our country is turning more and more into a 'communist state' by the day when the President of the United States thinks that it is HIS J-O-B to own the automotive industry, the banks, the insurance companies, etc etc etc.

Did I suddenly wake up on a "life sized Monopoly board" where Obama owns everything except 'Boardwalk' and 'Park Place' and THOSE are NEXT?!?

Is the White House Building an "Enemies List"?

2009-10-21T15:40:00.007-05:00

Ok, very long post, I know. But, listening to the Sean Hannity Show prompted me to do a little research on this so-called 'White House Enemies List', and the White House's repeated attempts to deny such a list even exsists.

During the course of my research, I found the following articles from various web sites. I should have saved that particular information, but I didn't--however--I will re-search those sites and post them to this later. So, please forgive me on that error.

Here are the articles:

*****************************************************************

ARTICLE # 1---

Is the White House Building an "Enemies List"?

August 18, 2009 - 5:47am.

(AFP Photo)The top Republican on the House's oversight committee asked the White House on Monday about an e-mail from a top political adviser urging support for a health care overhaul and whether officials are collecting names of President Barack Obama's critics.

In a letter to White House counsel Greg Craig, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked for details about who received a health care e-mail signed by Obama adviser David Axelrod. Issa also wanted to know how, exactly, the White House was using a separate e-mail account designed to track what it called "fishy" claims about its proposed overhaul — an account that was disabled Monday afternoon.

"I am concerned about the possibility that political e-mail address lists are being used for official purposes," Issa wrote. "This, again, raises questions about this administration blurring the lines between political and official business."

A White House spokesman traveling with Obama on a trip to Arizona did not have immediate comment. But administration officials have been dismissive of complaints that people had received unsolicited e-mail messages or that the administration was compiling an enemies list as conservative Web sites and talk radio programs have alleged.

"The fear has been expressed that the White House was asking neighbors to inform on neighbors in a government-led data collection effort," said Issa, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Weeks ago, White House officials asked the public to share critics' e-mails so they could fight back and correct the misconceptions. Because those e-mails are official correspondence with the White House, they must be preserved — unaltered — for decades and eventually released to the public through the National Archives.

Issa said he wants an answer on how the administration is archiving those e-mails and what protections would be put in place to prevent it from become an enemies list.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has faced questions about the practice during recent briefings with reporters and had treated them with a dismissive tone.

"All we're asking people to do is, if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for you. Nobody is keeping anybody's names," he said on Aug. 6.

Issa on Monday also cited reports that some people received the e-mail even though they never signed up. Critics say that suggests the White House combined its taxpayer-funded list with member rolls from other political groups.

The White House has adamantly denied that claim. Administration officials have said the e-mail from Axelrod went only to people who signed up for a White House e-mail list typically used to provide updates on the president's speeches.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press

******************************************************************

ARTICLE #2---

Obama's plan: Undermine, discredit all critics
October 21, 2009 - 6:56am.
President Barack Obama: This is war (Reuters)

By DOUG THOMPSON

President Barack Obama and the White House propaganda machine are working overtime to undermine critics, particularly those on the right or affiliated with the Republican Party.

The systematic attacks against right-wing Fox News is part of a what Politico.Com calls a coordinated campaign to "marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds."

The campaign invokes memory on former President Richard M. Nixon, who compiled an "enemies list" of media organizations and political foes and then set loose the vast resources of the White House to destroy those enemies.

Comparisons with Nixon, who resigned in disgrace during the Watergate scandal, is the last thing the Obama White House wants or needs but such comparisons are inevitable when the administration cranks up a war of words with critics.

Writes Ruth Marcus in The Washington Post:

There’s only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel -- picking a fight with people who don’t even have to buy ink. The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst.

Other Presidents have used enemies lists to try and discredit their critics. Bill Clinton used White House resources to discredit former lovers. George W. Bush sent his surrogates out to attack the left.

But the Obama campaign is gathering increasing attention because he is the candidate who promised to "change the way Washington works." Some now wonder if he is the one who has changed.

The Post's Marcus also writes:

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC.

Politico weighs in:

With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.

Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs has mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium. White House aides limited access to the Chamber and made top adviser Valerie Jarrett available to reporters to disparage the group. Everyone from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has piled on Fox News by contending it’s not a legitimate news operation.

All of the techniques are harnessed to a larger purpose: to marginalize not only the individual person or organization but also some of the most important policy and publicity allies of the national Republican Party.

So much for the President who promised to build bridges and reach out to his enemies. Instead, he is giving ammunition to his political opposition.

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," says former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove. "It’s unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States."

*************************************************************************

ARTICLE #3---

White House: Fox News is 'not really news'
October 19, 2009 - 6:36am.
By DOUG THOMPSON

Senior White House aides Sunday continued their war of words with right-wing Fox News Channel, saying the cable service is "not really news."

This is news?

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," David Axelrod is what Fox dishes out daily on is "not really news" and added "they're not really a news station."

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view," Axelrod told ABC host George Stephanopolis. "And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view."

Axelrod said Fox owner Rupert Murdoch is more concerned with making money than offering real news and information.

"Mr. Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money," he said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel continued the assault during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union."

Said Emanuel:

It’s not so much a conflict with Fox News. I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.

Meanwhile, Fox News Anchor Chris Wallace said Sunday the White House is refusing to provide guests for talk shows on that channel.

********************************************************************************

ARTICLE #4---

Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done
Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
By NY Post

FOXNews.com

Friday, January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

Click here to read the full story from the NY Post.

*******************************************************************************

Now, I may be wrong, but according to what I have been hearing is that the Obama Administration is making an 'enemies list' of insurance companies, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al that oppose his health care plan. So, my good conservative people, help me out here and enlighten me if I am wrong or misunderstanding what is going on.

Because, it really sounds to me like there is an 'enemies list' building at the White House, that the White House officials just want us to THINK does not exsist, because of all the unnecessary, childish, and pathetically petty attacks against FOXnews.com, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

Can I get some enlightenment here, folks?

Thank you.

PURE EVILNESS (Story Out of South Memphis TN)

2009-10-20T17:52:00.004-05:00

Some of you will be sickened by what you are about to see and hear. In the following video, from a news station here in Memphis, Tn--a woman and her sister leave 2 children ALONE-(one child is 2 years old the other is 3 years old)--so that the mother and aunt could go shopping. The house caught fire--the three year old died, the 2 year old is fighting for his life at the hospital.

Now, if you listened carefully, the aunt was asked if she 'regretted' leaving the children alone--her answer was--"NOPE". All the aunt was concerned about was--get ready for it--HER PURSE AND HER FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!!!

This is outrageous. The neighbors were distraught, crying and had to be comforted. The mother and the aunt however--all they cared about was the fact that the food stamps are probably destroyed and the mother didn't get to finish her shopping.

Personally, I believe that the mother and the aunt BOTH should go to prison for the rest of their lives. What do you think about this?

Louisiana Justice of the Peace Refuses to Marry Inter-Racial Couple

2009-10-18T21:52:00.003-05:00

Ok. I just don't see what the problem is here. Here we have two people who love each other and want to get married. HOWEVER, the justice of the peace has now 'disturbed the peace' with his racial bigotry and refused to marry them.

The justice of the peace maintains that he is not a 'racist' and that he is not a 'bigot'. Ok, well, what the hell do you call it?!? An African-American male and a Caucasion female want to get married...and you tell them no BECAUSE they are an 'inter-racial' couple.

HELLO!!! That spells 'racist' and 'bigot' to me.

And let's not forget that comment about how 'the children of inter-racial couples suffer'...oh for the love of GOD! ALL children suffer ridicule and criticism at some point in their lives for one thing or another. An example: ME.

I was ridiculed as a child for having 'foster parents'. I was also ridiculed for having to wear 'glasses' and I was called 'four-eyes' so many times that I thought that was my name. Hell, I was even made fun of because of my MIDDLE name. And guess what???

I AM NOT A CHILD OF MIXED PARENTS!!! So, "THAT" is not even a credible reason to deny this couple a marriage license. Try again, please.

Also, he [Justice of Peace] tried to say that 'inter-racial marriages do not last long'. Guess what??? There are PLENTY of same race marriages that end in divorce, as well. So, "THAT" too is not a credible arguement, Mr. Justice of the Peace.

See, (and, as always, this is just MY personal opinion), this is just another reason why our country is in such a f***** up mess right now. There is way too much 'racial this'and 'racial that' instead of trying to look at people as just 'people'....

I am just so FED UP with all of this, that I don't even know how to end this post.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell--WTF!?!

2009-10-18T19:29:00.006-05:00

Ok, I may be a lesbian, but I have to say that I am really ASHAMED of and EMBARRASSED by the 'gay & lesbian' community right now, as well as with our President.

Now, personally, I have no problem with gays and lesbians serving in the military. HOWEVER, right now, this is NOT the major issue that should be addressed. Right now, our U.S. military soldieers are being picked off left and right, and there is a HUGE need for a massive troop surge in Afghanistan. THAT is what is important RIGHT NOW.

Our President is dragging his feet on the issue of sending more troops to Afghanistan just so he can secure the gay and lesbian community's future support to get re-elected for a second term at the White House.

Our military leaders have been begging our President to send more troops--he won't even TALK about this issue! Instead, he is more concerned about keeping the gay and lesbian community 'happy and in his pocket'.

Our military commanders are requesting moore troops--40,000--to be sent to Afghanistan, but the President is more worried about gays and lesbians serving 'openly' in the military.

Like I said, I have no problem with gays and lesbians in the military. But THIS should not be the President's 1st priority right now. Right now, our first priority should be sending more troops (more than 40,000 especially) to Afghanistan and we WIN this thing. If the gays and lesbians want to serve in the military and defend our country--THAT IS FINE--but don't make this our military's FIRST PRIORITY.

This is just my personal opinion and feelings on this.

Rush Limbaugh Sacked by NFL--Personal Fouls and Unsportsman-like Conduct

2009-10-15T14:24:00.004-05:00

the NFL has committed some very 'personal fouls' and shown some very 'unsportsman-like conduct' toward Conservative radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, who is an avid NFL fan and had proposed to put in a bid for the St. Louis Rams.

The NFL has seen fit to drop Mr. Limbaugh from the bid to buy the team, based on accusations by liberal demoncraps Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson et al.

Now, since hearing this news that the NFL has 'sacked' Rush Limbaugh from the bid to own the St. Louis Rams, I have since cancelled my subsription to various NFL publications. My girlfriend and I (as well as 60 of our closest friends) who listen to Rush's show have also declared that we will NEVER watch another NFL football game or purchase tickets to any games. I had also decided to purchase 'season tickets' for all Rams' games for me and my friends when I heard Rush was bidding to buy them--NOW--I have decided that I have BETTER things to do with my money than give it to a bunch of 'race-baiting bigots'.

As you all can tell, I am HIGHLY pissed off at what has happened, and I am fed up by the "liberal left lunatics of the demoncrap farty" ( mispelling is deliberate on 'party') portraying us conservatives as racists and homophobes etc etc etc!!!

Wow--I Bet Obama Didn't See THIS Coming, Either

2009-10-14T17:55:00.003-05:00

Wow, ya gotta love those libs! Isn't it kind of ironic that Obama's own supporters are now getting fed up with him and his empty promises? I love this article from Fox News. I think that this may turn things around in four years if these libs decide to convert to our side.

***********************************************************

"Liberals Increasingly Frustrated With Obama's Style and Performance"

Liberal commentators from Saturday Night Live comedians to newspaper columnists to leftist bloggers to gay rights activists have been portraying Obama as a do-nothing president and "whiner-in-chief," expressing a growing concern that the commander in chief is not showing enough spine.

Critics on the left are growing impatient with Obama and pressuring him to reject a request from his chief military commander for more troops in Afghanistan, to include a government-run insurance option in his health insurance reform plan and to lift the don't-ask-don't-tell policy concerning gays in the military.

On Sunday thousands of gay rights activists marched from the White House to the Capitol, demanding that Obama keep his promise to work to end discrimination against gays and lesbians.

"This president has done something pretty extraordinary," said Michael Gerson, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior adviser to the Bush administration.

"He's managed to convince a lot of Americans that he's more liberal than he thought he was, at the same time he's disappointed his liberal base," he told FOX News. "That's an accomplishment of sorts."

Gerson said Obama faces problems with his liberal base, which he says is in a demanding mood and is setting high expectations.

"Every president needs the ability, particularly with a centrist country and centrist Congress, to make some concessions," he said. "They need some ideological leeway."

The White House says the president has acted decisively in securing federal bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler, appointing Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court and on other issues that critics have forgotten about because they've been focusing on health care reform and the war in Afghanistan.

The White House also points out that Obama said during the campaign that he would be a deliberative president, and that he won't change just because some commentators say he should.

Tensions between the White House and liberal bloggers boiled over Sunday when New York Times correspondent John Harwood said on CNBC that an anonymous White House official had told him that the bloggers should "take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely-divided country is complicated and difficult."

In an e-mail to the Huffington Post on Monday, Harwood clarified that the unidentified adviser was referring to Obama's entire liberal base, not just gays and lesbians.

But some see the criticism as par for the course.

"You're never going to make everybody happy all the time. That's just the rule of politics," said Democratic strategist Josh Gottheimer, a former senior adviser to the Clinton administration.

"I think he's done plenty for the left, he's done plenty for the center," he said of Obama. "He's got a philosophy. He made it clear when he was running for president that he was going to do what's best for the country in very difficult times, and you're not going to please everyone."

Gottheimer cited progress on the economy and health care reform, which is advancing to the Senate and House floors for a historic debate later his month.

"These things have cycles," Gottheimer said. "They can't just say positive things all the time. They have to have a little fun."

Gottheimer pointed to Obama's 52 percent approval rating, saying that's what really counts.

"That's ultimately the poll that matters, and not what the late night comics say," he said.

FOX News' Major Garrett contributed to this report.

Oh my--the videos you find on the internet.

2009-10-14T12:38:00.004-05:00

Ok, people, I need a little help on this one. As you all know, I am a complete novice at all this political stuff, but I have to admit, it is all very interesting and I started this blog to help contribute to the conservative cause and also to LEARN more about what is going on in our world today, and WHY it is happening etc etc etc.

So, here are videos I found on YouTube about the EFCA and Unions while I was looking for something to post about the SEIU. Wow, the stuff you find when you look for one thing.

**************************************************************

******************************************************************

Ok, everyone. I am ready to learn. HELP!!!!! Someone please tell me what in blue blazes is going on?

Conservatives UNITE!!!--VERY IMPORTANT--PLEASE READ!!!

2009-10-13T16:46:00.002-05:00

Conservatives, it is time to take off the gloves and put on the brass knuckles.

I am listening to Ben Ferguson right now and he is urging us (as Republicans and Conservatives)to call and ask Olympia Snow questions as to why she voted WITH the Lib-Dems on this Obamacare Health bill.

Be sure to *67 your number (as they have ways of kicking your call out if it is not coming from Mass.)

Here is the number

1-202-224-5344

Please dom tthis in an intelligent and mature way--don't get angry or yell at them, but keep them on the phone and ask them questions (i.e. "Why did you vote to cut healthcare for seniors?" etc).

Please do not be discouraged if you are unable to get through due to phone lines being busy--this is a good sign as a lot of Ben Ferguson's callers/listeners are already calling them.

It is now time for our voices to be heard. So, "LET'S BE HEARD".

Thank you.

Rush Limbaugh Wants to Own the St. Louis Rams

2009-10-12T18:29:00.005-05:00

Rush Limbaugh loves football, loves the NFL, and wants to buy the St. Louis Rams football team. However, there are a lot of people who are committing some very 'personal fouls' against him about this, including some NFL team members who are exhibiting some very 'unsportsman-like conduct' by calling Mr. Limbaugh a 'racist'.

In my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous to even think of Rush Limbaugh as a racist, and their acusations are completely 'out of bounds', because, well, let's us some good ol' fashioned common sense:

"If you were a rich white man, and a 'racist', would you even consider purchasing an NFL team (or ANY sports team) who is probably about 85%-95% African-American?" My guess is that, no you wouldn't, not if you were a 'TRUE RACIST', because if you were a true racist, you would most likely be watching a sport like NASCAR or maybe the NHL and not football.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a racist. I just think that it is funny because the main people who are attacking Rush Limbaugh on this are the liberal lunatics of the demoncrap party. Yes, I am back to my 'conspiracy theories' as always. So, what is my 'conspiracy theory' on this?

Well, I personally think that the only REAL reason that Rush is being attacked on this end is because the lib-dems have tried (unsuccessfully I might add) to attack him on the political front, so now they attack his 'character' and resort to the name calling game.

I just think it is a ridiculous argument that the man should not be allowed to buy the team. This is all about 'capitalism' and business. It has nothing to do with 'race' and/or skin color.

What do you think?

The Weakening of a Nation

2009-10-11T20:30:00.000-05:00

No one likes it when someone makes a promise, and then breaks it, right? It makes us not want to trust that person any more when they make promises that we don't know if they will keep.

One of President Obama's promises to close the Guantanamo Bay Prison (Gitmo) has yet to be kept.

And thank GOD this is a promise that he has broken, so far. Why?

Well, for one thing, it is putting our country at risk for an even bigger (and possibly worse) terror attack, that could be worse than the Al Queada {spelling} attacks on September 11, 2001. Why?

Ok, here we go, and correct me (please) if I am wrong, but if Guantanamo Bay Prison closes, would that not send those terrorist prisoners to our state and federal prisons, where they may (possibly) eventually be released, into our cities in the U.S. where they [terrrorists]would (most likely) regain control and recruit more terrorists in order to orchestrate more (and even worse) terror attacks than the ones on 9/11/2001???

I mean, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-Ky) maintains that Gitmo should stay open.

Then we come to this next part of my 'essay' blog, is that he [Obama] wants to shut down (or disarm) all our nuclear weapons, and wants (even expects) Russia, Korea, and whomever else may have them to do the same.

Ok, again, and correct me (please) if I am wrong, but does this president REALLY, HONESTLY believe that our enemies will disarm themselves of their nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction?Just because Obama says he will do it if they will?

Someone please tell me that our president is not that foolish. I mean, seriously, what is happening to us? What is happening to our country?

McCain: No win without 40,000 more troops

2009-10-11T19:30:00.000-05:00

From the Politico site:

**********************************************************

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned on Sunday that without an additional 40,000 troops, he does not believe the war in Afghanistan will be won.

Asked on CNN's "State of the Union" if the American military can win the war without the additional 40,000 troops advocated by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, McCain said simply, "I do not."

"I think the great danger now is not an American pullout, it’s a half measure," McCain continued.

The senator added that he does not believe the White House is trying to "muzzle" McChrystal, though he said he was bothered by some of the criticism of the general that has leaked into press reports.

"This whole thing about leaks in this business is sort of the ugly thing about how we do business in Washington," he said.

Posted by Andy Barr 09:22 AM

*************************************************************

I happen to agree with Sen. McCain. If it isn't bad enough that our President has weakened our country with his promise to close Gitmo, and his vow to never use nuclear weapons, and otherwise going on an "Apology Tour" and spouting his platitudes about how it is America's fault that all these other countries are having so many problems etc, now he wins an award that he does not deserve and the Nobel Committee with use this award to control him and hold him to his promises.

I have to say, even though I am a novice at all this political stuff, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something very wrong with our country right now, and I fear that it is only going to get worse before it gets any better...

I think I will get started on building that bomb shelter next week that I have been procrastinating on for years.

Liz Cheney on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-11T19:17:00.001-05:00

Liz Cheney is up in arms about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, saying in so many words that instead of receiveing the award himself, he should allow the mother of a fallen soldier to accept it on behalf of the United States military , as they deserve it more than he does, because the military is the most poerful force that keeps us safe and allows us to sleep soundly knowing that we are protected.

Here is what she had to say on 'Fox News Sunday':

My Conspiracy Theory--Nobel Prize

2009-10-10T18:55:00.000-05:00

Ok, I am one to admit that I absolutely LOVE conspiracy theories.

So, here is my conspiracy theory about Barak Obama and his Nobel Prize--

************************************************************

With so many other Nobel Peace Prize nominees who, by far, are so much more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, it kind of makes me wonder if maybe (just maybe) Barak Obama 'bought' his precious award, and if he did, just how much of our taxpayer dollars did he have to dish out for it.

Who is REALLY more deserving of this award? Well, let's see, first we have--

#1 Sima Samar--who was ranked at #28 by Forbes as one of the '100 Most Powerful Women' who was a women's rights activist in Afghanistan who had one of the toughest jobs in the world

see

www.forbes.com/lists/2006/11/06women_Sima-Samar_C7J2.html

#2 Ingrid Betancourt--who was a politician and anti-corruption activist who was kidnapped by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia and held prisoner for 6 years

see

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ingrid_Betancourt

#3 Denis Mukwege--a doctor and the founder of the Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Congo who has helped women and girls who were the victims of gang rape and brutal sexual assaults

see

www.panzihospitalbukavu.org/drmukwege.php?weblang=1

#4 Hu Jia--a Chinese human rights activist who recieved the Sakharov Prize for 'Freedom of Thought' and who worked as an AIDS Awareness activist in China

see

www.mahalo.com/hu-jia

and #5 Wei Jingsheng--the best known Chinese human rights activist and democracy fighter, and leader for the opposition of Chinese Communism and Dictatorship who has recieved numerous human rights awards

see

www.weijingsheng.org/wei/en.html

Now, personally, I strongly believe that any one of these people are much more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Why? Because they actually DID something to earn and deserve it.

What, pray tell, has 'the annointed one' done to earn and/or deserve a Nobel Peace Prize???

The answer:

NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, there is my conspiracy theory.

Kind of makes you sit back and wonder.................

From zFacts .com--How's that "Hope & Change" working for you now???

2009-10-10T08:36:00.000-05:00

Jobs Missing in the Great Recession of 2008—2100

July 10, 2009. Data through June. Note the sudden decrease in the peak-to-peak growth of jobs under Bush II. I'm not sure what explains this, but it shocked his economic advisers who predicted a return to the long run trend for the first three years of his administration. Actually the trend growth rate of non-farm jobs (shown here) wast increasing since this data series started in 1939, until Bush took office. I'm sure it's not all his fault, but he should have been more concerned.
In any case, "missing jobs" as calculated here are based on the new trend line established since January 2001.

July 10, 2009. Data through June. This shows how far actual non-farm jobs are below the lower trend line. The rate of job loss is still about 500,000 per month, while the highest rate in the first Bush recession was only 400,000 per month. As Bush left office, the job loss rate (relative to the trend) reached its maximum of just over 800,000 per month.
Just from a visual comparison with past recessions, it looks like we will lose another 3 to 7 million jobs, and not hit bottom for another year or so.
If the economy does not create enough jobs to keep up with the growth of the population and the work force, unemployment will increase. So the trend line is the right benchmark for comparison. And perhaps something closer to the old trend line would tell a more realistic story. I've make this graph as optimistic as possible.

Obama won a Nobel Prize? FOR WHAT????

2009-10-09T23:44:00.000-05:00

Ok, I was searching on the web for a picture I could post to go along with my next blog about this Nobel Prize story, and instead I found this short article. I don't know if any of you have read it or not, but I am posting it here for you to read.

Also, from what I heard on the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ben Ferguson shows today, there are even some liberals and democrats who are upset about Obama winning this award.

Anyway, here is the article:

********************************************************************************

Taliban Condemn Obama As Nobel Peace Prize Recipient

AFP October 8, 2009

KABUL - The Taliban Friday condemned the decision to award this year's Nobel Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama, saying he had "not taken a single step towards peace in Afghanistan".
"We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan. He has not taken a single step for peace in Afghanistan or to make this country stable," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP.
"We condemn the award of the Noble Peace Prize for Obama," he said by telephone from an undisclosed location.
"We condemn the institute's awarding him the peace prize. We condemn this year's peace prize as unjust."
© Copyright (c) AFP

***********************************************************************

My only thought this morning when I heard this was 'Oh my God! WTF!'

My First Term Paper Blog

2009-10-09T21:13:00.000-05:00

When the Democratic Party takes over in power what happens?

taxes go up
unemployment goes up
government takes over

When these things happen, you get the following:

welfare state
food stamps
chaos

Does unemployment, welfare, and food stamps really benefit our society? Why or why not? On one hand,(some would say) it may benefit our society, but really I believe that it only makes people too lazy to get back on their feet and get a real job. This is what I would call 'abusing the system'.

What I mean by 'abusing the system' is that there are people who, once they get on welfare and food stamps after losing a job, they get to the point where they get too comfortable and then they just stay on welfare and begin to depend and rely on the government to support them instead of trying to find a job.

Here in Memphis, there are people out there right now on the streets who are 'able-bodied' --that is 'able to work'--however, they walk up and down Union Avenue, Summer Avenue, Poplar Avenue, and in Mid-town/downtown with their hands out saying 'gimme gimme gimme' like it is OUR job to support them just because we have jobs.

Here is a prime example--6 months ago, I was waiting at the bus stop on Summer Avenue in front of the Family Dollar at Summer and Highland. I had just gotten off work (I work at Pizza Hut) and this man walks up to me and he says, 'hey--you work at Pizza Hut, right?' I thought he was going to ask if they were hiring , so I said yes (after all, I was still in uniform). So, he then sticks his hand out and says, 'well, give me $5.00' THE NERVE!!! I just laughed at him and told him to get a job and he would have all the $5 he needed. He walked away and called me a racist.

I find it extremely laughable that I would be called a racist by a white man (since I too am white). How dumb was that? I do not believe in giving people like him money that I have worked hard for. After all, I have a job so I can pay my bills, not so the bums can buy cigarettes and booze. I have to buy my own booze and I don't smoke.

Now liberals would say that I am just down right cruel and mean and cold hearted because I won't 'help my fellow man'. Uhhh, sorry, but MY fellow man is a person who HAS A J-O-B'...and not someone who expects me to support their smoking, drinking, and drug habits.

Now, as for being a racist, well, it would be kind of hypocritical of me to be a racist because:

#1--I am a LESBIAN

#2--I am a WICCAN

#3--My lesbian girlfriend just happens to be BLACK.

Hmmmmm...and we are both CONSERVATIVES. Yes that's right. We both listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ben Ferguson, Micheal Savage, and Andrew Clark Sr, on am 600 wrec. Now, some of you (or all of you) may be asking yourselves, 'how can a lesbian and a Wiccan be conservative?' My answer is simple--"WHY NOT"?

Now, I did not start this blog to come on here and act like I know everything, and try to push my lifestyle or religion on anyone. I started this blog so I could learn more about what I believe 'politically'.

So, as a conservative, what do I believe in? Ok, let me try (as best I can) to tell you:

#1--I have a strong belief in the Death Penalty

#2--I have a strong belief in 'pro-life' (in other words, I am AGAINST abortion)

#3--I have a very strong belief in our military and what they are fighting for

#4--I do not believe in racism or predjudice of ANY kind

#5--I hold our Nation's Constitution Bill of Rights as sacred

#6--I do not believe in higher taxes

#7--I believe in limited government (in other words I do NOT approve of the government trying to tell us how to live our lives)

So, now, I leave it up to you to help educate me more on the conservative views and ideas.

Thank you.