Just another example of what roughly 1/3 of every single one of our paychecks goes to...
What is wrong with this country - They are giving it away!
Letter by a Florida teacher................ A teacher speaks
Just another example of what roughly 1/3 of every single one of our paychecks goes to...
What is wrong with this country - They are giving it away!
Letter by a Florida teacher................ A teacher speaks
This is a subject close to my heart. Do you know that we have adult students at the school where I teach who are not US citizens and who get the PELL grant, which is a federal grant (no pay back required) plus other federal grants to go to school?
One student from the Dominican Republic told me that she didn't want me to find a job for her after she finished my program, because she was getting housing from our housing department and she was getting a PELL grant which paid for her total tuition and books, plus money leftover.
She was looking into WAIT which gives students a CREDIT CARD for gas to come to school, and into CARIBE which is a special program (check it out - I did) for immigrants and it pays for child care and all sorts of needs while they go to school or training. The one student I just mentioned told me she was not going to be a US Citizen because she plans to return to the Dominican Republic someday and that she 'loves HER country.'
I asked her if she felt guilty taking what the US is giving her and then not even bothering to become a citizen and she told me that it doesn't bother her , because that is what the money is there for!
I asked the CARIBE administration about their program and if you ARE a US Citizen, you don't qualify for their program. And all the while, I am working a full day, my son-in-law works more than 60 hours a week, and everyone in my family works and pays for our education.
Something is wrong here. I am sorry but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Spanish - enough is enough. Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German or any other language because of immigration. It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close. Sorry if this offends anyone but this is MY COUNTRY.
IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP -- please pass this along . I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else.
Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and GOD BLESS AMERICA!
PART OF THE PROBLEM, Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone -- YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It is Time for America to Speak up If you agree -- pass this along, if you don't agree --- delete it!
This is a subject close to my heart. Do you know that we have adult students at the school where I teach who are not US citizens and who get the PELL grant, which is a federal grant (no pay back required) plus other federal grants to go to school?
One student from the Dominican Republic told me that she didn't want me to find a job for her after she finished my program, because she was getting housing from our housing department and she was getting a PELL grant which paid for her total tuition and books, plus money leftover.
She was looking into WAIT which gives students a CREDIT CARD for gas to come to school, and into CARIBE which is a special program (check it out - I did) for immigrants and it pays for child care and all sorts of needs while they go to school or training. The one student I just mentioned told me she was not going to be a US Citizen because she plans to return to the Dominican Republic someday and that she 'loves HER country.'
I asked her if she felt guilty taking what the US is giving her and then not even bothering to become a citizen and she told me that it doesn't bother her , because that is what the money is there for!
I asked the CARIBE administration about their program and if you ARE a US Citizen, you don't qualify for their program. And all the while, I am working a full day, my son-in-law works more than 60 hours a week, and everyone in my family works and pays for our education.
Something is wrong here. I am sorry but after hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Spanish - enough is enough. Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German or any other language because of immigration. It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close. Sorry if this offends anyone but this is MY COUNTRY.
IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP -- please pass this along . I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else.
Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and GOD BLESS AMERICA!
PART OF THE PROBLEM, Think about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone -- YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! It is Time for America to Speak up If you agree -- pass this along, if you don't agree --- delete it!
July 25, 2008
July 24, 2008
Hillary Donors Not Backing Obama
Hillary Donors Not Backing Obama
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:53 PM
Sen. Barack Obama works the crowd in Sderot, Israel, Wed. The candidate is charming the continent, but can he win the minds and hearts of Hillary fans?
Of the 311 fundraisers who bundled more than $100,000 in donations for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, only eight are on the list of contributors to Barack Obama’s campaign in June.
Their total for the month: just $19,250.
“The fact that fewer than 3 percent of Clinton’s donors have donated any money directly to Obama in his first month as presumptive nominee is likely to raise the eyebrows of some leaders in the Democratic Party who are hoping to see signs of unity,” the Huffington Post observed.
The Washington Post reported that a total of 2,200 individual Clinton donors — as distinct from the big-money fundraisers tracked by The Huffington Post — became first-time donors to Obama’s campaign in June. They contributed $1.8 million, or just 4 percent, of the $52 million the campaign raised last month.
Obama donors are evidently returning the “favor.” They gave just $105,000 in June to help Clinton repay her $25 million campaign debt, according to the Los Angeles Times.
For the Obama campaign, the easiest way to drum up support from Clinton’s contributors is to put her on the ticket, Hillary fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell told The Huffington Post: “The magic solution in general is the vice presidency. It heals all the wounds immediately.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserve
Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:53 PM
Sen. Barack Obama works the crowd in Sderot, Israel, Wed. The candidate is charming the continent, but can he win the minds and hearts of Hillary fans?
Of the 311 fundraisers who bundled more than $100,000 in donations for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, only eight are on the list of contributors to Barack Obama’s campaign in June.
Their total for the month: just $19,250.
“The fact that fewer than 3 percent of Clinton’s donors have donated any money directly to Obama in his first month as presumptive nominee is likely to raise the eyebrows of some leaders in the Democratic Party who are hoping to see signs of unity,” the Huffington Post observed.
The Washington Post reported that a total of 2,200 individual Clinton donors — as distinct from the big-money fundraisers tracked by The Huffington Post — became first-time donors to Obama’s campaign in June. They contributed $1.8 million, or just 4 percent, of the $52 million the campaign raised last month.
Obama donors are evidently returning the “favor.” They gave just $105,000 in June to help Clinton repay her $25 million campaign debt, according to the Los Angeles Times.
For the Obama campaign, the easiest way to drum up support from Clinton’s contributors is to put her on the ticket, Hillary fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell told The Huffington Post: “The magic solution in general is the vice presidency. It heals all the wounds immediately.”
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserve
Gods Deciding Obama Is Man For Oval Office
Gods Deciding Obama Is Man For Oval Office
By DAVID S. BRODER | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:30 PM PT
It made no sense when Barack Obama left the country on his nine-day overseas tour for some of my fellow columnists to describe it as a high-risk venture.
Foreign leaders, who can read the polls as well as anyone, would go out of their way not to embarrass a man who may, six months from now, be president of the United States.
Obama prepares thoroughly for the big occasions. He is almost always well-briefed, and he was traveling in sharp company — with Sens. Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel — so you knew he would be thoroughly ready for these meetings. The chance of a major screw-up was minimal.
And, as millions of Americans who watched the primary campaign learned, Obama is invariably articulate and well-spoken. There would be no verbal gaffes.
So where was the risk? It existed mainly in the minds of some journalists and, perhaps, in the musings of Obama staffers who wanted to hype the journey.
Acknowledging all that, it is still the case that Obama has pulled it off in great style and thereby enhanced his credentials for the Oval Office.
What he could not have guaranteed was the role that luck played in the surrounding events and the cast of supporting players. When, on the first day of the trip, he stepped onto the basketball court at the air base in Kuwait and sent his first three-point shot cleanly through the basket, you knew the gods had decided to favor him.
He could not have known in advance that on the very day he left Chicago, President Bush would suddenly reverse six years of policy and send a high-ranking State Department official off to a meeting with Iranian and European nuclear negotiators.
He could not have guessed that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, eager to promise his constituents that the American occupation would not be endless, would persuade Bush to declare agreement to "a time horizon" for U.S. troops leaving.
And he could not have assumed that an al-Maliki spokesman, briefing reporters on the meeting with Obama, would volunteer the comment that "the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal" of U.S. troops.
Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies — direct talks with Iran and a 16-month timetable for withdrawal — seemed to be ratified by events.
So it was a confident and contented Obama who faced reporters in Jordan on Tuesday in his first news conference of the trip. He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those in Afghanistan — and also the domestic economy.
It was a skillful answer, not rejecting Petraeus' views but asserting Obama's own larger responsibility.
On the other hand, his saying there was no way to know what would have happened in Iraq if the U.S. had followed his advice to start the withdrawal of troops two years ago and oppose the "surge" seemed disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong.
But his troubles are minimal compared with those of John McCain, who looks like the odd-man-out in the ongoing foreign policy debate.
Having given steadfast support to the policies of both al-Maliki and George Bush, he has a legitimate complaint: They owed him more consideration in the way they announced the shifts they were suddenly going to make. As it is, McCain appears isolated from trends in both Baghdad and Washington.
McCain's frustration at the turn of events is something he cannot conceal. The domestic economy was always going to be a problem for him — even before gasoline hit $4 a gallon. But he had a credible position to argue on national security issues, and a record that was consistent and in some respects prescient.
But now the ground has shifted — and his opponent was right where he needed to be to capture the advantage. July has been a cruel month for McCain.
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Email To Friend
By DAVID S. BRODER | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:30 PM PT
It made no sense when Barack Obama left the country on his nine-day overseas tour for some of my fellow columnists to describe it as a high-risk venture.
Foreign leaders, who can read the polls as well as anyone, would go out of their way not to embarrass a man who may, six months from now, be president of the United States.
Obama prepares thoroughly for the big occasions. He is almost always well-briefed, and he was traveling in sharp company — with Sens. Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel — so you knew he would be thoroughly ready for these meetings. The chance of a major screw-up was minimal.
And, as millions of Americans who watched the primary campaign learned, Obama is invariably articulate and well-spoken. There would be no verbal gaffes.
So where was the risk? It existed mainly in the minds of some journalists and, perhaps, in the musings of Obama staffers who wanted to hype the journey.
Acknowledging all that, it is still the case that Obama has pulled it off in great style and thereby enhanced his credentials for the Oval Office.
What he could not have guaranteed was the role that luck played in the surrounding events and the cast of supporting players. When, on the first day of the trip, he stepped onto the basketball court at the air base in Kuwait and sent his first three-point shot cleanly through the basket, you knew the gods had decided to favor him.
He could not have known in advance that on the very day he left Chicago, President Bush would suddenly reverse six years of policy and send a high-ranking State Department official off to a meeting with Iranian and European nuclear negotiators.
He could not have guessed that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, eager to promise his constituents that the American occupation would not be endless, would persuade Bush to declare agreement to "a time horizon" for U.S. troops leaving.
And he could not have assumed that an al-Maliki spokesman, briefing reporters on the meeting with Obama, would volunteer the comment that "the end of 2010 is the appropriate time for the withdrawal" of U.S. troops.
Suddenly, long-standing Obama policies — direct talks with Iran and a 16-month timetable for withdrawal — seemed to be ratified by events.
So it was a confident and contented Obama who faced reporters in Jordan on Tuesday in his first news conference of the trip. He handled the expected question about his meeting with Gen. David Petraeus by saying he perfectly understood the U.S. commander's opposition to any timetable that would limit his options, but that as commander in chief, he, Obama, would weigh Iraq's needs against those in Afghanistan — and also the domestic economy.
It was a skillful answer, not rejecting Petraeus' views but asserting Obama's own larger responsibility.
On the other hand, his saying there was no way to know what would have happened in Iraq if the U.S. had followed his advice to start the withdrawal of troops two years ago and oppose the "surge" seemed disingenuous. Obama still has trouble admitting when he is wrong.
But his troubles are minimal compared with those of John McCain, who looks like the odd-man-out in the ongoing foreign policy debate.
Having given steadfast support to the policies of both al-Maliki and George Bush, he has a legitimate complaint: They owed him more consideration in the way they announced the shifts they were suddenly going to make. As it is, McCain appears isolated from trends in both Baghdad and Washington.
McCain's frustration at the turn of events is something he cannot conceal. The domestic economy was always going to be a problem for him — even before gasoline hit $4 a gallon. But he had a credible position to argue on national security issues, and a record that was consistent and in some respects prescient.
But now the ground has shifted — and his opponent was right where he needed to be to capture the advantage. July has been a cruel month for McCain.
© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group
Email To Friend
Mosh Pit Of Anti-Americanism Awaits Barack Obama
Europe's Mosh Pit Of Anti-Americanism Awaits Barack Obama With Open Arms
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: Barack Obama's big Berlin rally is being sold to U.S. voters as reason to vote for him. Yes, Germans do love Obama, but a look at what they think of the rest of us raises questions about the cheering.
A May-June Gallup poll released July 23 shows that 62% of Germans want Obama elected president over just 27% who would prefer John McCain. It's a German landslide.
No surprise. Citizens of the country Obama chose for a big showy overseas campaign rally hold some of the most virulent sentiment against President Bush ever recorded.
Five years after the Iraq War's start, a June 2008 Pew Global Attitudes survey found 85% of Germans still have little or no faith that Bush will do the right thing, and 72% think the U.S. effort in Iraq — no thanks to Germany — will fail.
Opinions about leaders are one thing. But Germany's negative attitudes extend well beyond Bush to a significant loathing of America, mostly based on its global influence and its success.
Obama may demand on the campaign trail that no one dare question his patriotism, but for Germans, disliking the U.S. is nothing to hide. Yet this is the place Obama's team thought would be best to hold a rally to boost his campaign.
Pew's 2008 survey found that 34% of Germans don't like Americans at all or in part, and 61% regard the U.S. as headed for something like history's ash heap, to be supplanted by China.
That is relevant to why Germans are cheering for Obama. He has consistently expounded a worldview that espouses the moral equivalency of nations, rather than importance of U.S. leadership. He's a big fan of letting the U.N. make America's foreign policy decisions, consistent with shrinking U.S. influence in the world.
He has also expressed embarrassment at the U.S. compared with Europe, for example, in its mastery of languages — as if the lingual fragmentation of Europe's tiny nations vs. the continental span of the U.S. were comparable conditions for learning languages.
Not a word, of course, about America's military, financial or technical superiority over Europe. Just lots of European-style mantras about American differences being somehow proof of inferiority.
An America Firster he's not. Heck, it was a battle just to get him, a candidate for the highest office in the land, to pin an American flag to his lapel. No wonder they cheer Obama in Germany.
But if his talk syncs with German attitudes, it might not be entirely in American interests. Last year Pew asked even more pointed questions of Obama's cheering German fans.
In its 2007 survey, Pew found that 65% of Germans dislike American ideas about democracy; 64% dislike American ways of doing business; 83% have a negative view about the spread of American ideas. If Germans think that and Obama's their man, what does that say about what Obama's selling?
Obama did not pick Germany as his venue for a rally Thursday because he wanted to change German perceptions about America. He picked it because the pro-Obama mania was already in place and the polls were sympathetic.
Oh, he insists it's no campaign rally, but just a . . . speech at the Victory Column, as if every visiting senator does that. That claim's belied by the slick, hip fliers printed up for Obama's rally to draw in Germans who loathe America. The mainstream media can be counted on to hide the Che Guevara T-shirts and the hammer and sickle banners that will undoubtedly be in Berlin as Obama presents his famous "hope" and "change" rhetoric.
Why will they cheer? Because they see a less influential America coming with an Obama presidency. They see bigger government, fewer personal freedoms and a lower standard of living — in short, Americans a lot more European. For them, Obama's rise means, at long last, an end to those dreaded SUVs.
The jealousy is palpable.
Among Germans, 88% believe the U.S. influences events in their country despite a simultaneous belief that the U.S. is a spent power; 47% think that influence is a bad thing; only 12% call it good. And 80% believe America has a negative impact on Germany's economy — an idea so plainly wrong as to be laughable.
Blaming America first may be nice for Germany's anti-Americans. But trying to influence U.S. voters with a campaign rally of people who loathe much of what America stands for strikes us as poor judgment.
Maybe the truth about those who cheer Obama and his lollapalooza world tour ought to be better known to U.S. voters.
Email To Friend
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: Barack Obama's big Berlin rally is being sold to U.S. voters as reason to vote for him. Yes, Germans do love Obama, but a look at what they think of the rest of us raises questions about the cheering.
A May-June Gallup poll released July 23 shows that 62% of Germans want Obama elected president over just 27% who would prefer John McCain. It's a German landslide.
No surprise. Citizens of the country Obama chose for a big showy overseas campaign rally hold some of the most virulent sentiment against President Bush ever recorded.
Five years after the Iraq War's start, a June 2008 Pew Global Attitudes survey found 85% of Germans still have little or no faith that Bush will do the right thing, and 72% think the U.S. effort in Iraq — no thanks to Germany — will fail.
Opinions about leaders are one thing. But Germany's negative attitudes extend well beyond Bush to a significant loathing of America, mostly based on its global influence and its success.
Obama may demand on the campaign trail that no one dare question his patriotism, but for Germans, disliking the U.S. is nothing to hide. Yet this is the place Obama's team thought would be best to hold a rally to boost his campaign.
Pew's 2008 survey found that 34% of Germans don't like Americans at all or in part, and 61% regard the U.S. as headed for something like history's ash heap, to be supplanted by China.
That is relevant to why Germans are cheering for Obama. He has consistently expounded a worldview that espouses the moral equivalency of nations, rather than importance of U.S. leadership. He's a big fan of letting the U.N. make America's foreign policy decisions, consistent with shrinking U.S. influence in the world.
He has also expressed embarrassment at the U.S. compared with Europe, for example, in its mastery of languages — as if the lingual fragmentation of Europe's tiny nations vs. the continental span of the U.S. were comparable conditions for learning languages.
Not a word, of course, about America's military, financial or technical superiority over Europe. Just lots of European-style mantras about American differences being somehow proof of inferiority.
An America Firster he's not. Heck, it was a battle just to get him, a candidate for the highest office in the land, to pin an American flag to his lapel. No wonder they cheer Obama in Germany.
But if his talk syncs with German attitudes, it might not be entirely in American interests. Last year Pew asked even more pointed questions of Obama's cheering German fans.
In its 2007 survey, Pew found that 65% of Germans dislike American ideas about democracy; 64% dislike American ways of doing business; 83% have a negative view about the spread of American ideas. If Germans think that and Obama's their man, what does that say about what Obama's selling?
Obama did not pick Germany as his venue for a rally Thursday because he wanted to change German perceptions about America. He picked it because the pro-Obama mania was already in place and the polls were sympathetic.
Oh, he insists it's no campaign rally, but just a . . . speech at the Victory Column, as if every visiting senator does that. That claim's belied by the slick, hip fliers printed up for Obama's rally to draw in Germans who loathe America. The mainstream media can be counted on to hide the Che Guevara T-shirts and the hammer and sickle banners that will undoubtedly be in Berlin as Obama presents his famous "hope" and "change" rhetoric.
Why will they cheer? Because they see a less influential America coming with an Obama presidency. They see bigger government, fewer personal freedoms and a lower standard of living — in short, Americans a lot more European. For them, Obama's rise means, at long last, an end to those dreaded SUVs.
The jealousy is palpable.
Among Germans, 88% believe the U.S. influences events in their country despite a simultaneous belief that the U.S. is a spent power; 47% think that influence is a bad thing; only 12% call it good. And 80% believe America has a negative impact on Germany's economy — an idea so plainly wrong as to be laughable.
Blaming America first may be nice for Germany's anti-Americans. But trying to influence U.S. voters with a campaign rally of people who loathe much of what America stands for strikes us as poor judgment.
Maybe the truth about those who cheer Obama and his lollapalooza world tour ought to be better known to U.S. voters.
Email To Friend
Obama's Surge Shuffle
Obama's Surge Shuffle
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Barack Obama's refusal to admit he was wrong on President Bush's successful change of strategy in Iraq is as laughable as it is disingenuous. It also calls into question his qualifications to be president.
Obama was clearly opposed to the surge as he courted the Democrats' anti-war base. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence," he said in 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
But when he was confronted this week by ABC News' Terry Moran with the success of the surge, asking if he would have supported it knowing what he knows now, Obama's answer was "no."
Along with his refusal to admit the mistake came something else: an endless stream of double talk obviously designed to distract from our military's successes in Iraq. Obama spoke of "a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops." He added that "it wasn't any doubt that you have an additional 20,000 troops, and where they are right there, it is going to have an impact."
So after insisting the surge "will do the reverse" of quelling "sectarian violence," Obama now claims what he really said was that it would "have an impact" — meaning a positive impact.
As craftily worded as this may be, it's simply a lie. Moreover, the "political factors" Obama refers to — the Anbar Awakening in which Sunni chiefs turned against al-Qaida — were, in fact, primarily engineered by the U.S. military's dealings with those chiefs.
Obama's claim that "the Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time" is no less than an insult to the U.S. commanders who worked so hard to convince the Iraqis it was in their interests.
Obama also provided ABC with this serving of gobbledygook: "The political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamics continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that, in fact, those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."
Imagine the media scrutiny if that kind of babble came from the mouth of George W. Bush instead of the 21st century's JFK.
No wonder the Obama campaign earlier this month removed the anti-surge statements from its Web site, and stopped listing the surge as part of "The Problem" in its section on Iraq.
Obama's "problem" turned out to be the solution, proving again how feeble his foreign policy judgment would be as commander-in-chief. His dishonesty about it disqualifies him all the more.
Email To Friend |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Barack Obama's refusal to admit he was wrong on President Bush's successful change of strategy in Iraq is as laughable as it is disingenuous. It also calls into question his qualifications to be president.
Obama was clearly opposed to the surge as he courted the Democrats' anti-war base. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence," he said in 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."
But when he was confronted this week by ABC News' Terry Moran with the success of the surge, asking if he would have supported it knowing what he knows now, Obama's answer was "no."
Along with his refusal to admit the mistake came something else: an endless stream of double talk obviously designed to distract from our military's successes in Iraq. Obama spoke of "a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops." He added that "it wasn't any doubt that you have an additional 20,000 troops, and where they are right there, it is going to have an impact."
So after insisting the surge "will do the reverse" of quelling "sectarian violence," Obama now claims what he really said was that it would "have an impact" — meaning a positive impact.
As craftily worded as this may be, it's simply a lie. Moreover, the "political factors" Obama refers to — the Anbar Awakening in which Sunni chiefs turned against al-Qaida — were, in fact, primarily engineered by the U.S. military's dealings with those chiefs.
Obama's claim that "the Sunnis might have made the same decisions at that time" is no less than an insult to the U.S. commanders who worked so hard to convince the Iraqis it was in their interests.
Obama also provided ABC with this serving of gobbledygook: "The political dynamic was the driving force between that sectarian violence. And we could try to keep a lid on it, but if these underlining dynamics continued to bubble up and explode the way they were, then we would be in a difficult situation. I am glad that, in fact, those political dynamic shifted at the same time that our troops did outstanding work."
Imagine the media scrutiny if that kind of babble came from the mouth of George W. Bush instead of the 21st century's JFK.
No wonder the Obama campaign earlier this month removed the anti-surge statements from its Web site, and stopped listing the surge as part of "The Problem" in its section on Iraq.
Obama's "problem" turned out to be the solution, proving again how feeble his foreign policy judgment would be as commander-in-chief. His dishonesty about it disqualifies him all the more.
Email To Friend |
July 22, 2008
Social Security Change for 2008
SENT BY A READER/CONTRIBUTOR THANKS AGAIN
AFTER YOU READ THIS PLEASE SEND ME YOU OPINION ALSO SEND IT TO YOUR BOOBS IN WASHINGTON. I AM AT oad@alaska.net
Social Security Change for 2008
Please send this on to as many people as you can..
You've got to read this all the way through to the bottom.
I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2008.
LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.
----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. Theyfelt they should have aspecial plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA..! ZILCH...
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK "!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
Then sit back.....
And see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?
Better yet.....
How many people WILL you send this to ?
AFTER YOU READ THIS PLEASE SEND ME YOU OPINION ALSO SEND IT TO YOUR BOOBS IN WASHINGTON. I AM AT oad@alaska.net
Social Security Change for 2008
Please send this on to as many people as you can..
You've got to read this all the way through to the bottom.
I HEREWITH FIRMLY STATE THAT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN, REGARDLESS OF THE OTHER ISSUES, IF HE DOES NOT SPONSOR AND SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION. THAT INCLUDES EVERYONE STANDING FOR ELECTION IN 2008.
LET US SHOW OUR LEADERS IN WASHINGTON "PEOPLE POWER" AND THE POWER OF THE INTERNET. LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE WITH ME ON THIS BY FORWARDING TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT!
KEEP IT GOING!!!!
2008 Election Issue!!
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
This must be an issue in "2008" Please! Keep it going.
----------------------------------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. Theyfelt they should have aspecial plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments..
For example, Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275, 000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA..! ZILCH...
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK "!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer). We can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator! Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to:
Jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us
Then sit back.....
And see how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people CAN you send this to?
Better yet.....
How many people WILL you send this to ?
Letter to the Editor from a Cuban . . .
SENT TO US BY A READER
Letter to the Editor from a Cuban . . .
A most interesting and foreboding letter.
From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008 ~
Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:
'Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40Th anniversary of my independence.
'On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
'I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'
'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
'Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
'Would we?'
Manuel Alvarez, Jr.
Letter to the Editor from a Cuban . . .
A most interesting and foreboding letter.
From Richmond Times-Dispatch, Monday, July 7, 2008 ~
Dear Editor, Times-Dispatch:
'Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day, and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40Th anniversary of my independence.
'On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba, and a few months later, I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
'I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
'When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said, 'Praise the Lord.' And when the young leader said, 'I will be for change and I'll bring you change,' everyone yelled, 'Viva Fidel!'
'But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent, the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education, it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented, Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over, more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
'Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
'Would we?'
Manuel Alvarez, Jr.
$300 Oil Unless U.S. Cuts Import Need
Pickens: $300 Oil Unless U.S. Cuts Import Need
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:54 PM
WASHINGTON -- Oil prices will hit $300 a barrel in 10 years if the United States fails to reduce its dependence on foreign imports, billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens said on Tuesday.
The United States imports nearly 70 percent of its oil now and Pickens said the world's top petroleum-consuming nation would import 80 percent in a decade if it does not aggressively tap its own natural gas and renewable resources.
"If we continue to drift, oil will hit $300 a barrel in 10 years," Pickens said during testimony at a Senate hearing.
Pickens who heads the hedge fund BP Capital, is building a 4,000 megawatt, $10 billion wind farm in Northern Texas that should start generating power in 2011.
He has been touring the country with a plan to cut oil imports by switching the use of domestic natural gas from firing power plants to powering cars. He hopes the federal government and private investors will build a massive wind farm system in the middle of the country from Mexico to Canada to replace the natural gas that would be used for transport.
There are some 8 million vehicles in the world that run on natural gas, but only about 140,000 of them in the United States, said Pickens, adding that he owns a Honda car that runs on natural gas he taps from his home line.
House Democrats were to hold a closed door caucus meeting with Pickens on Tuesday evening to discuss his plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Pickens, a lifelong Republican, said he is not favoring either party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, but will vote for the candidate with the best energy plan.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:54 PM
WASHINGTON -- Oil prices will hit $300 a barrel in 10 years if the United States fails to reduce its dependence on foreign imports, billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens said on Tuesday.
The United States imports nearly 70 percent of its oil now and Pickens said the world's top petroleum-consuming nation would import 80 percent in a decade if it does not aggressively tap its own natural gas and renewable resources.
"If we continue to drift, oil will hit $300 a barrel in 10 years," Pickens said during testimony at a Senate hearing.
Pickens who heads the hedge fund BP Capital, is building a 4,000 megawatt, $10 billion wind farm in Northern Texas that should start generating power in 2011.
He has been touring the country with a plan to cut oil imports by switching the use of domestic natural gas from firing power plants to powering cars. He hopes the federal government and private investors will build a massive wind farm system in the middle of the country from Mexico to Canada to replace the natural gas that would be used for transport.
There are some 8 million vehicles in the world that run on natural gas, but only about 140,000 of them in the United States, said Pickens, adding that he owns a Honda car that runs on natural gas he taps from his home line.
House Democrats were to hold a closed door caucus meeting with Pickens on Tuesday evening to discuss his plan to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
Pickens, a lifelong Republican, said he is not favoring either party in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, but will vote for the candidate with the best energy plan.
Pelosi's Price
Pelosi's Price
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Congress: Americans expect and need a Speaker of the House who offers common-sense leadership to direct bipartisan legislative action. Nancy Pelosi is not up to that task, and our nation is the loser.
It's bad enough that Rep. Pelosi refuses to embrace reality, evaluate facts and oversee meaningful debate. But the hissy fits she throws against President Bush and the Republican minority are worse yet. This is a sad situation.
Pelosi's reaction to Bush's lifting of the ban on offshore drilling is a perfect example. She called the action a giveaway of "more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased."
The key phrase is "public" resources — not Democratic resources or Pelosi's resources — and polls clearly show Americans are behind coastal drilling. The speaker knows that.
Her demonizing of Big Oil doesn't make sense, either. The companies want to get oil out of the ground. Their exploratory technology is very effective, and they're drilling extensively. But not all lease properties have oil that's readily recoverable.
Pelosi says the president's action is a "gift of more profits for the oil companies." Does she prefer that foreign, and often hostile, nations make the profits? Well, they are. She knows that, too.
"The Bush plan is a hoax," Pelosi charges, ignoring the fact that we know large reserves are located off our shores, in Western oil-shale deposits and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Bush says let's get it as quickly as possible, drilling responsibly off our shores, in the West's oil shale formations and on 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres in ANWR. Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oil field, has proved we can do so and not hurt the environment. It can be done, and America needs it. Pelosi also knows that.
Pelosi wonders that if congressional action is so important, "why didn't the Republicans pass it when they were in control?" She seems to doubt the need for any debate on drilling. This is scary.
The two parties have bumped heads on this issue since the Carter years. Surely the speaker remembers 1995, when she voted against a GOP bill to drill in ANWR. It passed both the House and Senate only to be vetoed by President Clinton. She knows that as well.
Last weekend, Pelosi responded to Bush's criticism of Congress by calling him "a total failure." It was a telling interview, with CNN's Wolf Blitzer pressing her on topics including offshore drilling. Each time she blamed everybody but Congress.
The real failure is Pelosi's refusal to address reality and lead. The nation knows that.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Congress: Americans expect and need a Speaker of the House who offers common-sense leadership to direct bipartisan legislative action. Nancy Pelosi is not up to that task, and our nation is the loser.
It's bad enough that Rep. Pelosi refuses to embrace reality, evaluate facts and oversee meaningful debate. But the hissy fits she throws against President Bush and the Republican minority are worse yet. This is a sad situation.
Pelosi's reaction to Bush's lifting of the ban on offshore drilling is a perfect example. She called the action a giveaway of "more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased."
The key phrase is "public" resources — not Democratic resources or Pelosi's resources — and polls clearly show Americans are behind coastal drilling. The speaker knows that.
Her demonizing of Big Oil doesn't make sense, either. The companies want to get oil out of the ground. Their exploratory technology is very effective, and they're drilling extensively. But not all lease properties have oil that's readily recoverable.
Pelosi says the president's action is a "gift of more profits for the oil companies." Does she prefer that foreign, and often hostile, nations make the profits? Well, they are. She knows that, too.
"The Bush plan is a hoax," Pelosi charges, ignoring the fact that we know large reserves are located off our shores, in Western oil-shale deposits and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Bush says let's get it as quickly as possible, drilling responsibly off our shores, in the West's oil shale formations and on 2,000 acres of the 19 million acres in ANWR. Prudhoe Bay, North America's largest oil field, has proved we can do so and not hurt the environment. It can be done, and America needs it. Pelosi also knows that.
Pelosi wonders that if congressional action is so important, "why didn't the Republicans pass it when they were in control?" She seems to doubt the need for any debate on drilling. This is scary.
The two parties have bumped heads on this issue since the Carter years. Surely the speaker remembers 1995, when she voted against a GOP bill to drill in ANWR. It passed both the House and Senate only to be vetoed by President Clinton. She knows that as well.
Last weekend, Pelosi responded to Bush's criticism of Congress by calling him "a total failure." It was a telling interview, with CNN's Wolf Blitzer pressing her on topics including offshore drilling. Each time she blamed everybody but Congress.
The real failure is Pelosi's refusal to address reality and lead. The nation knows that.
Obama Flip-Flops on School Choice
CNSNews.com
Obama Flip-Flops on School Choice, Catholic Group Says
Monday, July 21, 2008
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - While Republicans are criticizing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for alleged flip-flops on various issues, a Catholic organization last week criticized Obama for apparently changing his stance on school choice.
Speaking to a Wisconsin newspaper in February, Obama said he was skeptical about providing government vouchers for children to attend private schools. However, he seemed to indicate he would be open to the idea.
“If there was any argument for vouchers, it was, ‘Let’s see if the experiment works,’” Obama said. “And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what's best for kids.”
The flexible approach was less apparent when Obama spoke to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) last week, where he pledged to oppose any voucher proposals. (See Previous Story)
That was a case of pandering to the union that opposes vouchers, said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a Catholic civil rights group that supports school vouchers.
“It’s so easy to tell the media that keeping an open mind on school vouchers is the best way to go,” Donohue said in a statement last week. “But when cash counts – and the American Federation of Teachers has plenty of it – who cares about principle? Fact is, no amount of empirical evidence was ever going to change his mind.”
Obama told the AFT – shortly after the union endorsed his candidacy – that his Republican opponent’s “only proposal seems to be recycling tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice.”
Obama told the teachers’ union that he supported public charter schools, but added, “What I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools, not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
The previous week, presumptive GOP presidential candidate John McCain told the League of United Latin American Citizens convention that “the civil rights challenge of our time is education. We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition. … We need to empower parents with choice.”
McCain’s campaign Web site says, “If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children.”
Obama has been facing Republican scrutiny for apparently changing his position on a number of issues since Sen. Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
Many Republicans and independent political analysts say Obama has flip-flopped on public financing, phone surveillance for national security reasons, gun rights, Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capitol,” and a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, among other issues.
Democrats have in turn criticized McCain for apparently shifting his stance on immigration reform, domestic oil drilling and tax cuts.
The flip-flops, or policy shifts, seem to have affected Obama slightly more, according to a recent poll.
A slim majority of Americans does not think Obama always believes what he says, according to the CBS/New York Times Poll. The poll said that 51 percent believes Obama tells people what they want to hear, while just 43 percent believe Obama says what he believes. That’s down by 10 percent since May among those who think Obama believes what he says, according to the poll. (See Poll Results)
Those numbers are slightly better for McCain, though less than a majority, 46 percent, thinks he says what he believes, down from 51 percent in May. Still more people, 49 percent, think McCain says what people want to hear.
Obama’s campaign did not respond to several requests from Cybercast News Service for comment on this story.
School choice proposals have gained support in many minority communities, but Donohue said that apparently did not affect Obama’s view.
“Obama now joins a long list of African-American elites who wouldn’t dare send their kids to an urban public school, but who works hard at every turn to deny poor black parents the same options he and his wife are so lucky to have,” Donohue said. “We hope that Catholics, as well as African-Americans, get the message.”
Obama Flip-Flops on School Choice, Catholic Group Says
Monday, July 21, 2008
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) - While Republicans are criticizing Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for alleged flip-flops on various issues, a Catholic organization last week criticized Obama for apparently changing his stance on school choice.
Speaking to a Wisconsin newspaper in February, Obama said he was skeptical about providing government vouchers for children to attend private schools. However, he seemed to indicate he would be open to the idea.
“If there was any argument for vouchers, it was, ‘Let’s see if the experiment works,’” Obama said. “And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what's best for kids.”
The flexible approach was less apparent when Obama spoke to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) last week, where he pledged to oppose any voucher proposals. (See Previous Story)
That was a case of pandering to the union that opposes vouchers, said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a Catholic civil rights group that supports school vouchers.
“It’s so easy to tell the media that keeping an open mind on school vouchers is the best way to go,” Donohue said in a statement last week. “But when cash counts – and the American Federation of Teachers has plenty of it – who cares about principle? Fact is, no amount of empirical evidence was ever going to change his mind.”
Obama told the AFT – shortly after the union endorsed his candidacy – that his Republican opponent’s “only proposal seems to be recycling tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice.”
Obama told the teachers’ union that he supported public charter schools, but added, “What I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools, not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”
The previous week, presumptive GOP presidential candidate John McCain told the League of United Latin American Citizens convention that “the civil rights challenge of our time is education. We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition. … We need to empower parents with choice.”
McCain’s campaign Web site says, “If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children.”
Obama has been facing Republican scrutiny for apparently changing his position on a number of issues since Sen. Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
Many Republicans and independent political analysts say Obama has flip-flopped on public financing, phone surveillance for national security reasons, gun rights, Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capitol,” and a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, among other issues.
Democrats have in turn criticized McCain for apparently shifting his stance on immigration reform, domestic oil drilling and tax cuts.
The flip-flops, or policy shifts, seem to have affected Obama slightly more, according to a recent poll.
A slim majority of Americans does not think Obama always believes what he says, according to the CBS/New York Times Poll. The poll said that 51 percent believes Obama tells people what they want to hear, while just 43 percent believe Obama says what he believes. That’s down by 10 percent since May among those who think Obama believes what he says, according to the poll. (See Poll Results)
Those numbers are slightly better for McCain, though less than a majority, 46 percent, thinks he says what he believes, down from 51 percent in May. Still more people, 49 percent, think McCain says what people want to hear.
Obama’s campaign did not respond to several requests from Cybercast News Service for comment on this story.
School choice proposals have gained support in many minority communities, but Donohue said that apparently did not affect Obama’s view.
“Obama now joins a long list of African-American elites who wouldn’t dare send their kids to an urban public school, but who works hard at every turn to deny poor black parents the same options he and his wife are so lucky to have,” Donohue said. “We hope that Catholics, as well as African-Americans, get the message.”
Obama: Healthcare for Illegals
THIS IDIOT WILL GIVE THIS COUNTRY AWAY IF BY CHANCE HE IS ELECTED. FOLKS IT IS IN YOUR HANDS WITH YOUR VOTE TO DETERMINE THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY. EXAMINE
QUESTION, QUESTION THE ANSWER TOO AND REMEMBER VOTE.
Obama: Healthcare for Illegals
Monday, July 21, 2008 9:06 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Democrats' single most important domestic proposal — universal health insurance — may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.
Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"
That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.
About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up, mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)
The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.
Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?
Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.
Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.
Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions, as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)
But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.
These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.
John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.
McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance — and hit it hard.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
QUESTION, QUESTION THE ANSWER TOO AND REMEMBER VOTE.
Obama: Healthcare for Illegals
Monday, July 21, 2008 9:06 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Democrats' single most important domestic proposal — universal health insurance — may blow up in Barack Obama's face when voters are exposed to the deadly details.
Obama has said, proudly and often, "I am going to give health insurance to 47 million Americans who are now without coverage." But are they "Americans?"
That 47 million statistic includes illegal immigrants, who virtually all lack insurance. In fact, about one in four of those lacking insurance is here illegally. And they are, by far, the group most in need of health insurance.
About 15 million of the remaining uninsured are eligible for Medicaid but haven't signed up, mainly because they haven't gotten sick. When they do, they enroll in Medicaid and we pick up the full tab for their health care relatively cheaply. (About 80 percent of each Medicaid dollar goes to nursing-home care for the elderly, only about 20 percent for the medical needs of the poor.)
The rest of the uninsured pool? Virtually all the children are eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Some aren't enrolled because the parents haven't bothered, but most are eligible. That leaves about 20 million uninsured adults who are US citizens or legal immigrants. There are far better ways to handle their needs than to turn our entire health-care system upside down.
Care for illegals is the biggest unmet medical need in our nation, and Obama's program targets it squarely. But do we really want to give them federally paid coverage equal to what US senators get, as Obama proposes?
Covering illegals adds dramatically to the cost of any program - and would encourage more folks to enter America illicitly.
Obama's plan will likely have a horrific effect on some local health-care systems.
Illegals now get free emergency-room treatment for life-threatening conditions, as any other American who's entered an ER in an area with lots of illegals recently well knows. (Three-quarters of the illegal-immigrant population is concentrated in five states: California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois.)
But now they'd be eligible for the entire range of medical services, all free of charge. That would trigger severe rationing: bureaucrats deciding who gets to see an oncologist, who can have an MRI - and even who can have bypass surgery and who'd die for lack of it.
These decisions would be made not on the basis of legal status but on the brutal facts of triage: Treat the 37-year-old illegal with his whole life to live before you spend scarce resources on an overweight, diabetic, 80-year-old citizen with high blood pressure who smokes.
John McCain hasn't raised this issue, perhaps for fear of offending the Latino vote. But polling suggests the case against rationing of health care would be as persuasive to Hispanic-American citizens as it is to the rest of us. Nobody wants to die waiting in line - especially not behind someone who snuck in ahead of us.
McCain needs to hit the Obama plan for treating illegal immigrants to free, federally subsidized health insurance — and hit it hard.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
July 21, 2008
Short of changing history?
We are just 28 signatures short of changing history?
There's a rebellion afoot in the U.S. House of Representatives. What kind of rebellion? A rebellion against . . .
. . . greed, indifference, and a House leadership uncaring of the plight of ordinary Americans. (It's about time there was a rebellion. New polling shows that only 18% of Americans are happy with Congress!)
You've heard of the SAVE Act by now, haven't you? It should be called the "Solve Illegal Immigration Act," because that's what it will do.
Our champion, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), has written a masterful bill that would choke off illegal immigration at its ultimate source--jobs going to illegal aliens.
By requiring employers to verify the Social Security numbers presented by new employees with a simple government database, most illegal aliens can be found out and denied jobs.
Added to the great additional border protections in the bill, shutting off the job magnet will gradually send most illegals packing for their home countries. For them, it will be too hard to get in with less gain in staying.
Now Shuler's brilliant bill has a real chance of becoming law. Our friends in Congress have launched an end-run against Nancy Pelosi and her House leadership.
A "discharge petition" effort has been launched. If a majority of the House members sign the discharge petition, Pelosi will be forced by House rules to schedule a vote on the bill. Passage would then be virtually guaranteed, since the majority are already on record supporting it.
We are now only 28 signatures short of success in the petition. This is big news! Only about two dozen discharge petitions have ever succeeded, and we are close to achieving that.
Do you see now why Roy and Rosemary and the rest of the NumbersUSA team have pushed the SAVE Act discharge petition so forcefully?
Yet for us to keep sending millions of your faxes to Congress, to keep the nation's finest lobbyists pressing our case on Capitol Hill, to keep this web site humming, we have an urgent need for more financial support this summer.
I'm very aware that times are very hard in the economy now. Gas prices are high. Food has risen. Jobs are scarce. Houses are being repossessed right here in my Northern Virginia neighborhood.
Many of our NumbersUSA members are having to take their belts in a notch. As a result, giving is off this summer to NumbersUSA.
Even though times are tough, we cannot stumble this close to victory. Members who can still give really need to step up, and pick up the burden from those who don't have jobs or money. Only if we pitch in together now can we hope to win.
Remember, if you are ill, unemployed, or living on a small fixed income, please do not contribute. We only ask for help from those able to help.
JIM ROBB
Vice President, Operations
NumbersUSA
There's a rebellion afoot in the U.S. House of Representatives. What kind of rebellion? A rebellion against . . .
. . . greed, indifference, and a House leadership uncaring of the plight of ordinary Americans. (It's about time there was a rebellion. New polling shows that only 18% of Americans are happy with Congress!)
You've heard of the SAVE Act by now, haven't you? It should be called the "Solve Illegal Immigration Act," because that's what it will do.
Our champion, Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC), has written a masterful bill that would choke off illegal immigration at its ultimate source--jobs going to illegal aliens.
By requiring employers to verify the Social Security numbers presented by new employees with a simple government database, most illegal aliens can be found out and denied jobs.
Added to the great additional border protections in the bill, shutting off the job magnet will gradually send most illegals packing for their home countries. For them, it will be too hard to get in with less gain in staying.
Now Shuler's brilliant bill has a real chance of becoming law. Our friends in Congress have launched an end-run against Nancy Pelosi and her House leadership.
A "discharge petition" effort has been launched. If a majority of the House members sign the discharge petition, Pelosi will be forced by House rules to schedule a vote on the bill. Passage would then be virtually guaranteed, since the majority are already on record supporting it.
We are now only 28 signatures short of success in the petition. This is big news! Only about two dozen discharge petitions have ever succeeded, and we are close to achieving that.
Do you see now why Roy and Rosemary and the rest of the NumbersUSA team have pushed the SAVE Act discharge petition so forcefully?
Yet for us to keep sending millions of your faxes to Congress, to keep the nation's finest lobbyists pressing our case on Capitol Hill, to keep this web site humming, we have an urgent need for more financial support this summer.
I'm very aware that times are very hard in the economy now. Gas prices are high. Food has risen. Jobs are scarce. Houses are being repossessed right here in my Northern Virginia neighborhood.
Many of our NumbersUSA members are having to take their belts in a notch. As a result, giving is off this summer to NumbersUSA.
Even though times are tough, we cannot stumble this close to victory. Members who can still give really need to step up, and pick up the burden from those who don't have jobs or money. Only if we pitch in together now can we hope to win.
Remember, if you are ill, unemployed, or living on a small fixed income, please do not contribute. We only ask for help from those able to help.
JIM ROBB
Vice President, Operations
NumbersUSA
July 20, 2008
LISTEN TO THE WORDS
Dear Friends,
As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack
Obama made the statement with pride. . ."we are no longer a Christian
nation; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . . . As
with so many other statements I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never
thought I'd see the day that I'd hear something like that from a
presidential candidate in this nation. To think our forefathers fought and
died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--and to have this
man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this nation has come
from what our founding fathers intended it to be.
I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns,
written simply and sincerely, to the Christians on your email list. With
God's help, and He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can
show this man and the world in November that we are, indeed, still a Christian
nation!
Please pray for our nation!
FORWARDED FROM A READER/CONTRIBUTOR THANKS A.H.D.
As I was listening to a news program last night, I watched in horror as Barack
Obama made the statement with pride. . ."we are no longer a Christian
nation; we are now a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, . . . As
with so many other statements I've heard him (and his wife) make, I never
thought I'd see the day that I'd hear something like that from a
presidential candidate in this nation. To think our forefathers fought and
died for the right for our nation to be a Christian nation--and to have this
man say with pride that we are no longer that. How far this nation has come
from what our founding fathers intended it to be.
I hope that each of you will do what I'm doing now--send your concerns,
written simply and sincerely, to the Christians on your email list. With
God's help, and He is still in control of this nation and all else, we can
show this man and the world in November that we are, indeed, still a Christian
nation!
Please pray for our nation!
FORWARDED FROM A READER/CONTRIBUTOR THANKS A.H.D.
July 19, 2008
Make sure your child can speak Spanish!" - Barack Hussein Obama
OBAMA SEZ!!!
"But understand this... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!" - Barack Hussein Obama
12-20 million illegal aliens blatantly violated our laws when they came to United States illegally. They take jobs away from hard-working Americans and legal immigrants who played by the rules and waited in line to have a chance at living the American Dream!
And what's Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn our language or assimilate into our culture?
In his own words:
"Understand this... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!"
"Make sure your child can speak Spanish..." Excuse me?
Make no mistake. He said it! And if you're one of the millions of Americans who did not actually hear him say it... NOW YOU CAN!
We've just produced our fourth hard-hitting commercial and we want you to be among the first to see it. You can watch Barack Hussein Obama swagger across a stage and lecture the American people with an elitist and condescending tone, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish! "
Use this hyperlink to watch our latest commercial... We really want you to see it because CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN aren't going to broadcast it across the airwaves 24-7!
And then, IF you agree every American NEEDS to see Barack Hussein Obama swagger across with stage and DEMAND that people make sure their children learn Spanish, ask yourself if it is worth $25.00 or $50.00 or $100.00 or even the maximum allowable contribution of $5,000 to help us broadcast Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn English to the American people?
To be among the FIRST TO SEE this commercial, use this hyperlink or direct your browser to http://www.exposeobama.com/obamasaysspeakspanishnm.html.
But That's Not All Obama Said...
Obama recently spoke at the annual La Raza convention and accused United States law enforcement officers of TERRORIZING people!
According the the San Diego Union Tribune Obama said:
"The system isn't working... when communities are terrorized by (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) immigration raids,
when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing."
Communities "terrorized"...? Babies torn from their mothers while they are nursing...? Children coming home from school to find their parents have been secretly spirited away...?
Is he serious?
Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to enforce our laws and secure our liberties.
To hear Obama talk, you would think they're jack-booted thugs!
And that's a strange point of view coming from a man who associates with the likes of:
Weather Underground member William Ayers, who advocated a dozen bombings, including the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972...
Jodie Evans, a radical, anti-American activist who facilitated over $600,000 in aid to Islamic radicals in Iraq...
Frank Marshall Davis, the anti-Christian radical and known member of the Communist Party USA who Obama looked upon as a "father," and let us not forget...
The Rev. Jeremiah "God D___ America" Wright, a man who called this great country the "U. S. of K.K.K. A"
Apparently people like Evans and Ayers and Davis and Rev. Wright aren't what's wrong with America.
The problem is "bitter" people like you who "cling to guns and religion."
The world would be a much better place if you simply got over your narrow-minded views and simply made sure your children learned Spanish!
Use this hyperlink to watch our latest commercial... We really want you to see it because CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN aren't going to broadcast it across the airwaves 24-7!
And then, IF you agree Every American NEEDS to see Barack Hussein Obama swagger across with stage and DEMAND that people make sure their children learn Spanish, ask yourself if it is worth $25.00 or $50.00 or $100.00 or even the maximum allowable contribution of $5,000 to help us broadcast Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn English to the American people?
To be among the FIRST TO SEE this commercial, use this hyperlink or direct your browser to http://www.exposeobama.com/obamasaysspeakspanishnm.html.
And Obama Wasn't Speaking To The Local Chamber of Commerce; He Was Speaking To La Raza.
Possibly the most difficult irony to swallow is that when Barack Hussein Obama accused our law enforcement officers of "terrorizing" entire communities, he was speaking to La Raza.
Perhaps you've never heard of The National Council of La Raza (La Raza).
The liberal media tells us that La Raza (which literally translates to "The Race") is a civil rights advocacy group.
And that much is true; but some credible sources have also advocated the view that La Raza is tacitly allied to a much larger movement with a dark underbelly.
According to Judicial Watch:
"Americans should be outraged that their tax dollars are going to a group that, not only advocates open borders but organized many of the country's disruptive pro illegal immigration marches a year ago. Although the National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, it actually caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan."
"The takeover plan is referred to as the 'reconquista' of the Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and converted to Aztlan. While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite powerful and its leaders regularly attend congressional hearings regarding immigration."
The late-Congressman Charlie Norwood had this to say in an article published by Human Events just prior to his death:
"Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions."
"Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
"One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.
"This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:
"'Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.' (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)"
So, when Barack Hussein Obama tells you your children must learn to speak Spanish, who is he pandering to?
Americans deserve to the answer to that question. And moreover, they need to hear Obama say -- IN HIS OWN WORDS -- that your children need to learn Spanish.
You can see it NOW!
Use this hyperlink to watch our latest commercial... We really want you to see it because CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN aren't going to broadcast it across the airwaves 24-7!
And then, IF you agree Every American NEEDS to see Barack Hussein Obama swagger across with stage and DEMAND that people make sure their children learn Spanish, ask yourself if it is worth $25.00 or $50.00 or $100.00 or even the maximum allowable contribution of $5,000 to help us broadcast Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn English to the American people?
To be among the FIRST TO SEE this commercial, use this hyperlink or direct your browser to http://www.exposeobama.com/obamasaysspeakspanishnm.html.
Floyd Brown
ExposeObama.com
P.S. Even if you can not join us in this effort right now, you can still help us expose Barack Hussein Obama by sending this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends.
"But understand this... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!" - Barack Hussein Obama
12-20 million illegal aliens blatantly violated our laws when they came to United States illegally. They take jobs away from hard-working Americans and legal immigrants who played by the rules and waited in line to have a chance at living the American Dream!
And what's Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn our language or assimilate into our culture?
In his own words:
"Understand this... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!"
"Make sure your child can speak Spanish..." Excuse me?
Make no mistake. He said it! And if you're one of the millions of Americans who did not actually hear him say it... NOW YOU CAN!
We've just produced our fourth hard-hitting commercial and we want you to be among the first to see it. You can watch Barack Hussein Obama swagger across a stage and lecture the American people with an elitist and condescending tone, "you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish! "
Use this hyperlink to watch our latest commercial... We really want you to see it because CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN aren't going to broadcast it across the airwaves 24-7!
And then, IF you agree every American NEEDS to see Barack Hussein Obama swagger across with stage and DEMAND that people make sure their children learn Spanish, ask yourself if it is worth $25.00 or $50.00 or $100.00 or even the maximum allowable contribution of $5,000 to help us broadcast Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn English to the American people?
To be among the FIRST TO SEE this commercial, use this hyperlink or direct your browser to http://www.exposeobama.com/obamasaysspeakspanishnm.html.
But That's Not All Obama Said...
Obama recently spoke at the annual La Raza convention and accused United States law enforcement officers of TERRORIZING people!
According the the San Diego Union Tribune Obama said:
"The system isn't working... when communities are terrorized by (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) immigration raids,
when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing."
Communities "terrorized"...? Babies torn from their mothers while they are nursing...? Children coming home from school to find their parents have been secretly spirited away...?
Is he serious?
Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to enforce our laws and secure our liberties.
To hear Obama talk, you would think they're jack-booted thugs!
And that's a strange point of view coming from a man who associates with the likes of:
Weather Underground member William Ayers, who advocated a dozen bombings, including the bombing of the U.S. Capitol building in 1971 and the Pentagon in 1972...
Jodie Evans, a radical, anti-American activist who facilitated over $600,000 in aid to Islamic radicals in Iraq...
Frank Marshall Davis, the anti-Christian radical and known member of the Communist Party USA who Obama looked upon as a "father," and let us not forget...
The Rev. Jeremiah "God D___ America" Wright, a man who called this great country the "U. S. of K.K.K. A"
Apparently people like Evans and Ayers and Davis and Rev. Wright aren't what's wrong with America.
The problem is "bitter" people like you who "cling to guns and religion."
The world would be a much better place if you simply got over your narrow-minded views and simply made sure your children learned Spanish!
Use this hyperlink to watch our latest commercial... We really want you to see it because CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN aren't going to broadcast it across the airwaves 24-7!
And then, IF you agree Every American NEEDS to see Barack Hussein Obama swagger across with stage and DEMAND that people make sure their children learn Spanish, ask yourself if it is worth $25.00 or $50.00 or $100.00 or even the maximum allowable contribution of $5,000 to help us broadcast Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn English to the American people?
To be among the FIRST TO SEE this commercial, use this hyperlink or direct your browser to http://www.exposeobama.com/obamasaysspeakspanishnm.html.
And Obama Wasn't Speaking To The Local Chamber of Commerce; He Was Speaking To La Raza.
Possibly the most difficult irony to swallow is that when Barack Hussein Obama accused our law enforcement officers of "terrorizing" entire communities, he was speaking to La Raza.
Perhaps you've never heard of The National Council of La Raza (La Raza).
The liberal media tells us that La Raza (which literally translates to "The Race") is a civil rights advocacy group.
And that much is true; but some credible sources have also advocated the view that La Raza is tacitly allied to a much larger movement with a dark underbelly.
According to Judicial Watch:
"Americans should be outraged that their tax dollars are going to a group that, not only advocates open borders but organized many of the country's disruptive pro illegal immigration marches a year ago. Although the National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, it actually caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong to Aztlan."
"The takeover plan is referred to as the 'reconquista' of the Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans, Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and converted to Aztlan. While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite powerful and its leaders regularly attend congressional hearings regarding immigration."
The late-Congressman Charlie Norwood had this to say in an article published by Human Events just prior to his death:
"Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions."
"Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.
"One of America's greatest strengths has always been taking in immigrants from cultures around the world, and assimilating them into our country as Americans. By being citizens of the U.S. we are Americans first, and only, in our national loyalties.
"This is totally opposed by MEChA for the hordes of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, to whom they say:
"'Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.' (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)"
So, when Barack Hussein Obama tells you your children must learn to speak Spanish, who is he pandering to?
Americans deserve to the answer to that question. And moreover, they need to hear Obama say -- IN HIS OWN WORDS -- that your children need to learn Spanish.
You can see it NOW!
Use this hyperlink to watch our latest commercial... We really want you to see it because CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN aren't going to broadcast it across the airwaves 24-7!
And then, IF you agree Every American NEEDS to see Barack Hussein Obama swagger across with stage and DEMAND that people make sure their children learn Spanish, ask yourself if it is worth $25.00 or $50.00 or $100.00 or even the maximum allowable contribution of $5,000 to help us broadcast Barack Hussein Obama's solution to the problem of millions of illegal aliens who REFUSE to learn English to the American people?
To be among the FIRST TO SEE this commercial, use this hyperlink or direct your browser to http://www.exposeobama.com/obamasaysspeakspanishnm.html.
Floyd Brown
ExposeObama.com
P.S. Even if you can not join us in this effort right now, you can still help us expose Barack Hussein Obama by sending this e-mail to at least 10 of your friends.
Winning Isn't News
Winning Isn't News
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.
London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.
Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.
Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks — a big change for the better from a year ago.
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad — an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.
The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.
London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.
The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.
We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.
Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.
Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.
Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.
Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks — a big change for the better from a year ago.
Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad — an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.
But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.
The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.
Democrats: Party of Special Interests
Democrats: Party of Special Interests
Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:38 PM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
Barack Obama is given to calling the GOP a party captive of hateful special interests.
It takes a lot of what my Jewish friends call “chutzpah” to suggest that unnamed special interests control the Republican Party when his own party is totally captive to the most wealthy and powerful special interests in the nation.
Obama and the national Democratic Party is owned lock, stock and barrel by the teachers’ unions, the bosses of big labor, cash-heavy, tree-hugging environmental groups, and Planned Parenthood and its allies in the sleazy abortion industry.
And boy, do Obama and his fellow Democrats dance to their tunes! When they say “waltz,” in a second he’s out there on the political stage whirling obediently to their three-step beat.
In February 2008, Obama spoke to reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel saying, “Let’s see if this [school voucher] experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what’s best for kids.”
He danced a different waltz on Saturday, July 12, when he told the American Federation of Teachers (which, with the National Education Association, owns the Democratic Party) that like them he was opposed to vouchers, and when his campaign was asked about his newest stand on the issue, it released a statement saying, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.”
Oh?
Said Catholic League president Bill Donohue: “Guess Obama couldn’t resist pandering to the teachers union. It’s so easy to tell the media that keeping an open mind on school vouchers is the best way to go. But when cash counts — and the American Federation of Teachers has plenty of it — who cares about principle? Fact is, no amount of empirical evidence was ever going to change his mind.”
Then there’s the matter of the current crisis in oil prices. One patently obvious answer to the problem of relaxing our dependence on foreign oil supplies is to exploit the massive oceans of oil waiting patiently to be found here at home and in the waters offshore, and in Alaska.
It’s just plain common sense that when you have enough oil beneath the surface in your own backyard to meet your needs just about forever you should start getting hold of it and stop paying tens of billions to foreign nations who have us by the short hairs.
Any five-year-old with enough sense to come in out of the rain would understand that given the vast supplies of oil available to us here at home it is just plain idiocy to keep ourselves utterly reliant on foreign sources of the stuff.
Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats don’t see it that way. They’re not allowed to. Their elitist lords and masters in the environmental movement won’t permit it, and should they defy the tree huggers they’d lose all those lovely dollars the greenies keep shoveling into their coffers and those of their candidates running for re-election to Congress.
So they fall back on the old canard that even if we started drilling here it would take years for the United States to see any results, ignoring the fact that by telling all those Arab potentates and the Marxist dictator in Venezuela that the gravy train is going to come to a grinding halt in the near future, we’re warning them that if they don’t increase supply now we’ll stop buying from them as soon as we can.
Republicans are demanding that the Democrat-controlled Congress approve drilling here at home now. The environmentalist lobby — which hates automobiles and fossil fuels almost as much as they hate people — owns Barack Obama and his Democratic Party, and they say “no drilling.” Barack Obama and the Democratic Party obey.
Then there’s big labor, which is running short on members whose compulsory dues they use to finance Democratic candidates. They want an end to secret balloting in certain labor elections, and Obama bends his knee and pledges to do big labor’s bidding, and to heck with workers’ rights.
Then there’s the abortion industry. When they say killing the unborn is just dandy, Obama agrees. And the big bucks from the multi-billion dollar baby-killing industry flow into his coffers.
He knows who his bosses are.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:38 PM
By: Michael Reagan Article Font Size
Barack Obama is given to calling the GOP a party captive of hateful special interests.
It takes a lot of what my Jewish friends call “chutzpah” to suggest that unnamed special interests control the Republican Party when his own party is totally captive to the most wealthy and powerful special interests in the nation.
Obama and the national Democratic Party is owned lock, stock and barrel by the teachers’ unions, the bosses of big labor, cash-heavy, tree-hugging environmental groups, and Planned Parenthood and its allies in the sleazy abortion industry.
And boy, do Obama and his fellow Democrats dance to their tunes! When they say “waltz,” in a second he’s out there on the political stage whirling obediently to their three-step beat.
In February 2008, Obama spoke to reporters from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel saying, “Let’s see if this [school voucher] experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what’s best for kids.”
He danced a different waltz on Saturday, July 12, when he told the American Federation of Teachers (which, with the National Education Association, owns the Democratic Party) that like them he was opposed to vouchers, and when his campaign was asked about his newest stand on the issue, it released a statement saying, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.”
Oh?
Said Catholic League president Bill Donohue: “Guess Obama couldn’t resist pandering to the teachers union. It’s so easy to tell the media that keeping an open mind on school vouchers is the best way to go. But when cash counts — and the American Federation of Teachers has plenty of it — who cares about principle? Fact is, no amount of empirical evidence was ever going to change his mind.”
Then there’s the matter of the current crisis in oil prices. One patently obvious answer to the problem of relaxing our dependence on foreign oil supplies is to exploit the massive oceans of oil waiting patiently to be found here at home and in the waters offshore, and in Alaska.
It’s just plain common sense that when you have enough oil beneath the surface in your own backyard to meet your needs just about forever you should start getting hold of it and stop paying tens of billions to foreign nations who have us by the short hairs.
Any five-year-old with enough sense to come in out of the rain would understand that given the vast supplies of oil available to us here at home it is just plain idiocy to keep ourselves utterly reliant on foreign sources of the stuff.
Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats don’t see it that way. They’re not allowed to. Their elitist lords and masters in the environmental movement won’t permit it, and should they defy the tree huggers they’d lose all those lovely dollars the greenies keep shoveling into their coffers and those of their candidates running for re-election to Congress.
So they fall back on the old canard that even if we started drilling here it would take years for the United States to see any results, ignoring the fact that by telling all those Arab potentates and the Marxist dictator in Venezuela that the gravy train is going to come to a grinding halt in the near future, we’re warning them that if they don’t increase supply now we’ll stop buying from them as soon as we can.
Republicans are demanding that the Democrat-controlled Congress approve drilling here at home now. The environmentalist lobby — which hates automobiles and fossil fuels almost as much as they hate people — owns Barack Obama and his Democratic Party, and they say “no drilling.” Barack Obama and the Democratic Party obey.
Then there’s big labor, which is running short on members whose compulsory dues they use to finance Democratic candidates. They want an end to secret balloting in certain labor elections, and Obama bends his knee and pledges to do big labor’s bidding, and to heck with workers’ rights.
Then there’s the abortion industry. When they say killing the unborn is just dandy, Obama agrees. And the big bucks from the multi-billion dollar baby-killing industry flow into his coffers.
He knows who his bosses are.
© 2008 Mike Reagan
Subject: THE FROG THEORY
THIS ARTICLE SENT BY A READER/FRIEND
Subject: THE FROG THEORY
THE FROG THEORY
If you drop a frog in boiling water he will leap right out. If you slowly heat the water he will be content until it's too late to get out.
That is exactly how history works. It moves slowly and we never really see any danger until it's too late.
Remember how suppressed workers were before unions came along? The unions leveled the playing field.
Unfortunately, over a long period of time the pendulum swung too far. Slowly, businesses and factories closed and jobs left the country. Remember the days, "Buy USA"?
We were comfortable and didn't see the change coming. We blamed everyone except ourselves for what happened.
We weren't alert to how slow things change over time.
World War II, and the Korean War, demonstrated how powerful a united nation could be. Our nation, and our families, were united. We were content and happy.
We were good at fighting a hot war but we were unprepared to fight a cold war with the communists in the 50's.
They knew they couldn't change us but they didn't care. Their philosophy was to wait it out and capture the minds of our children.
They loaded our colleges with many of their professors and waited. It didn't take long to see the results.
The 60''s ushered in the radicals, drug culture, student protesters, and the Vietnam War.
The aim of the cold war was to divide and conquer.
They divided our families and the nation.
The secret to defeating a polite and respectful people is to scream. The louder and longer you scream the better your chance of winning.
Radicals are masters at this form of attack. They know if you constantly scream and repeat a lie it will eventually be seen as truth.
The media, and Hollywood, hammered us with hate America themes and stories.
Our service men, and women, were jeered, cursed, and spit on.
Even the people, who later wanted to become their President, trashed them.
We lost our first War in history.
There was no hero's homecoming for our fighting men and women.
The Reverend King, who was raised in the old school, peacefully changed the race issue and united the people.
When he died the new breed of leaders like the Jesse Jackson's, Lewis Farrakhan's, Al Sharpton's, and Rev. Wright's put a lid on his efforts and turned racism into a money making machine.
Corporations were green-mailed by threats of protests, product boycotts, or endless lawsuits.
Every issue, large or small, became a race issue. The public recoiled in fear of being called a racist.
Their voices were silenced because one word could cost you a career, get you fired, or get you sued.
Even politicians buckled under to the pressure.
The Florida legislature issued a formal apology for having slavery 200 years ago.
They were thanked by being asked for compensation.
There is no end in sight for this kind of nonsense.
America didn't capture slaves and bring them to America. Their own people sold them to slave traders from several nations. It wasn't just an American thing. It went on in the world long before America even came into being.
This knowledge doesn't stop the screamers.
History is what it is and you can't change it. There have been many tragic events in history. You acknowledge them and move on.
They divided our nation into separate Americas.
We now have Americans, and African-Americans, although Africa has nothing to do with being an American. You can be one or the other but not both. You are what you were born to be.
You do not subordinate our country to any foreign nation. It's equivalent to flying the African flag above the Stars and Stripes. If you hyphenate two countries America always comes first. You also cannot be Mexican-American or Asian-American. You can only be American, or leave America and live in the country of your choice. Better run now, while you still have the freedom to do so.
This election year could be the turning point in our history because the frog theory has come into play.
It's time to step back and look at how the country has slowly changed since the cold war started. Don't get caught up in all the hype.
George McGovern was the first Presidential candidate to test the waters with college students. It was the worst campaign ever run. He was crushed in the election.
Step two was to infiltrate all the information vehicles such as radio, newspapers, magazines, TV and movies with sensationalism journalism. They were quite successful at that. We, the people, were 'snowed.' Eventually we had no idea what to believe.
America failed to take out Osama Bin Laden.
This eventually cost us the loss of our Twin Towers, thousands of American lives. We, the people, allowed ourselves to become involved in a war with Iraq when we know we should have been bringing down Al Qaida in Afganistan. We, the people, allowed our President to do this to us. Because we put our stake in capitalism and forgot to take care of ourselves in the process.
The brainwashing theory of repeating the same story over and over again was launched.
There were endless stories about our nation and President George "W" and our place in the eyes of the world faltered.
Top-secret plans were leaked to the press and printed for the entire world to see.
The groundwork was laid for the next election.
The ACLU flooded the courts with lawsuits.
Almost every incumbent, or his or her spouse, is a lawyer.
They now have the perfect candidate because they can squash criticism by playing the race card.
If you don't like Obama, or criticize him, you are a racist.
They can hide his inexperience and background by turning him into a rock star and singing change and hope.
They don't tell us what kind of change, or how it will be done, only that you should hope for the best.
By keeping the hype going they don't have to put anything of substance on the table.
The only thing we really know about Obama is that his wife has never been proud to be an American.
They want us to believe that his liberal college professors, Rev. Pfleger, his ties to radicals Bill Ayers and Lewis Farrakhan and listening to the Rev. Wright's hate talks for 20 years, had no influence on his thinking.
If they didn't, then who did?
He wasn't in business and didn't see fit to serve his country.
These people launched his political career and their organizations received earmarks in return for their campaign donations and political help.
They must have had some influence. Rev. Wright's church received over $15 million. That's only one small local church. Think on a national scale.
Just what is this "change" that is being promoted? Do we really know?
It started in when the lawyers took over. There have been endless lawsuits and investigations. It keeps the lawyers busy but does nothing for the economy. The economy has been in a downward spiral since they took over. Our military in harm's way cannot even fire a rifle without first calling Washington to get permission.
We cannot cower to a bunch of crazies whose only goal in life is to kill us.
The old sage's (over 50) will have to play a big role in this election. The young people simply don't know what the aged know.
The advantage of aging is the knowledge you accumulated.
You know what United States means.
You know what the seldom-heard word 'respect' means.
You know how wonderful freedom and independence is.
You know the difference between a strong and a weak nation; and you know what it takes to keep it strong.
You know history because you have lived it.
Although the old guard is dying off, and getting too tired to fight, they have to muster one more charge.
If they don't, our children, and grandchildren, will never know the joy and freedom that is the bedrock of our country.
The heat is slowly being turned up and the water is getting hot.
The old frogs better start jumping before it's too late.
Subject: THE FROG THEORY
THE FROG THEORY
If you drop a frog in boiling water he will leap right out. If you slowly heat the water he will be content until it's too late to get out.
That is exactly how history works. It moves slowly and we never really see any danger until it's too late.
Remember how suppressed workers were before unions came along? The unions leveled the playing field.
Unfortunately, over a long period of time the pendulum swung too far. Slowly, businesses and factories closed and jobs left the country. Remember the days, "Buy USA"?
We were comfortable and didn't see the change coming. We blamed everyone except ourselves for what happened.
We weren't alert to how slow things change over time.
World War II, and the Korean War, demonstrated how powerful a united nation could be. Our nation, and our families, were united. We were content and happy.
We were good at fighting a hot war but we were unprepared to fight a cold war with the communists in the 50's.
They knew they couldn't change us but they didn't care. Their philosophy was to wait it out and capture the minds of our children.
They loaded our colleges with many of their professors and waited. It didn't take long to see the results.
The 60''s ushered in the radicals, drug culture, student protesters, and the Vietnam War.
The aim of the cold war was to divide and conquer.
They divided our families and the nation.
The secret to defeating a polite and respectful people is to scream. The louder and longer you scream the better your chance of winning.
Radicals are masters at this form of attack. They know if you constantly scream and repeat a lie it will eventually be seen as truth.
The media, and Hollywood, hammered us with hate America themes and stories.
Our service men, and women, were jeered, cursed, and spit on.
Even the people, who later wanted to become their President, trashed them.
We lost our first War in history.
There was no hero's homecoming for our fighting men and women.
The Reverend King, who was raised in the old school, peacefully changed the race issue and united the people.
When he died the new breed of leaders like the Jesse Jackson's, Lewis Farrakhan's, Al Sharpton's, and Rev. Wright's put a lid on his efforts and turned racism into a money making machine.
Corporations were green-mailed by threats of protests, product boycotts, or endless lawsuits.
Every issue, large or small, became a race issue. The public recoiled in fear of being called a racist.
Their voices were silenced because one word could cost you a career, get you fired, or get you sued.
Even politicians buckled under to the pressure.
The Florida legislature issued a formal apology for having slavery 200 years ago.
They were thanked by being asked for compensation.
There is no end in sight for this kind of nonsense.
America didn't capture slaves and bring them to America. Their own people sold them to slave traders from several nations. It wasn't just an American thing. It went on in the world long before America even came into being.
This knowledge doesn't stop the screamers.
History is what it is and you can't change it. There have been many tragic events in history. You acknowledge them and move on.
They divided our nation into separate Americas.
We now have Americans, and African-Americans, although Africa has nothing to do with being an American. You can be one or the other but not both. You are what you were born to be.
You do not subordinate our country to any foreign nation. It's equivalent to flying the African flag above the Stars and Stripes. If you hyphenate two countries America always comes first. You also cannot be Mexican-American or Asian-American. You can only be American, or leave America and live in the country of your choice. Better run now, while you still have the freedom to do so.
This election year could be the turning point in our history because the frog theory has come into play.
It's time to step back and look at how the country has slowly changed since the cold war started. Don't get caught up in all the hype.
George McGovern was the first Presidential candidate to test the waters with college students. It was the worst campaign ever run. He was crushed in the election.
Step two was to infiltrate all the information vehicles such as radio, newspapers, magazines, TV and movies with sensationalism journalism. They were quite successful at that. We, the people, were 'snowed.' Eventually we had no idea what to believe.
America failed to take out Osama Bin Laden.
This eventually cost us the loss of our Twin Towers, thousands of American lives. We, the people, allowed ourselves to become involved in a war with Iraq when we know we should have been bringing down Al Qaida in Afganistan. We, the people, allowed our President to do this to us. Because we put our stake in capitalism and forgot to take care of ourselves in the process.
The brainwashing theory of repeating the same story over and over again was launched.
There were endless stories about our nation and President George "W" and our place in the eyes of the world faltered.
Top-secret plans were leaked to the press and printed for the entire world to see.
The groundwork was laid for the next election.
The ACLU flooded the courts with lawsuits.
Almost every incumbent, or his or her spouse, is a lawyer.
They now have the perfect candidate because they can squash criticism by playing the race card.
If you don't like Obama, or criticize him, you are a racist.
They can hide his inexperience and background by turning him into a rock star and singing change and hope.
They don't tell us what kind of change, or how it will be done, only that you should hope for the best.
By keeping the hype going they don't have to put anything of substance on the table.
The only thing we really know about Obama is that his wife has never been proud to be an American.
They want us to believe that his liberal college professors, Rev. Pfleger, his ties to radicals Bill Ayers and Lewis Farrakhan and listening to the Rev. Wright's hate talks for 20 years, had no influence on his thinking.
If they didn't, then who did?
He wasn't in business and didn't see fit to serve his country.
These people launched his political career and their organizations received earmarks in return for their campaign donations and political help.
They must have had some influence. Rev. Wright's church received over $15 million. That's only one small local church. Think on a national scale.
Just what is this "change" that is being promoted? Do we really know?
It started in when the lawyers took over. There have been endless lawsuits and investigations. It keeps the lawyers busy but does nothing for the economy. The economy has been in a downward spiral since they took over. Our military in harm's way cannot even fire a rifle without first calling Washington to get permission.
We cannot cower to a bunch of crazies whose only goal in life is to kill us.
The old sage's (over 50) will have to play a big role in this election. The young people simply don't know what the aged know.
The advantage of aging is the knowledge you accumulated.
You know what United States means.
You know what the seldom-heard word 'respect' means.
You know how wonderful freedom and independence is.
You know the difference between a strong and a weak nation; and you know what it takes to keep it strong.
You know history because you have lived it.
Although the old guard is dying off, and getting too tired to fight, they have to muster one more charge.
If they don't, our children, and grandchildren, will never know the joy and freedom that is the bedrock of our country.
The heat is slowly being turned up and the water is getting hot.
The old frogs better start jumping before it's too late.
July 18, 2008
Navy petty officer Mike Monsoor*
FROM A READER. THANKS TED
Navy petty officer Mike Monsoor*
PO2 (EOD2) Mike Monsoor, a Navy EOD Technician, was awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for jumping on a grenade in Iraq giving his life to save his fellow Seals.
During Mike Monsoor's funeral in San Diego, as his coffin was being moved from the hearse to the grave site at Ft. Rosecrans Nati Cemetery, SEALs were lined up on both sides of the pallbearers' route forming a column of two's, with the coffin moving up the center.
As Mike's coffin passed, each SEAL, having removed his gold Trident from his uniform, slapped it down embedding the
Trident in the wooden coffin.
The slaps were audible from across the cemetery; by the time the coffin arrived grave side, it looked as though it had a gold inlay from all the Tridents pinned to it.
This was a fitting send-off for a warrior hero.
This should be front-page news instead of the crap we see every day.
Since the media won't make this news, I choose to make it news by forwarding it onto you guys. I am damn proud of our military. If you are proud too, please pass this on. If not then rest assured that these fine men and women of our military will continue to serve and protect.
Navy petty officer Mike Monsoor*
PO2 (EOD2) Mike Monsoor, a Navy EOD Technician, was awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for jumping on a grenade in Iraq giving his life to save his fellow Seals.
During Mike Monsoor's funeral in San Diego, as his coffin was being moved from the hearse to the grave site at Ft. Rosecrans Nati Cemetery, SEALs were lined up on both sides of the pallbearers' route forming a column of two's, with the coffin moving up the center.
As Mike's coffin passed, each SEAL, having removed his gold Trident from his uniform, slapped it down embedding the
Trident in the wooden coffin.
The slaps were audible from across the cemetery; by the time the coffin arrived grave side, it looked as though it had a gold inlay from all the Tridents pinned to it.
This was a fitting send-off for a warrior hero.
This should be front-page news instead of the crap we see every day.
Since the media won't make this news, I choose to make it news by forwarding it onto you guys. I am damn proud of our military. If you are proud too, please pass this on. If not then rest assured that these fine men and women of our military will continue to serve and protect.
Obama’s Inexperience Tough to Ignore
Obama’s Inexperience Tough to Ignore
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:56 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
A close look at Barack Obama's career reveals it has been even more mediocre than generally recognized.
Before being elected to the Illinois state Senate, Obama worked as a community organizer and a lawyer in Chicago.
In his memoir, Obama says being a community organizer taught him how to motivate the powerless and work the government to help them. His chief example is an effort to remove asbestos from Altgeld Gardens, an all-black public housing project on Chicago’s South Side.
But those who were involved in the effort say Obama played a minor role in working the problem and never accomplished his goal. A pre-existing group at Altgeld Gardens and a local newspaper, the Chicago Reporter, were working on the problem before Obama came on the scene, yet Obama does not mention them in his book, “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
“Just because someone writes it, doesn't make it true,” says Altgeld resident Hazel Johnson, who had been pushing for a cleanup of the cancer-producing substance years before Obama showed up.
Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., says it was Johnson's work, along with asbestos testing by the Chicago Reporter, that got Chicago officials interested in the issue. Rush, who launched an inquiry into the situation when he was a member of the Chicago City Council, says he is “offended” that Obama did not mention Johnson in his account.
“Was [Obama] involved in stuff? Absolutely,” says Robert Ginsburg, an activist who worked with Johnson and Obama on the problem. “But there was stuff happening before him, and after him.”
After three years working as an organizer, Obama could say he helped obtain grants for a jobs program and got asbestos removed from some pipes in the project. But as the Los Angeles Times has noted, the “large-scale change that was needed at the 1,998-unit project was beyond his reach.” To this day, most of the asbestos remains in the apartments.
Fruitless though his efforts were, Obama devoted more than 100 pages to his experiences at Altgeld Gardens and surrounding areas. Michelle Obama has said his work as a community organizer helped him decide “how he would impact the world,” assisting people to improve their lives. Yet, in a revealing passage in his book, Obama wrote, “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly.”
Instead, he said, “I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”
Thus, Obama admitted that he accomplished little but that he was able to cover that up with fancy talk about change.
After going to Harvard Law School, Obama returned to Chicago, where he briefly headed a voter registration drive and then became a lawyer. While Obama’s campaign has touted him as a civil rights lawyer, “Over the nine years that Obama’s law license was active in Illinois, he never handled a trial and mostly worked in teams of lawyers who drew up briefs and contracts in a variety of cases,” according to David Mendell’s “Obama: From Promise To Power.”
A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career “shows he played the strong, silent type in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking,” the Chicago Sun-Times has reported.
“A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: zero,” the article said.
Instead, his practice was “confined mainly to federal court in Chicago, where he made formal appearances in only five district court cases and another five in cases before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — a total of 10 cases in his legal career,” the paper said.
If Obama had virtually no impact as either a community organizer or as a lawyer, he was even more invisible in the state Senate and later in the U.S. Senate.
In both bodies, Obama had a reputation for voting “present,” thus avoiding controversial decisions that could be used against him later. In the U.S. Senate, he has missed more than one in five votes.
Only one of the measures Obama has sponsored as a U.S. senator was enacted: a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
Contrary to Obama’s portrayal of himself as a unifier, on every bipartisan effort in the Senate to forge compromises on tough issues, Obama has been missing in action.
In sum, it would be difficult to imagine a more mediocre record. Most candidates for dog catcher have contributed more to society. Yet with the help of adoring reporters, Obama has managed to parlay extraordinary speaking and political skills into a presidential campaign built on sand.
The idea that America might entrust its security and future to someone who has never demonstrated an ability to get anything of significance done is scary.
Look for John McCain to begin exploiting this vulnerability after Labor Day.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:56 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
A close look at Barack Obama's career reveals it has been even more mediocre than generally recognized.
Before being elected to the Illinois state Senate, Obama worked as a community organizer and a lawyer in Chicago.
In his memoir, Obama says being a community organizer taught him how to motivate the powerless and work the government to help them. His chief example is an effort to remove asbestos from Altgeld Gardens, an all-black public housing project on Chicago’s South Side.
But those who were involved in the effort say Obama played a minor role in working the problem and never accomplished his goal. A pre-existing group at Altgeld Gardens and a local newspaper, the Chicago Reporter, were working on the problem before Obama came on the scene, yet Obama does not mention them in his book, “Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”
“Just because someone writes it, doesn't make it true,” says Altgeld resident Hazel Johnson, who had been pushing for a cleanup of the cancer-producing substance years before Obama showed up.
Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., says it was Johnson's work, along with asbestos testing by the Chicago Reporter, that got Chicago officials interested in the issue. Rush, who launched an inquiry into the situation when he was a member of the Chicago City Council, says he is “offended” that Obama did not mention Johnson in his account.
“Was [Obama] involved in stuff? Absolutely,” says Robert Ginsburg, an activist who worked with Johnson and Obama on the problem. “But there was stuff happening before him, and after him.”
After three years working as an organizer, Obama could say he helped obtain grants for a jobs program and got asbestos removed from some pipes in the project. But as the Los Angeles Times has noted, the “large-scale change that was needed at the 1,998-unit project was beyond his reach.” To this day, most of the asbestos remains in the apartments.
Fruitless though his efforts were, Obama devoted more than 100 pages to his experiences at Altgeld Gardens and surrounding areas. Michelle Obama has said his work as a community organizer helped him decide “how he would impact the world,” assisting people to improve their lives. Yet, in a revealing passage in his book, Obama wrote, “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly.”
Instead, he said, “I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”
Thus, Obama admitted that he accomplished little but that he was able to cover that up with fancy talk about change.
After going to Harvard Law School, Obama returned to Chicago, where he briefly headed a voter registration drive and then became a lawyer. While Obama’s campaign has touted him as a civil rights lawyer, “Over the nine years that Obama’s law license was active in Illinois, he never handled a trial and mostly worked in teams of lawyers who drew up briefs and contracts in a variety of cases,” according to David Mendell’s “Obama: From Promise To Power.”
A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career “shows he played the strong, silent type in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking,” the Chicago Sun-Times has reported.
“A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: zero,” the article said.
Instead, his practice was “confined mainly to federal court in Chicago, where he made formal appearances in only five district court cases and another five in cases before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — a total of 10 cases in his legal career,” the paper said.
If Obama had virtually no impact as either a community organizer or as a lawyer, he was even more invisible in the state Senate and later in the U.S. Senate.
In both bodies, Obama had a reputation for voting “present,” thus avoiding controversial decisions that could be used against him later. In the U.S. Senate, he has missed more than one in five votes.
Only one of the measures Obama has sponsored as a U.S. senator was enacted: a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
Contrary to Obama’s portrayal of himself as a unifier, on every bipartisan effort in the Senate to forge compromises on tough issues, Obama has been missing in action.
In sum, it would be difficult to imagine a more mediocre record. Most candidates for dog catcher have contributed more to society. Yet with the help of adoring reporters, Obama has managed to parlay extraordinary speaking and political skills into a presidential campaign built on sand.
The idea that America might entrust its security and future to someone who has never demonstrated an ability to get anything of significance done is scary.
Look for John McCain to begin exploiting this vulnerability after Labor Day.
McCain Should Pick VP Candidate He Knows
Strategist: McCain Should Pick VP Candidate He Knows
Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:59 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
In shopping for a running mate, John McCain should pick someone he knows well, Ken Khachigian, a highly respected Republican strategist, tells Newsmax.
Khachigian, a California lawyer who was Ronald Reagan’s chief speechwriter and a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, says no vice presidential candidate will deliver the election for McCain.
“So instead of looking for someone who fits a series of benchmarks, he ought to be looking for someone who’s not going to do damage to his ticket,” says Khachigian, who was Reagan’s senior campaign adviser and is a veteran of eight other campaigns. “When mid-October comes around, I guarantee you people are not going to be voting for a vice president, or focusing on a vice president, unless that candidate is a problem.”
As examples, Geraldine Ferraro and Spiro Agnew became “basic distractions to their principals,” Khachigian says.
“What McCain ought to be looking at is someone who meets minimum standards of obviously, knowledge and capability, and campaigning ability, and perhaps with some geographic logic to him or her,” Khachigian says. “But the most important thing is picking someone about whom he has personal knowledge and has spent time with, and emotionally is connected to.”
Khachigian observes that historical precedents bear out his point, but he says it is also a matter of logic.
“Basically, thinking outside the box puts you outside the box,” he says. “It just doesn’t make any sense to go with people that you don’t know, because then you’re not sure what’s going to happen. You don’t know how they’ll perform or how they’d do under pressure. You don’t know much about their background and how they react to things.”
If George McGovern had known Thomas Eagleton well, he probably would have learned at some point that Eagleton had received shock treatments in a mental hospital, Khachigian says.
“Spiro Agnew is an example of someone that Nixon had no idea personally about. He met him twice,” Khachigian says.
Agnew resigned as vice president when he became the target of a federal extortion, tax fraud, and bribery probe.
Nixon made a similar mistake when he chose Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. as his running mate in his first unsuccessful run for the presidency, Khachigian says.
“He knew Lodge professionally, because Lodge was in the Cabinet,” Khachigian says. “But what he didn’t know about Lodge was how he performed on the stump. He probably had no idea that Lodge would take naps after lunch and was not a good campaigner. Nixon found out the hard way,” Khachigian notes.
Of course, in choosing a candidate, McCain should ask himself how well the person campaigns and what his or her positions are. But what is critically important, Khachigian says, is for McCain to evaluate how much he knows about the “character and depth” of the individual.
GOP Platform Goes Online
In a first, Cyrus Krohn, the Republican National Committee’s Internet guru, has set up an interactive Web site for developing the party platform.
“The Republican Party is seeking your input as we develop the policies and principles upon which we should stand for the next four years,” the Web site says. “On this Web site, you can share your thoughts, participate in polls, and communicate directly with the policy-makers who will be shaping the party's agenda.
"All comments and feedback will be reviewed and taken into full consideration as we prepare for our convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.”
Since www.gopplatform2008.com went live a week ago, 4,000 people have shared their thoughts through the Web site.
Before joining the RNC, Krohn was director of content production and election strategy at Yahoo!. Prior to that, he spent almost 10 years at Microsoft, where he was Slate magazine’s first employee and later became publisher.
Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:59 AM
By: Ronald Kessler
In shopping for a running mate, John McCain should pick someone he knows well, Ken Khachigian, a highly respected Republican strategist, tells Newsmax.
Khachigian, a California lawyer who was Ronald Reagan’s chief speechwriter and a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, says no vice presidential candidate will deliver the election for McCain.
“So instead of looking for someone who fits a series of benchmarks, he ought to be looking for someone who’s not going to do damage to his ticket,” says Khachigian, who was Reagan’s senior campaign adviser and is a veteran of eight other campaigns. “When mid-October comes around, I guarantee you people are not going to be voting for a vice president, or focusing on a vice president, unless that candidate is a problem.”
As examples, Geraldine Ferraro and Spiro Agnew became “basic distractions to their principals,” Khachigian says.
“What McCain ought to be looking at is someone who meets minimum standards of obviously, knowledge and capability, and campaigning ability, and perhaps with some geographic logic to him or her,” Khachigian says. “But the most important thing is picking someone about whom he has personal knowledge and has spent time with, and emotionally is connected to.”
Khachigian observes that historical precedents bear out his point, but he says it is also a matter of logic.
“Basically, thinking outside the box puts you outside the box,” he says. “It just doesn’t make any sense to go with people that you don’t know, because then you’re not sure what’s going to happen. You don’t know how they’ll perform or how they’d do under pressure. You don’t know much about their background and how they react to things.”
If George McGovern had known Thomas Eagleton well, he probably would have learned at some point that Eagleton had received shock treatments in a mental hospital, Khachigian says.
“Spiro Agnew is an example of someone that Nixon had no idea personally about. He met him twice,” Khachigian says.
Agnew resigned as vice president when he became the target of a federal extortion, tax fraud, and bribery probe.
Nixon made a similar mistake when he chose Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. as his running mate in his first unsuccessful run for the presidency, Khachigian says.
“He knew Lodge professionally, because Lodge was in the Cabinet,” Khachigian says. “But what he didn’t know about Lodge was how he performed on the stump. He probably had no idea that Lodge would take naps after lunch and was not a good campaigner. Nixon found out the hard way,” Khachigian notes.
Of course, in choosing a candidate, McCain should ask himself how well the person campaigns and what his or her positions are. But what is critically important, Khachigian says, is for McCain to evaluate how much he knows about the “character and depth” of the individual.
GOP Platform Goes Online
In a first, Cyrus Krohn, the Republican National Committee’s Internet guru, has set up an interactive Web site for developing the party platform.
“The Republican Party is seeking your input as we develop the policies and principles upon which we should stand for the next four years,” the Web site says. “On this Web site, you can share your thoughts, participate in polls, and communicate directly with the policy-makers who will be shaping the party's agenda.
"All comments and feedback will be reviewed and taken into full consideration as we prepare for our convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.”
Since www.gopplatform2008.com went live a week ago, 4,000 people have shared their thoughts through the Web site.
Before joining the RNC, Krohn was director of content production and election strategy at Yahoo!. Prior to that, he spent almost 10 years at Microsoft, where he was Slate magazine’s first employee and later became publisher.
European Terrorists Trying to Enter U.S.
Chertoff: European Terrorists Trying to Enter U.S.
Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:40 PM
WASHINGTON - European terrorists are trying to enter the United States with European Union passports, and there is no guarantee officials will catch them every time, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.
Chertoff's comments on Capitol Hill comes as the country is entering a potentially vulnerable period with the presidential nominating conventions coming up next month; the presidential election in November; and the transition to a new administration in January — all of which may be attractive targets for terrorists.
In his last scheduled appearance before the House Homeland Security Committee, Chertoff said that the more time and space al-Qaida and its allies have to recruit, train, experiment and plan, the more problems the U.S. and Europe will face down the road.
"The terrorists are deliberately focusing on people who have legitimate Western European passports, who don't appear to have records as terrorists," Chertoff told lawmakers. "I have a good degree of confidence we can catch people coming in. But I have to tell you ... there's no guarantee. And they are working very hard to slip by us."
Chertoff and other intelligence officials have delivered similar warnings before, and he offered no new information about specific threats or an imminent attack.
Chertoff reiterated his concern that terrorists could sneak radiological material into the country on small boats or private aircraft. This material could be used to create an explosive device known as a "dirty bomb."
The Homeland Security Department has a strategy to protect against this small boat vulnerability and is testing radiation detection equipment in Seattle and San Diego ports.
Chertoff said that getting out a regulation to prescreen and enhance security of general aviation aircraft coming to the U.S. from overseas is one of his top priorities.
He also said he expects to approve new radiation detection technology this fall.
Responding to a question from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Chertoff dismissed any rumor that he is on a list of potential running mates for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Chertoff quipped that the only list he has for next year is a list of vacations.
Chertoff's term as the country's second Homeland Security Secretary ends when a new administration takes over the White House in January.
Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:40 PM
WASHINGTON - European terrorists are trying to enter the United States with European Union passports, and there is no guarantee officials will catch them every time, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday.
Chertoff's comments on Capitol Hill comes as the country is entering a potentially vulnerable period with the presidential nominating conventions coming up next month; the presidential election in November; and the transition to a new administration in January — all of which may be attractive targets for terrorists.
In his last scheduled appearance before the House Homeland Security Committee, Chertoff said that the more time and space al-Qaida and its allies have to recruit, train, experiment and plan, the more problems the U.S. and Europe will face down the road.
"The terrorists are deliberately focusing on people who have legitimate Western European passports, who don't appear to have records as terrorists," Chertoff told lawmakers. "I have a good degree of confidence we can catch people coming in. But I have to tell you ... there's no guarantee. And they are working very hard to slip by us."
Chertoff and other intelligence officials have delivered similar warnings before, and he offered no new information about specific threats or an imminent attack.
Chertoff reiterated his concern that terrorists could sneak radiological material into the country on small boats or private aircraft. This material could be used to create an explosive device known as a "dirty bomb."
The Homeland Security Department has a strategy to protect against this small boat vulnerability and is testing radiation detection equipment in Seattle and San Diego ports.
Chertoff said that getting out a regulation to prescreen and enhance security of general aviation aircraft coming to the U.S. from overseas is one of his top priorities.
He also said he expects to approve new radiation detection technology this fall.
Responding to a question from Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Chertoff dismissed any rumor that he is on a list of potential running mates for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Chertoff quipped that the only list he has for next year is a list of vacations.
Chertoff's term as the country's second Homeland Security Secretary ends when a new administration takes over the White House in January.
Dems to Lieberman: GOP Convention ‘Last Straw’
Dems to Lieberman: GOP Convention ‘Last Straw’
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:31 PM
By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size
Several Democratic insiders are now saying Sen. Joe Lieberman, D- Conn., will be kicked out of the party's caucus and lose his Senate chairmanship next year if he addresses the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., as planned.
Lieberman, the four-term senator from Connecticut who was elected as an independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 because of his support for the Iraq war, is supporting Republican nominee John McCain for president.
According to The New York Times, Lieberman's Democratic colleagues are upset over his openly campaigning and traveling with the senator from Arizona during this election season and are fuming over his refusal to tone down his rhetoric against the party's presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. Some Democrats are advising him that speaking to the GOP convention in September will be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Lieberman reportedly excused himself from the weekly lunch of the Senate Democrats Tuesday when his Democratic colleagues began discussing, then criticizing, McCain’s energy policies.
"I just didn't feel it was appropriate for me to be there," Lieberman explained to a Times reporter afterward.
"It was the right thing to do," Ill. Sen. Richard Durbin, the Democratic whip, said after a colleague approached him to complain about Lieberman. "This is a delicate situation."
Lieberman has reportedly not ruled out switching parties, but has not to this point thought that he should, which is increasingly becoming an intolerable embarrassment to Democrats.
"I don't have any line that I have in my mind," Lieberman says about reaching the point of no return with the Democratic Party for speaking out on behalf of McCain. "If it happened, I'd know it when I saw it."
Despite assurances that Lieberman will remain a Democrat from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Lieberman’s colleagues aren’t so sure after he ramped up his criticism of the party’s nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.
Referring to Obama’s views on Iran as “naïve,” Lieberman in an interview with CNN said, "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’"
Lieberman later said on Fox News: "Senator Obama has really moved. Since he clinched the nomination a month ago, he has altered and nuanced more big positions more quickly than I can remember any other presidential nominee."
Fellow Democrats are especially angered by the prospect of Lieberman being chosen by McCain as a potential running mate, which Lieberman denies will happen.
"I'm not really interested, and I don't expect to be asked," he said about the VP spot or accepting a position as a cabinet member involving national security in a McCain administration.
For the record, Lieberman says he won’t be attending the Democratic convention in late August and will miss it. He would, however, speak at the Republican convention just “to say why I'm supporting John McCain. I would not go to speak to attack Barack Obama.”
But for much of the Democratic leadership, the symbolism of Lieberman speaking out against their candidate at the opposing party’s convention will be just too much to bear. Lieberman, however, unwaveringly takes it all in stride by saying, "I feel badly about this turn of events."
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 5:31 PM
By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size
Several Democratic insiders are now saying Sen. Joe Lieberman, D- Conn., will be kicked out of the party's caucus and lose his Senate chairmanship next year if he addresses the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., as planned.
Lieberman, the four-term senator from Connecticut who was elected as an independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 because of his support for the Iraq war, is supporting Republican nominee John McCain for president.
According to The New York Times, Lieberman's Democratic colleagues are upset over his openly campaigning and traveling with the senator from Arizona during this election season and are fuming over his refusal to tone down his rhetoric against the party's presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. Some Democrats are advising him that speaking to the GOP convention in September will be the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Lieberman reportedly excused himself from the weekly lunch of the Senate Democrats Tuesday when his Democratic colleagues began discussing, then criticizing, McCain’s energy policies.
"I just didn't feel it was appropriate for me to be there," Lieberman explained to a Times reporter afterward.
"It was the right thing to do," Ill. Sen. Richard Durbin, the Democratic whip, said after a colleague approached him to complain about Lieberman. "This is a delicate situation."
Lieberman has reportedly not ruled out switching parties, but has not to this point thought that he should, which is increasingly becoming an intolerable embarrassment to Democrats.
"I don't have any line that I have in my mind," Lieberman says about reaching the point of no return with the Democratic Party for speaking out on behalf of McCain. "If it happened, I'd know it when I saw it."
Despite assurances that Lieberman will remain a Democrat from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Lieberman’s colleagues aren’t so sure after he ramped up his criticism of the party’s nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.
Referring to Obama’s views on Iran as “naïve,” Lieberman in an interview with CNN said, "The fact that the spokesperson for Hamas would say they would welcome the election of Senator Obama really does raise the question, ‘Why?’"
Lieberman later said on Fox News: "Senator Obama has really moved. Since he clinched the nomination a month ago, he has altered and nuanced more big positions more quickly than I can remember any other presidential nominee."
Fellow Democrats are especially angered by the prospect of Lieberman being chosen by McCain as a potential running mate, which Lieberman denies will happen.
"I'm not really interested, and I don't expect to be asked," he said about the VP spot or accepting a position as a cabinet member involving national security in a McCain administration.
For the record, Lieberman says he won’t be attending the Democratic convention in late August and will miss it. He would, however, speak at the Republican convention just “to say why I'm supporting John McCain. I would not go to speak to attack Barack Obama.”
But for much of the Democratic leadership, the symbolism of Lieberman speaking out against their candidate at the opposing party’s convention will be just too much to bear. Lieberman, however, unwaveringly takes it all in stride by saying, "I feel badly about this turn of events."
The Way to Box In Barack on Iraq
The Way to Box In Barack on Iraq
Friday, July 18, 2008 7:29 AM
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Article Font Size
The shadow of the Iraq War still hovers over the 2008 presidential race. In deed, though it's the issue that made Barack Obama (giving him his running room to Hillary Clinton's left), it may now become his chief vulnerability.
Weak on national-security issues, untried, inexperienced and (perhaps) naive, Obama can find the Iraq issue hard to handle - if John McCain plays it right.
Obama has long since won the issue of Iraq-past - opposing the war before anyone and voting continuously and solidly against it when others waffled.
Yet McCain is winning Iraq-present: A majority of Americans believe that the surge is working. Casualties are down so far that the pessimistic left has shifted its doom-and-gloom to Afghanistan.
But McCain's key opportunity is to exploit the issue of Iraq-future.
To start, he must ask Obama: "Why won't your troop withdrawal allow al-Qaida and Iran to move into the vacuum, taking over Iraq to use it as a base for terror against us and Israel?"
Obama will hem and haw, but McCain must keep at him - and force his opponent to confront the consequences.
How will Obama answer?
He can't shift his position on his signature issue much more - or he'd get an even worse rap for flip-flopping. So he'll start by stressing the ongoing troop presence that he'll allow in Iraq.
He has said (vaguely) that he'll permit sufficient troops to cover our pullout, protect our embassy and pursue al Qaeda terrorists. Now he'll try to sell the idea that his gradual withdrawal over 16 months and his ongoing troop commitment will hold al Qaeda and Iran at bay.
But who'll believe that? Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They're inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al-Qaida will move in. It's also self-evident that Iranian influence will grow as ours' declines. (To the extent that we do believe it, Obama will alienate the left and drive voters to Ralph Nader.)
His next dodge will be to talk up diplomacy - that a dialogue with the mullahs can hold Iran at bay. But no negotiations are possible with al-Qaida - and Americans realize that talks with Iran will go nowhere unless we have the leverage of force. His reliance on diplomacy will come off as naive, reinforcing the impression that he's not ready for the job.
Eventually, he'll have to say he's prepared to go back into Iraq if the situation deteriorates. Voters will realize that a nominal troop presence and diplomacy won't do the job.
That's when McCain moves in for the kill: "So, isn't your rigid adherence to withdrawal inviting a third Iraq War?"
He can claim the mantle of the true peace candidate - saying that he'll stay in Iraq, keep control, build up the Iraqi army and keep US casualties down. Obama's pullout, he can warn, would mean an inevitable third Iraq war. Obama is stuck seeming either naive - or just as likely to get us into a war as President Bush was.
The success of the surge has created an ideal situation for McCain. What had been the chief Democratic argument against the Republicans can now be their best tool to destroy Obama.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
Friday, July 18, 2008 7:29 AM
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann Article Font Size
The shadow of the Iraq War still hovers over the 2008 presidential race. In deed, though it's the issue that made Barack Obama (giving him his running room to Hillary Clinton's left), it may now become his chief vulnerability.
Weak on national-security issues, untried, inexperienced and (perhaps) naive, Obama can find the Iraq issue hard to handle - if John McCain plays it right.
Obama has long since won the issue of Iraq-past - opposing the war before anyone and voting continuously and solidly against it when others waffled.
Yet McCain is winning Iraq-present: A majority of Americans believe that the surge is working. Casualties are down so far that the pessimistic left has shifted its doom-and-gloom to Afghanistan.
But McCain's key opportunity is to exploit the issue of Iraq-future.
To start, he must ask Obama: "Why won't your troop withdrawal allow al-Qaida and Iran to move into the vacuum, taking over Iraq to use it as a base for terror against us and Israel?"
Obama will hem and haw, but McCain must keep at him - and force his opponent to confront the consequences.
How will Obama answer?
He can't shift his position on his signature issue much more - or he'd get an even worse rap for flip-flopping. So he'll start by stressing the ongoing troop presence that he'll allow in Iraq.
He has said (vaguely) that he'll permit sufficient troops to cover our pullout, protect our embassy and pursue al Qaeda terrorists. Now he'll try to sell the idea that his gradual withdrawal over 16 months and his ongoing troop commitment will hold al Qaeda and Iran at bay.
But who'll believe that? Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They're inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al-Qaida will move in. It's also self-evident that Iranian influence will grow as ours' declines. (To the extent that we do believe it, Obama will alienate the left and drive voters to Ralph Nader.)
His next dodge will be to talk up diplomacy - that a dialogue with the mullahs can hold Iran at bay. But no negotiations are possible with al-Qaida - and Americans realize that talks with Iran will go nowhere unless we have the leverage of force. His reliance on diplomacy will come off as naive, reinforcing the impression that he's not ready for the job.
Eventually, he'll have to say he's prepared to go back into Iraq if the situation deteriorates. Voters will realize that a nominal troop presence and diplomacy won't do the job.
That's when McCain moves in for the kill: "So, isn't your rigid adherence to withdrawal inviting a third Iraq War?"
He can claim the mantle of the true peace candidate - saying that he'll stay in Iraq, keep control, build up the Iraqi army and keep US casualties down. Obama's pullout, he can warn, would mean an inevitable third Iraq war. Obama is stuck seeming either naive - or just as likely to get us into a war as President Bush was.
The success of the surge has created an ideal situation for McCain. What had been the chief Democratic argument against the Republicans can now be their best tool to destroy Obama.
© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
July 17, 2008
Local Fission Hole
Local Fission Hole
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy: What is small enough to be hauled on a truck, has the power to provide electricity to 45,000 homes, can help the U.S. cut its dependence on foreign oil and has no emissions? Hint: The Sierra Club won't like it.
Next week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will rule on an application from NuScale Power, an Oregon-based startup that is seeking federal clearance to move ahead with its project to build mini or portable nuclear reactors.
Popular Mechanics quotes NuScale as saying that if its design is approved, it will begin tests with the hope of getting final approval a few years from now. Should the process go smoothly, the mini reactors could go online by 2015.
Mini nuclear power plants, from end to end, would be no more than 65 feet long and have no visible cooling towers to ruin anyone's "viewshed." A conventional nuclear plant can eat up thousands of acres and cannot "disappear" into a populated area.
Because of their size, the mini plants can be built at a central factory and shipped via rail or large truck anywhere in the country, keeping construction costs down.
An Energy Department official told New Scientist magazine four years ago that such reactors wouldn't require maintenance or need to be refueled. After their useful life of about 30 years they could be returned to the factory.
And oh yes: They're virtually terrorist-proof.
While neighborhood-friendly mini nuclear plants could displace a large number of traditional coal- and gas-fired power plants, they would be especially useful in remote areas where fossil fuels are used to run generators.
They also would make it unnecessary to burn large amounts of gasoline and diesel to transport other fossil fuels to these isolated outposts.
The U.S. has not seen a nuclear plant of any size come online since the Watts Bar facility in Tennessee went into production in 1996. While France gets more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, the U.S. has been stuck at the 20% level for years.
But the high price of crude seems to have refocused minds. NRC documents show the commission already this year has received 13 applications to build 19 nuclear power units.
It would be helpful if many of those who are now thinking differently are part of the NRC license-approval bureaucracy.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy: What is small enough to be hauled on a truck, has the power to provide electricity to 45,000 homes, can help the U.S. cut its dependence on foreign oil and has no emissions? Hint: The Sierra Club won't like it.
Next week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will rule on an application from NuScale Power, an Oregon-based startup that is seeking federal clearance to move ahead with its project to build mini or portable nuclear reactors.
Popular Mechanics quotes NuScale as saying that if its design is approved, it will begin tests with the hope of getting final approval a few years from now. Should the process go smoothly, the mini reactors could go online by 2015.
Mini nuclear power plants, from end to end, would be no more than 65 feet long and have no visible cooling towers to ruin anyone's "viewshed." A conventional nuclear plant can eat up thousands of acres and cannot "disappear" into a populated area.
Because of their size, the mini plants can be built at a central factory and shipped via rail or large truck anywhere in the country, keeping construction costs down.
An Energy Department official told New Scientist magazine four years ago that such reactors wouldn't require maintenance or need to be refueled. After their useful life of about 30 years they could be returned to the factory.
And oh yes: They're virtually terrorist-proof.
While neighborhood-friendly mini nuclear plants could displace a large number of traditional coal- and gas-fired power plants, they would be especially useful in remote areas where fossil fuels are used to run generators.
They also would make it unnecessary to burn large amounts of gasoline and diesel to transport other fossil fuels to these isolated outposts.
The U.S. has not seen a nuclear plant of any size come online since the Watts Bar facility in Tennessee went into production in 1996. While France gets more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear power, the U.S. has been stuck at the 20% level for years.
But the high price of crude seems to have refocused minds. NRC documents show the commission already this year has received 13 applications to build 19 nuclear power units.
It would be helpful if many of those who are now thinking differently are part of the NRC license-approval bureaucracy.
La Raza To The Bottom
La Raza To The Bottom
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Barack Obama tells "The Race" that U.S. law enforcement officers are terrorists and that communities that enforce immigration laws are vigilantes. But then, that's exactly what La Raza believes.
Obama, the "post-racial" candidate, pandered Sunday to a group of Hispanic activists that calls itself "The Race." The only thing that was missing at the convention of the National Council of La Raza was his wearing a Mexican flag lapel pin.
In Orwellian fashion, defenders of "La Raza" deny that it means "the race." San Francisco Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci says of Obama's appearance before the group's national convention in San Diego that Obama "embraced the ideas reflected in the organization's name, La Raza, loosely translated as 'the people.' "
A very loose translation it is. Why not use "la comunidad" or "la gente" when speaking about the Latino people and community? Because La Raza wants to be called La Raza, and they known exactly what it means to them.
La Raza has ties it refuses to condemn with the likes of MECHa, a group that has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming the states of California, Arizona, Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado were stolen and should be returned to their rightful owners, the people of Mexico.
MECHa's slogan is derived from the rhetoric of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro: "Through the race, everything, outside the race, nothing." Obama hopes the road to the White House leads through La Raza.
The group is not some Hispanic version of the Rotary Club. It supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens and in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens. The open-borders group opposes the border fence and any cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. Its goal is not assimilation.
Obama told the group what it wanted to hear, including that "communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids." And he condemned those "communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands" — like those that have passed state laws or local ordinances to cooperate with the feds or check that the immigrants who are here are in fact here legally.
Former Los Angeles high school basketball star Jamiel Shaw Jr. was a victim not only of a gang crime but of a sanctuary policy La Raza supports. This policy adopted by many major cities has led to increased illegal immigration and increased crime by illegal aliens.
Charged with Shaw's murder is Pedro Espinoza, a member of the 18th Street gang, who'd been released just hours earlier from the Los Angeles County Jail, where he'd spent four months for brandishing a firearm and resisting arrest. Espinoza is an illegal alien. The feds were not told of his release.
This policy is embodied in Special Order 40, a 30-year-old Los Angeles Police Department rule that prohibits police from arresting anyone based solely on their immigration status, or from notifying immigration officials about an illegal immigrant in their custody.
Does Obama support sanctuary cities and Special Order 40? If not, why didn't he tell La Raza that?
Far from midnight raids by storm troopers, work site inspections are done on the order of warrants issued by a federal prosecutor. When a home is raided, it's because a federal judge signed a deportation order. It's all done professionally and legally. It's not true, as Obama claimed, that "nursing mothers are torn from their babies."
Obama told the group that 12 million illegal aliens "are counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves" — rhetoric, he says, that "has no place in this great nation."
Is it racist to criticize the policies of La Raza?
He seems to agree with current La Raza President Janet Murguia, who thinks that such "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."
La Raza wants to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Does Obama agree?
Illegal aliens are here illegally, and the companies that hire them do so illegally. ICE is merely enforcing the laws of the United States, laws that Obama will swear to faithfully execute if he's elected president. Unless Obama has really embraced the ideas reflected in the organization's name.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Politics: Barack Obama tells "The Race" that U.S. law enforcement officers are terrorists and that communities that enforce immigration laws are vigilantes. But then, that's exactly what La Raza believes.
Obama, the "post-racial" candidate, pandered Sunday to a group of Hispanic activists that calls itself "The Race." The only thing that was missing at the convention of the National Council of La Raza was his wearing a Mexican flag lapel pin.
In Orwellian fashion, defenders of "La Raza" deny that it means "the race." San Francisco Chronicle writer Carla Marinucci says of Obama's appearance before the group's national convention in San Diego that Obama "embraced the ideas reflected in the organization's name, La Raza, loosely translated as 'the people.' "
A very loose translation it is. Why not use "la comunidad" or "la gente" when speaking about the Latino people and community? Because La Raza wants to be called La Raza, and they known exactly what it means to them.
La Raza has ties it refuses to condemn with the likes of MECHa, a group that has spent the last three decades indoctrinating Latino students on American campuses, claiming the states of California, Arizona, Mexico, Texas and southern Colorado were stolen and should be returned to their rightful owners, the people of Mexico.
MECHa's slogan is derived from the rhetoric of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro: "Through the race, everything, outside the race, nothing." Obama hopes the road to the White House leads through La Raza.
The group is not some Hispanic version of the Rotary Club. It supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens and in-state tuition rates for illegal aliens. The open-borders group opposes the border fence and any cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. Its goal is not assimilation.
Obama told the group what it wanted to hear, including that "communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids." And he condemned those "communities taking immigration enforcement into their own hands" — like those that have passed state laws or local ordinances to cooperate with the feds or check that the immigrants who are here are in fact here legally.
Former Los Angeles high school basketball star Jamiel Shaw Jr. was a victim not only of a gang crime but of a sanctuary policy La Raza supports. This policy adopted by many major cities has led to increased illegal immigration and increased crime by illegal aliens.
Charged with Shaw's murder is Pedro Espinoza, a member of the 18th Street gang, who'd been released just hours earlier from the Los Angeles County Jail, where he'd spent four months for brandishing a firearm and resisting arrest. Espinoza is an illegal alien. The feds were not told of his release.
This policy is embodied in Special Order 40, a 30-year-old Los Angeles Police Department rule that prohibits police from arresting anyone based solely on their immigration status, or from notifying immigration officials about an illegal immigrant in their custody.
Does Obama support sanctuary cities and Special Order 40? If not, why didn't he tell La Raza that?
Far from midnight raids by storm troopers, work site inspections are done on the order of warrants issued by a federal prosecutor. When a home is raided, it's because a federal judge signed a deportation order. It's all done professionally and legally. It's not true, as Obama claimed, that "nursing mothers are torn from their babies."
Obama told the group that 12 million illegal aliens "are counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric filling our airwaves" — rhetoric, he says, that "has no place in this great nation."
Is it racist to criticize the policies of La Raza?
He seems to agree with current La Raza President Janet Murguia, who thinks that such "hate speech" should "not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights."
La Raza wants to restore the Fairness Doctrine. Does Obama agree?
Illegal aliens are here illegally, and the companies that hire them do so illegally. ICE is merely enforcing the laws of the United States, laws that Obama will swear to faithfully execute if he's elected president. Unless Obama has really embraced the ideas reflected in the organization's name.
July 15, 2008
Slim Pickins From T. Boone Pickens
Slim Pickins From T. Boone Pickens
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy Policy: A world-famous Texas oilman says our energy answer lies in alternative energy. While tilting at windmills, he says that we can't drill our way to energy bliss. So why do the Russians keep drilling?
Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, T. Boone Pickens modestly says he has found more oil and drilled more dry holes than just about anyone. He says America's energy dilemma can't be solved by drilling alone, but by alternative energy such as solar and wind. He has launched a TV ad blitz in which wind farms are prominently featured.
America's energy future, says a longtime oilman, is written on the wind.
Pickens cites an Energy Department study that claims the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030. Yet the fact is that if we tripled our current output from wind, solar and geothermal, they would produce just 2.2% of our current energy needs after decades of subsidies amounting to billions of dollars.
Pickens says the "stretch of land that starts in West Texas and reaches all the way up to the border with Canada is called the 'Saudi Arabia of the Wind' . . . we have the greatest wind reserves in the world." Perhaps we do, at least in the halls of the drill-nothing Congress.
Well, we're also the Saudi Arabia of coal, but Pickens mentions coal not at all. The U.S. has 27% of the world's recoverable coal. A ton of coal can generate two barrels of synthetic oil.
On that basis, as the New York Times pointed out a few years ago, "the coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia."
This technology is in use today in South Africa, where three coal-liquefying plants produce about 150,000 barrels of oil a day. At the above conversion rate, America's coal reserves are equivalent to 20 times our proven crude oil reserves. Liquefied coal could solve our liquid energy needs for the next two centuries.
Another massive domestic energy reserve Pickens does not mention is shale oil. Another Energy Department report says the Green River formation underlying parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, deep inside Pickens' wind tunnel, contains as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil trapped in porous rock close to the surface. Two trillion barrels is seven times the Saudi reserves.
The problem with wind and solar — other than getting the power from where it is generated to where it is needed, which requires transmission lines the environmentalists won't accept, even if they and the wind farms could be built in time — are their intermittence.
A Reuters story on Feb. 27 reported, "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency."
The operator of a grid generating 1,100 megawatts of electricity had to shut down when that part of the Saudi Arabia of the Wind died and forced consumers to pound sand.
A lot of wind blows across Siberia, too, but Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday chose not to cut the ribbon on a wind farm, but rather toured a new Arctic oil rig designed to boost Russia's declining domestic production.
This is something Republican presidential candidate John McCain should do — visit our successful and environmentally friendly oil production facilities at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska and ask Democrats why we aren't drilling in nearby ANWR as we approach economy-wrecking $5-a-gallon gas.
Putin told assembled ministers and Gazprom executives that "the rate of growth of production has gone down . . . . In the first quarter of this year, production even declined 0.3%."
He said the new Prirazlomnaya rig, to be completed in 2010 and able to operate offshore at 58 degrees below zero, will help address Russia's energy needs.
The Russians know that the energy answers will not be found blowin' in the wind, even if Pickens and the Democrats do not.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Energy Policy: A world-famous Texas oilman says our energy answer lies in alternative energy. While tilting at windmills, he says that we can't drill our way to energy bliss. So why do the Russians keep drilling?
Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, T. Boone Pickens modestly says he has found more oil and drilled more dry holes than just about anyone. He says America's energy dilemma can't be solved by drilling alone, but by alternative energy such as solar and wind. He has launched a TV ad blitz in which wind farms are prominently featured.
America's energy future, says a longtime oilman, is written on the wind.
Pickens cites an Energy Department study that claims the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030. Yet the fact is that if we tripled our current output from wind, solar and geothermal, they would produce just 2.2% of our current energy needs after decades of subsidies amounting to billions of dollars.
Pickens says the "stretch of land that starts in West Texas and reaches all the way up to the border with Canada is called the 'Saudi Arabia of the Wind' . . . we have the greatest wind reserves in the world." Perhaps we do, at least in the halls of the drill-nothing Congress.
Well, we're also the Saudi Arabia of coal, but Pickens mentions coal not at all. The U.S. has 27% of the world's recoverable coal. A ton of coal can generate two barrels of synthetic oil.
On that basis, as the New York Times pointed out a few years ago, "the coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia."
This technology is in use today in South Africa, where three coal-liquefying plants produce about 150,000 barrels of oil a day. At the above conversion rate, America's coal reserves are equivalent to 20 times our proven crude oil reserves. Liquefied coal could solve our liquid energy needs for the next two centuries.
Another massive domestic energy reserve Pickens does not mention is shale oil. Another Energy Department report says the Green River formation underlying parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, deep inside Pickens' wind tunnel, contains as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil trapped in porous rock close to the surface. Two trillion barrels is seven times the Saudi reserves.
The problem with wind and solar — other than getting the power from where it is generated to where it is needed, which requires transmission lines the environmentalists won't accept, even if they and the wind farms could be built in time — are their intermittence.
A Reuters story on Feb. 27 reported, "Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency."
The operator of a grid generating 1,100 megawatts of electricity had to shut down when that part of the Saudi Arabia of the Wind died and forced consumers to pound sand.
A lot of wind blows across Siberia, too, but Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday chose not to cut the ribbon on a wind farm, but rather toured a new Arctic oil rig designed to boost Russia's declining domestic production.
This is something Republican presidential candidate John McCain should do — visit our successful and environmentally friendly oil production facilities at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska and ask Democrats why we aren't drilling in nearby ANWR as we approach economy-wrecking $5-a-gallon gas.
Putin told assembled ministers and Gazprom executives that "the rate of growth of production has gone down . . . . In the first quarter of this year, production even declined 0.3%."
He said the new Prirazlomnaya rig, to be completed in 2010 and able to operate offshore at 58 degrees below zero, will help address Russia's energy needs.
The Russians know that the energy answers will not be found blowin' in the wind, even if Pickens and the Democrats do not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
