Top cities with populations over 250,000 and having the largest numbers of people living below poverty.
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29..9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
Now, what do all these cities have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954
Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984
Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989
Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor
St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949
El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor
Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908
Philadelphia , PA (9th)....since 1952
Newark , NJ (10th)....since 1907.
The best way to get out of poverty, keep electing Democrats?
losercrats
Friday, July 31, 2009
Islamic Law: Coming Soon to a Place near You
Scandal in Saudi Arabia
[This article has been clipped. Parts are not relevant to what i believe is the larger issue.]
Saudi Arabia follows an austere form of Islam where religious police patrol the streets to enforce a strict moral standard including no mixing of unrelated men and women, as well as no drugs and alcohol.
Public beheadings are regularly carried out for a range of crimes, from murder to rape, witchcraft or insulting Islam.
But many young Saudis find ways around the draconian system to make contact with each other, and the clerics have tried in vain to limit mobile phone and other technology.
[...]
Abdul-Jawad said sex became an important part of his life at age 14, following his first sexual encounter with a neighbour.
He demonstrated how he would cruise girls in his red convertible or in supermarkets, often making use of Bluetooth mobile phone technology, and produced sex toys and lubricants from his bedroom cupboard.
"While I'm driving I turn my Bluetooth on. It has the description of my car and my mobile number... I get calls from girls... and in some cases I call back and she goes out with me," he says in the Youtube clips.
Newspapers and bloggers have said the young man should face legal action for spreading vice in what has been dubbed by media as the "frank with filth case".
"He confessed before the world that he committed fornication and continues to fornicate," an anonymous user wrote on al-Medina newspaper's web forum this week.
"It is for that reason that he deserves to be stoned to death, as Islamic law stipulates."
The sinner appears ready to face the stones -
"I offer my apologies to everyone and I am ready to accept the consequences," he said in an interview with the daily Okaz last week. It carried a photograph of him in traditional Saudi robes but with his face concealed.
********************************
I know you people who want to give Obama a chance also feel that this is barbaric, maybe a few of you believe it is fine for them. For us it is ok, correct? We as a culture accept fornication and infidelity and ... but is not our immorality seeping across borders and influencing poor men like Abdul-Jawad? Is his promiscuity not the result of Western influence? So do you think in your wildest dream that if they have the chance, they would impose their values on you, or at the very least to start with - get you to keep your values to yourself in your home and out of the public square?
Please say you understand how serious this is for you - what is, I feel, astonishing is - when these people get control, and they will - liberals will all be on the chopping block first, for corruption of morality. I find this to be very funny. It is liberals who are constantly howling about tolerating, and when the day comes, their toleration and 'open' values will be chopped long before the Islamists get around to doing the rest of us. At least for that short period there will be some sense of relief.
the inevitable
[This article has been clipped. Parts are not relevant to what i believe is the larger issue.]
Saudi Arabia follows an austere form of Islam where religious police patrol the streets to enforce a strict moral standard including no mixing of unrelated men and women, as well as no drugs and alcohol.
Public beheadings are regularly carried out for a range of crimes, from murder to rape, witchcraft or insulting Islam.
But many young Saudis find ways around the draconian system to make contact with each other, and the clerics have tried in vain to limit mobile phone and other technology.
[...]
Abdul-Jawad said sex became an important part of his life at age 14, following his first sexual encounter with a neighbour.
He demonstrated how he would cruise girls in his red convertible or in supermarkets, often making use of Bluetooth mobile phone technology, and produced sex toys and lubricants from his bedroom cupboard.
"While I'm driving I turn my Bluetooth on. It has the description of my car and my mobile number... I get calls from girls... and in some cases I call back and she goes out with me," he says in the Youtube clips.
Newspapers and bloggers have said the young man should face legal action for spreading vice in what has been dubbed by media as the "frank with filth case".
"He confessed before the world that he committed fornication and continues to fornicate," an anonymous user wrote on al-Medina newspaper's web forum this week.
"It is for that reason that he deserves to be stoned to death, as Islamic law stipulates."
The sinner appears ready to face the stones -
"I offer my apologies to everyone and I am ready to accept the consequences," he said in an interview with the daily Okaz last week. It carried a photograph of him in traditional Saudi robes but with his face concealed.
********************************
I know you people who want to give Obama a chance also feel that this is barbaric, maybe a few of you believe it is fine for them. For us it is ok, correct? We as a culture accept fornication and infidelity and ... but is not our immorality seeping across borders and influencing poor men like Abdul-Jawad? Is his promiscuity not the result of Western influence? So do you think in your wildest dream that if they have the chance, they would impose their values on you, or at the very least to start with - get you to keep your values to yourself in your home and out of the public square?
Please say you understand how serious this is for you - what is, I feel, astonishing is - when these people get control, and they will - liberals will all be on the chopping block first, for corruption of morality. I find this to be very funny. It is liberals who are constantly howling about tolerating, and when the day comes, their toleration and 'open' values will be chopped long before the Islamists get around to doing the rest of us. At least for that short period there will be some sense of relief.
the inevitable
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Nigerian Justice
Not that I condone anything Nigeria or its government does ... they did, on this one occasion, handle this individual, the correct way. This is the only way to sort out these sorts. They do not have any wish to live with you on the same planet unless you convert or are subservient to them.
Islamist sect leader in Nigeria killed in custody
By NJADVARA MUSA, Associated Press Writer
July 30, 2009
MAIDUGURI, Nigeria – The leader of the Islamist sect blamed for days of violence in northern Nigeria has been shot and killed while in police custody, officials said Thursday.
The police commander of Borno state announced on state radio that Mohammed Yusuf, the leader of the sect some call the Nigerian Taliban, has "died in police custody."
He gave no further explanation, but the state governor's spokesman Usman Ciroma told The Associated Press: "I saw his body at police headquarters. I believe he was shot while he was trying to escape."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link.]
terrorists
Islamist sect leader in Nigeria killed in custody
By NJADVARA MUSA, Associated Press Writer
July 30, 2009
MAIDUGURI, Nigeria – The leader of the Islamist sect blamed for days of violence in northern Nigeria has been shot and killed while in police custody, officials said Thursday.
The police commander of Borno state announced on state radio that Mohammed Yusuf, the leader of the sect some call the Nigerian Taliban, has "died in police custody."
He gave no further explanation, but the state governor's spokesman Usman Ciroma told The Associated Press: "I saw his body at police headquarters. I believe he was shot while he was trying to escape."
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link.]
terrorists
Fat? It's not your fault - it's what's in your food, blame someone else.
The Surprising Ingredient Causing Weight Gain
By Margaret Furtado, M.S., R.D.
Jul 27, 2009, 12:23 am PDT
Say it isn't so! A recent study out of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill cites what animal studies have hinted at for years: MSG (aka monosodium glutamate) could be a factor in weight gain.
The study focused on 750 Chinese men and women, ages 40-59, living in 3 rural villages in north and south China. Most of the study subjects prepared their meals at home without commercially processed foods and roughly 82 percent used MSG. Those participants who used the highest amounts of MSG had nearly 3 times the incidence of overweight as those who did not use MSG, even when physical activity, total caloric intake, and other possible explanations for body mass differences were accounted for. The positive correlation between MSG and higher weight confirmed what animal studies have been suggesting for years.
Maybe you're wondering what monosodium glutamate is exactly, and what you can do to avoid it in your diet. MSG is a flavor enhancer in foods—some believe it may even provide a fifth basic taste sensation (in addition to sweet, sour, salt, and bitter), what the Japanese call "umami" (roughly translated as "tastiness"). MSG is considered an "excitotoxin," since its action in the body is to excite neurotransmitters (important brain chemicals), causing nerve cells to discharge and also exciting nerves related to taste. Perhaps this ability to excite these nerves is a factor in an association between increased MSG usage and weight gain.
How prevalent is MSG in the U.S. diet? Americans consumed about 1 million pounds of MSG in 1950, and today that number has increased by a factor of 300!
To read the rest of the article, click on the title link
[I will expect that the Obama Health Plan - OHP - will cover the disease formerly known at being fat)
fat
By Margaret Furtado, M.S., R.D.
Jul 27, 2009, 12:23 am PDT
Say it isn't so! A recent study out of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill cites what animal studies have hinted at for years: MSG (aka monosodium glutamate) could be a factor in weight gain.
The study focused on 750 Chinese men and women, ages 40-59, living in 3 rural villages in north and south China. Most of the study subjects prepared their meals at home without commercially processed foods and roughly 82 percent used MSG. Those participants who used the highest amounts of MSG had nearly 3 times the incidence of overweight as those who did not use MSG, even when physical activity, total caloric intake, and other possible explanations for body mass differences were accounted for. The positive correlation between MSG and higher weight confirmed what animal studies have been suggesting for years.
Maybe you're wondering what monosodium glutamate is exactly, and what you can do to avoid it in your diet. MSG is a flavor enhancer in foods—some believe it may even provide a fifth basic taste sensation (in addition to sweet, sour, salt, and bitter), what the Japanese call "umami" (roughly translated as "tastiness"). MSG is considered an "excitotoxin," since its action in the body is to excite neurotransmitters (important brain chemicals), causing nerve cells to discharge and also exciting nerves related to taste. Perhaps this ability to excite these nerves is a factor in an association between increased MSG usage and weight gain.
How prevalent is MSG in the U.S. diet? Americans consumed about 1 million pounds of MSG in 1950, and today that number has increased by a factor of 300!
To read the rest of the article, click on the title link
[I will expect that the Obama Health Plan - OHP - will cover the disease formerly known at being fat)
fat
Obama Rewriting History
Obama Rewrites the Cold War
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.
July 13, 2009
By LIZ CHENEY
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."
The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."
Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.
The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?
The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."
Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.
Ms. Cheney served as deputy assistant secretary of state and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs from 2002-2004 and 2005-2006.
Corrections & Amplifications:
Liz Cheney was deputy assistant secretary of state under George W. Bush. A previous version of this op-ed by Ms. Cheney misstated her title.
The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.
July 13, 2009
By LIZ CHENEY
There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: "The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."
The truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not "competition in astrophysics and athletics." It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet "sphere of influence" was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.
It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" -- or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.
Mr. Obama's method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.
The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old."
Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, "I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." In other words, not so much.
The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism -- Obama exceptionalism. "We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand," one Obama handler has said. What they don't seem to realize is that once you're president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.
Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?
The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America's Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. "No people in history," it reads, "have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies."
Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally -- by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities -- as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies' lies about us.
Ms. Cheney served as deputy assistant secretary of state and principal deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs from 2002-2004 and 2005-2006.
Corrections & Amplifications:
Liz Cheney was deputy assistant secretary of state under George W. Bush. A previous version of this op-ed by Ms. Cheney misstated her title.
Cold War
Biden and Secrets v. Barack and Open Government
You gotta wonder how they rationalize it to themselves -
All his meetings are secret. he is meeting in secret with E
VERYONE who walks through the White House doors, the White House refuses to divulge who he meets with or any of the subjects ... and liberals approve of Biden. Wanna know who doesn't approve of Biden? Obama - which is why everything is secret. Every time the guy opens his mouth he screws things up and the White House knows that.
When Bush spoke, he meant it, he didn't exaggerate nor did he lie - when Biden speaks, he has never said anything truthful we did not already know, but he often would lie or exaggerate. Cheney didn't. Cheney met with energy officials and the records were kept secret and liberals screamed like he had just eviscerated them. Liberals today overwhelmingly approve of Joe.
Brilliant hypocrisy. Makes me want to be a liberal - I don't need values or ethics and can change my mind anytime I want and claim I am being consistent. If I was one of them, I would be ashamed. Most especially given Barack saying he would have the MOST TRANSPARENT administration EVER. ha ha. What a bloody joke. Makes the one secret meeting Cheney had look like it was a PTA meeting. EVERYTHING Biden does is secret and off the record! Except for the secret shelter where Biden will be taken - he revealed where it was ... the only non-secret secret. Talk about helping the enemy.
Here is an open SECRET to Joe and Barack - when major newspapers begin mocking your secret meetings ... the end is in sight.
Joe Biden update: Lots of closed meetings, a poll number under Cheney
While the president hops down to North Carolina and back to Virginia today, selling more healthcare plans whose billions of dollars will absolutely positively not add one Chicago dime to the deficit, Vice President Joe Biden has another full day of secret closed meetings in Washington.
According to the Veepster's schedule, after taking Monday off to accompany his wife to the doctor, he'll have a closed briefing on whatever the Recovery Act is or is not doing. Then, for the remainder of the entire day, Biden will have hour after hour of meetings with unidentified people on unidentified subjects. Don't even ask.
In the evening, he'll return to his Delaware home to recover.
Also, some polling news for Biden buffs:
According to a new Washington Post survey, a clear majority of Americans (55%) approve of the job Biden's doing, perhaps because thanks to schedules like today's, they can't know much about what that job he's doing actually is.
Biden's numbers are tied closely to Americans' belief in the economic efficacy of President Obama's stimulus package. Those who think it'll work, like him; those who don't, don't.
Those Biden approval numbers still aren't quite as good as Dick Cheney's April approval of 64% from a 2001 Post poll. But then Cheney is Obama's cousin and talks way less than Biden, who used to call Cheney the most dangerous vice president in U.S. history.
Biden's approval numbers, however, are way better than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's. Which actually isn't saying much because she and George W. Bush are both hovering around the lower 30s nowadays.
According to the Post, 79% of Democrats approve of Joe's job, 54% of independents and 24% of Republicans. Among white Catholics and whites without college degrees, Obama's actually doing better in approval ratings than the guy from Scranton, Pa., who was supposed to help him with that crowd. An ominous sign for a presidential helpmate.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Obama
All his meetings are secret. he is meeting in secret with E
VERYONE who walks through the White House doors, the White House refuses to divulge who he meets with or any of the subjects ... and liberals approve of Biden. Wanna know who doesn't approve of Biden? Obama - which is why everything is secret. Every time the guy opens his mouth he screws things up and the White House knows that. When Bush spoke, he meant it, he didn't exaggerate nor did he lie - when Biden speaks, he has never said anything truthful we did not already know, but he often would lie or exaggerate. Cheney didn't. Cheney met with energy officials and the records were kept secret and liberals screamed like he had just eviscerated them. Liberals today overwhelmingly approve of Joe.
Brilliant hypocrisy. Makes me want to be a liberal - I don't need values or ethics and can change my mind anytime I want and claim I am being consistent. If I was one of them, I would be ashamed. Most especially given Barack saying he would have the MOST TRANSPARENT administration EVER. ha ha. What a bloody joke. Makes the one secret meeting Cheney had look like it was a PTA meeting. EVERYTHING Biden does is secret and off the record! Except for the secret shelter where Biden will be taken - he revealed where it was ... the only non-secret secret. Talk about helping the enemy.
Here is an open SECRET to Joe and Barack - when major newspapers begin mocking your secret meetings ... the end is in sight.
Joe Biden update: Lots of closed meetings, a poll number under Cheney
While the president hops down to North Carolina and back to Virginia today, selling more healthcare plans whose billions of dollars will absolutely positively not add one Chicago dime to the deficit, Vice President Joe Biden has another full day of secret closed meetings in Washington.
According to the Veepster's schedule, after taking Monday off to accompany his wife to the doctor, he'll have a closed briefing on whatever the Recovery Act is or is not doing. Then, for the remainder of the entire day, Biden will have hour after hour of meetings with unidentified people on unidentified subjects. Don't even ask.
In the evening, he'll return to his Delaware home to recover.
Also, some polling news for Biden buffs:
According to a new Washington Post survey, a clear majority of Americans (55%) approve of the job Biden's doing, perhaps because thanks to schedules like today's, they can't know much about what that job he's doing actually is.
Biden's numbers are tied closely to Americans' belief in the economic efficacy of President Obama's stimulus package. Those who think it'll work, like him; those who don't, don't.
Those Biden approval numbers still aren't quite as good as Dick Cheney's April approval of 64% from a 2001 Post poll. But then Cheney is Obama's cousin and talks way less than Biden, who used to call Cheney the most dangerous vice president in U.S. history.
Biden's approval numbers, however, are way better than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's. Which actually isn't saying much because she and George W. Bush are both hovering around the lower 30s nowadays.
According to the Post, 79% of Democrats approve of Joe's job, 54% of independents and 24% of Republicans. Among white Catholics and whites without college degrees, Obama's actually doing better in approval ratings than the guy from Scranton, Pa., who was supposed to help him with that crowd. An ominous sign for a presidential helpmate.
-- Andrew Malcolm
Obama
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Hate? Obama?
'Someone' said that maybe all these posts were nothing more than 'hate Obama' tripe.
Here is why it is not -
Jimmy Carter was, and some would say still is, a very smart man. He is not dumb. He filled his administration in 1976, with capable and qualified people. This was true even in 1978 - his Vice President had a long history in Congress. His Under-Secretary of State was accomplished in the legal world (Warren Christopher), his Secretary of State was tolerably respected ... and yet he totally miscalculated Iran resulting in 55 Americans held hostage for 444 days. How did that happen? How can men who are so accomplished, so bright - Carter being one of the brightest presidents we have ever had - how can they so screw up the world, abandoning Iran to a theocratic tyrant who pushed Islamic theocracy around the globe - giving feet to terrorism and cash to killers. How can someone so brilliant fuck everything up so badly?
If Carter and his brilliant cohorts could screw things up so badly, why do you believe Obama can't? I am quite sure you believe Bush fucked everything up? Yet he had very capable men in office - regardless of what you think of Rumsfeld, he had more experience than Obama's entire cabinet combined, on the issue of defense. Yet, they screwed up on a number of issues. You have no problem attributing problems to Bush, but it suddenly becomes 'hate' when directed toward Obama. When it describes Bush it is simply analysis of, description of, and a reasonable evaluation of the Bush administration and what it did. Bush can screw everything up, Carter can screw things up (and is responsible for promoting world Islamic fundamentalism), but Obama ... he isn't. He is sweet as pie, and just a good guy trying to fix the world. Carter wasn't fixing anything was he? He had no intent on changing anything did he? I hope you understand he did, or your college education was wasted. Carter told the world that the US foreign policy would be one based on human rights – we would have relations with countries who adhered to the UN Charter on Human Rights and we would exclude countries who treated their citizenry badly – unless you were Russia or China. It was that clear with Carter.
The result - we abandoned countries due to their having serious problems with human rights violations, consequently turning them into nests for the Soviets where even worse human rights violations occurred. Carter was at the forefront of change.
Obama was still smoking pot at the time. Which is interesting in itself - Obama could smoke pot and that makes him cool, but Bush used some drugs and will not speak of it and he is uncool. It does say more about you than it does about Bush.
You say, Obama hasn't had much time, leave him alone, let him do the good things he says he wants to do. Real simple: Just because someone says they want to do good things does not mean they will or can, and by you sitting on your ass allowing them to do whatever they want (because it is all good, and for the good, and to be helpful, and good, and good, and helpful) you are the ass for doing so. The problem occurs when they so fuck everything up for the rest of us - at that point what you feel is irrelevant, but now we are all screwed, and while you can sit and wonder what happened, some of us can say we knew all along because the road to hell is well lit, and the signs say exactly where we are going.
You respond - well, if it was that clear then why aren't really important smart people saying the same thing? Why aren't people who have lots of letters after their name saying the same thing? While I have more letters after my name than most people have or could have, I suppose there are some letters I do not have, and I suppose those few percent who do have those letters are much smarter, much brighter, and much BETTER than I, so I should immediately sit down and do as I am told. Suck up even. That would be your argument - let the better people tell me what to do. How ironic. The 'better' people or Optimates ... could be considered the aristocracy which would, in your world, be Bush and his cohorts, yet you don't like being told what to do by the rich, just by the 'better' people you choose. Not at all hypocritical. A fine mess you made.
The fact someone has a lot of letters: AA, BA, DD, MA, PhD, JD after their name DOES NOT IN ANY BLOODY WAY MAKE THEM wiser or better. They are knowledgeable about a VERY NARROW area of subject matter - like knowing a great deal about the composition of a dust mite, and as important as the dust mite may be - that is the limit of their knowledge. Yet you believe, we should rely upon these awesome experts to run our country and lead the world. It is not those worthless sods who have the problem, it is you. I suspect you have a deep sense of worthlessness, and a need to be told what to do by someone much smarter. You will always find that awesomely smart person and will, I suspect be told what to do your entire life. What a brilliant mess you have created for yourself.
How long do you give someone? In 1979, Jimmy Carter created the Department of Education. In 1980, Ronald Reagan said he would disband the department. Reagan, with all his efforts, a Congress behind him, was unable to do so. Within one year, the bureaucracy and special interests of that entity became more powerful than a president. Now how long do you want to give Obama? Long enough to create a health service you know nothing about except from what he has said - wants to help you, wants to make you feel better, wants to give you choice and wants to ... from what he has said you know a considerable amount ... considering OBAMA HAS SAID HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE HOUSE VERSION OF THE HEALTH CARE BILL. Obama has no clue, yet apparently you do. Where do you get such brilliance from? Your glow lights all those dark places and makes us all smarter. There are people who actually have looked at the bill, and come up with an analysis and evaluation - no choice, no options, it is mandatory, and no private insurance will be permitted ... that comes from reading the bill, not listening to a man who cannot speak without his teleprompter, and he can't. On the campaign trail when he had no teleprompter he stuttered, misstated, flubbed his words, fumbled, stumbled, mumbled – he resembled Bush. You see what happens – no teleprompter is an equalizer. When He uses the teleprompter to speak, well, he floors the audience. They are wowed by his authenticity and genuine self shared with the audience. Sort of like using plastic surgery to enhance ones attributes ... and you of course will call that genuine.
How long do you want to give him? You complained for eight years about the war and cost of war and the debt from that war, and now within six months Obama has put us deeper into debt than Bush did in his entire eight years. And you are not complaining because Obama just started, give him a chance you say. The problem is, if we give him longer - he will rack up three times as much debt as our entire total at this time. It is estimated that the Recovery Plan will total over $25 trillion – only about twice our entire debt. Waiting and giving Obama time will only fuck us all, not just you, who wants to give Obama more time. You see, we all live in this country - not just you and the other 5% who are so wise and erudite, and we all have to deal with the major fuck ups Obama is creating - not just you who wants to wait awhile and give him a chance.
My country is unique, he said it wasn't. My country is exceptional - he believes it isn't. My country is the greatest hope for all mankind - he does not believe it is. He believes we are all the same. He is wrong. He believes al qaida is misunderstood and needs to be talked to and negotiated with - it shows a lack of wisdom and a gross ignorance that borders on recklessness.
My country is more important than all of his policies, in fact the country and our future is more important than the whims of 5% of the people. This country has accomplished a great deal – put away great evil on three occasions, when the world was unable or unwilling. We did so using the values of this country at that time. It is depressing to hear Obama or Biden speak of doing great things – of a great America, when our values are torn down and our economy wrecked, our military demoralized – I am not sure if al qaida could do a better job of destroying America.
The values of our Founding fathers created the greatest nation on earth. Today those values are ridiculed, and we are told we need new values, and do you suppose those new values will enable this nation to fight off evil when it appears? If not, they are not American values. My country is not a social experiment for Mr. Obama and his wise group of friends, to play with. My country must last and remain intact, or no one will be around to stand up to evil when it reappears. Obama and his ilk have demonstrated how they will respond to evil - negotiate. Simply look at Honduras. It is our future – negotiate away our future for peace because Obama says so, and you believe that we should give him a chance.
If it was only you and him playing your insipidly stupid game – fine, but it is my country, based on the values of 200 years and over a million lives sacrificed for the ideals we believe in - worth dying for, including our exceptionalism. Those values made this the greatest nation on earth - not Obama's values of today. Education does not make you wise, it actually makes you very foolish, for you lose certainty and everything is ambiguous and unclear.
This country is more important than Obama having time to fuck it up, is more important than allowing the government control over industry and business, than allowing the largest concentration of power in American history, in the hands of one man. Ironic really. Bush wanted power to fight terrorism and you moaned and groaned about your rights being taken. Obama has set the course for the largest concentration of power in American history to be held by the Executive branch - for good or bad, it is happening, and you have no clue or don't care, because you want to give Obama a chance.
Hate? No. I believe my country is greater than the pettiness of Obama and the socialist side of the Democratic party. And before you roll your eyes at my calling them socialists - find the government platform for Norway or Finland, or Sweden in 1980, and then compare it to the policies, programs, and plans of the Democratic party. If you find more than one major difference, I will cease calling it socialist. If you do not, you must donate $1000 to the Boy Scouts of America.
It is important to be clear. It is important that we understand what we are talking about. if you are a Democrat, you belong to a party that espouses socialist values. That does not mean I think much more of the retardicans. I do not. They are equally as loathsome in their stupidity and idiocy. Be clear. Accept who you are, isn't that the liberal motto - be true to yourself, come out of the closet and admit - I am a socialist. Be proud of it.
Give Obama a chance?
To do what? Create the largest bureaucracy in American history, to change the fundamental structure of America, to turn us toward socialist goals when socialist states are turning toward free market and capitalism - to re-write history, as he did in Russia two weeks ago:
"The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."
Obama studied the history he wanted to study - under teachers who were Marxist in their theory and interpretation of history (and I don't mean that as a bad hateful thing, simply an observation of fact). Give Obama a chance.
Our country cannot weather any more change. The people did not elect him to fundamentally change the entire structure of the United States - they did not understand what he was telling them, and he counted on that fact. Words sound good - change, hope. Nice catchwords, but they mean very little unless attached to a plan, and the plan Obama has rolled out is not one the American people want or asked for. His Marxist plan is his own, not ours. Can he be impeached? No. What we can hope for is - Democratic congressmen from the Western states and Southern states standing up and opposing his socialist agenda for America. 10-20 Democratic Congressmen from the House and 3-4 in the Senate and his agenda can be stopped. then, in another year, we un-elect the liberals from the House and give the power back to the people (and yes, I know that at this point you are rolling your eyes again - as if the Republican party is the party of the people. Trust me this time - it is far more aligned with the people than the Democratic socialist party of America however retarded most of its membership).
The House and Senate would then be in a position to balance the power Obama is collecting and negate the effects of his agenda when necessary. Change when reasonable and prudent, not simply because.
Hate for Obama? No. I am simply looking at him with Eyes Wide Open, not Shut.
Obama
More Healthcare - Charge the Fat People
Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare
July 27, 2009
LA Times
When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.
As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."
In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.
If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)
"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.
Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods.
But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.
And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.
Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.
And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.
That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.
There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."
fat
July 27, 2009
LA Times
When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off.
As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars."
In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year.
If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.)
"Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows.
Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods.
But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits.
If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food.
And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says.
Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area.
And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.
That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years.
There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight."
fat
US Military on Swine Flu
Military planning for possible H1N1 outbreak
July 29, 2009
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military wants to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.
The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command's Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary.
The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.
It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.
Civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts in the event of a major outbreak, the official said. The military, as they would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.
As a first step, Gates is being asked to sign a so-called "execution order" that would authorize the military to begin to conduct the detailed planning to execute the proposed plan.
Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall, the officials said.
Swine flu
July 29, 2009
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military wants to establish regional teams of military personnel to assist civilian authorities in the event of a significant outbreak of the H1N1 virus this fall, according to Defense Department officials.
The proposal is awaiting final approval from Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The officials would not be identified because the proposal from U.S. Northern Command's Gen. Victor Renuart has not been approved by the secretary.
The plan calls for military task forces to work in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There is no final decision on how the military effort would be manned, but one source said it would likely include personnel from all branches of the military.
It has yet to be determined how many troops would be needed and whether they would come from the active duty or the National Guard and Reserve forces.
Civilian authorities would lead any relief efforts in the event of a major outbreak, the official said. The military, as they would for a natural disaster or other significant emergency situation, could provide support and fulfill any tasks that civilian authorities could not, such as air transport or testing of large numbers of viral samples from infected patients.
As a first step, Gates is being asked to sign a so-called "execution order" that would authorize the military to begin to conduct the detailed planning to execute the proposed plan.
Orders to deploy actual forces would be reviewed later, depending on how much of a health threat the flu poses this fall, the officials said.
Swine flu
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Obama Hypocrisy: Honduras
The lists are endless - but immediately the question of - Americans are not special, we are no more special than anyone else, we should not and can not meddle in the affairs of other countries - and this is not meddling?
Honduras is standing up to enormous pressure. It is standing up for the rule of law, for democracy, and all Obama can do is turn on the people of Honduras and subject them to oppression in the form of Zelaya.
Obama has shown he does not care about freedom or democracy - he cares about promoting his values at the expense of all else.
US revokes visas of 4 Honduran officials
Jul 28, 2009
By MORGAN LEE and JUAN CARLOS LLORCA
Associated Press Writer
OCOTAL, Nicaragua (AP) - The U.S. government said Tuesday it has revoked the diplomatic visas of four Honduran officials, stepping up pressure on coup-installed leaders who insist they can resist international demands to restore the ousted president.
The U.S. State Department did not name the four, but a Honduran official said they included the Supreme Court magistrate who ordered the arrest of ousted President Manuel Zelda and the president of Honduras' Congress.
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Obama
Honduras is standing up to enormous pressure. It is standing up for the rule of law, for democracy, and all Obama can do is turn on the people of Honduras and subject them to oppression in the form of Zelaya.
Obama has shown he does not care about freedom or democracy - he cares about promoting his values at the expense of all else.
US revokes visas of 4 Honduran officials
Jul 28, 2009
By MORGAN LEE and JUAN CARLOS LLORCA
Associated Press Writer
OCOTAL, Nicaragua (AP) - The U.S. government said Tuesday it has revoked the diplomatic visas of four Honduran officials, stepping up pressure on coup-installed leaders who insist they can resist international demands to restore the ousted president.
The U.S. State Department did not name the four, but a Honduran official said they included the Supreme Court magistrate who ordered the arrest of ousted President Manuel Zelda and the president of Honduras' Congress.
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Obama
Ol' Joe - There he goes again.
Give Joe a microphone and he will mess it all up. Guess who will want to spend more time with his family before 2012!!
US Vice President Biden hits nerve in Russia
By LYNN BERRY
Washington Post
The Associated Press
Monday, July 27, 2009
MOSCOW -- An interview U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gave to an American newspaper was front-page news Monday in Moscow, where his characterization of Russia as a weakened nation hit a raw nerve.
Biden said Russia's economic difficulties are likely to make the Kremlin more willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of national security issues.
"I think we vastly underestimate the hand that we hold," he said in an interview to The Wall Street Journal published Saturday.
Biden's comments appeared to catch the Kremlin by surprise, coming less than three weeks after President Barack Obama said on a visit to Moscow that the U.S. wants to see a "strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia."
"It raises the question: Who is shaping U.S. foreign policy? The president or members of his team, even the most respected ones?" said Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday downplayed suggestions that Biden was setting a different U.S. policy from that laid out by the president.
When asked whether Obama thought Biden had gone too far in his remarks, Gibbs said the president stated his views on Russia during his recent visit and the vice president agrees with those views.
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Obama
US Vice President Biden hits nerve in Russia
By LYNN BERRY
Washington Post
The Associated Press
Monday, July 27, 2009
MOSCOW -- An interview U.S. Vice President Joe Biden gave to an American newspaper was front-page news Monday in Moscow, where his characterization of Russia as a weakened nation hit a raw nerve.
Biden said Russia's economic difficulties are likely to make the Kremlin more willing to cooperate with the United States on a range of national security issues.
"I think we vastly underestimate the hand that we hold," he said in an interview to The Wall Street Journal published Saturday.
Biden's comments appeared to catch the Kremlin by surprise, coming less than three weeks after President Barack Obama said on a visit to Moscow that the U.S. wants to see a "strong, peaceful and prosperous Russia."
"It raises the question: Who is shaping U.S. foreign policy? The president or members of his team, even the most respected ones?" said Kremlin foreign policy adviser Sergei Prikhodko.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Monday downplayed suggestions that Biden was setting a different U.S. policy from that laid out by the president.
When asked whether Obama thought Biden had gone too far in his remarks, Gibbs said the president stated his views on Russia during his recent visit and the vice president agrees with those views.
[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link]
Obama
Monday, July 27, 2009
Democratic Play Book - Hypocrisy
Hypocrisy - They don't care, they hold you, the people in the greatest of contempt, and will, whether you want a law passed, do it anyway, because you, the people, do not know what you want, or what is good for you. Hypocrites.
Great digging - an interview in 2004 with Barack Obama by Randi Rhodes on Bush pushing through legislation without anyone having the opportunity to read it.
We know the Democrats and Republicans have not read the health care bill - Congressman Conyers admitted he didn't.
The link <--
BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.
And recently Senator Chuck Todd explains why they wanted to ram it through:
Link <--
CHUCK TODD: And a few things that I feel like that I've picked up from these guys. Number one is that they are very aware. Rahm Emanuel is Chief of staff...had experience in the Clinton White House. And he is trying to learn every lesson from those days of Clinton and apply it to Obama. So number one is, don't deal with just one big issue. One of the reasons why, for instance, they thought health care went down is you had one issue sitting out there when Hillary Clinton introduced it. We all focused on it in the media. And the opposition got to organize and stop it. And you can kill anything in this town if you set an idea out here long enough and give the opposition time to organize and stop something. And I don't care which side of the aisle you're on. You can kill anything in Washington doing that. And I think they're attacking it this way: saying we're going to push 3 or 4 different things. Because they believe the opposition won't have time to unite and kill all of it.
So it isn't about the time necessary to do the right thing, it isn't about serving the people, it isn't about the will of the people, it isn't about democracy ... it is about ramming something down our throats whether we want it or not.
Democrats
Great digging - an interview in 2004 with Barack Obama by Randi Rhodes on Bush pushing through legislation without anyone having the opportunity to read it.
We know the Democrats and Republicans have not read the health care bill - Congressman Conyers admitted he didn't.
The link <--
BARACK OBAMA: ...When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration.
And recently Senator Chuck Todd explains why they wanted to ram it through:
Link <--
CHUCK TODD: And a few things that I feel like that I've picked up from these guys. Number one is that they are very aware. Rahm Emanuel is Chief of staff...had experience in the Clinton White House. And he is trying to learn every lesson from those days of Clinton and apply it to Obama. So number one is, don't deal with just one big issue. One of the reasons why, for instance, they thought health care went down is you had one issue sitting out there when Hillary Clinton introduced it. We all focused on it in the media. And the opposition got to organize and stop it. And you can kill anything in this town if you set an idea out here long enough and give the opposition time to organize and stop something. And I don't care which side of the aisle you're on. You can kill anything in Washington doing that. And I think they're attacking it this way: saying we're going to push 3 or 4 different things. Because they believe the opposition won't have time to unite and kill all of it.
So it isn't about the time necessary to do the right thing, it isn't about serving the people, it isn't about the will of the people, it isn't about democracy ... it is about ramming something down our throats whether we want it or not.
Democrats
Universal Healthcare
Anywhere from 30 to 47 million people do not have health insurance in the United States.
[Cue the sighs, moans, and gasps]
Interesting these numbers. No more than 3-4 years ago the numbers were more like 33-35 million. The highest I have ever seen is 40 million and then suddenly it is 47 million.
I cannot imagine for the life of me who would create a number so high as 47 million (and coming soon - 50 million)? I cannot imagine for the life of me, who would want to promote such a high number - who has a political agenda so attached to the higher number as to become the lifeblood of the cause?
Hmmm.
I think the numbers are important because we are bargaining $1.5 trillion upward of $7 trillion on a health system that would cover 30, 35, 40, or 47 million people, and make no mistakes - with 100% certainty we know the cost will be greater than 3-4 trillion and much closer to 5, that in the end perhaps even $6 trillion. What these foolish and politically driven minions do not say aloud is - once it is in place, no one can disassemble it if the cost goes higher. They will simply say they didn't know, costs being what they are ... and you the foolish electorate will believe them - again.
We, the United States, do not have a health care crisis. We have the best medical system in the world. THEY - that is everyone else, come here when they need serious medical care - if they can afford it (and I addressed this issue in a past post - if you are a foreigner you cannot have our Blue Cross insurance so you would need to pay cash - which is only reasonable and logical.). The issue of prescriptions is incidental and unrelated to the larger issue.
Anyone who writes that the US has anything but the best medical system doesn't have a fucking clue (ignorant), is a liar, or is misinforming you of the facts. It is one of the three, and no other options possible. A liar, ignorant, or misinforming you ... which could be a lie or ignorance, depending upon whether they know and why they are misinforming you.
We have the best medical system, and we also have a complicated and convoluted insurance system.
45% of those people who are uninsured will be insured within 90 days: 45% ranges from 13.5 million up to 21.15 million.
We need to deduct those numbers before we continue.
We would have anywhere from 16.5 million up to 25.85 million uninsured.
Illegals comprise 10 million of those figures.
That leaves us with between 6.5 million up to 15.9 million uninsured Americans.
Of the total number we started with, 8% make between $50k to $75,000 per year, are either single or married with no children. That number ranges from 520,000 to 3.76 million
Of the total number we started with, 5% are between 18-25, and DO NOT WANT to pay for insurance. Forcing them to do something is not good policy, in large part because they do not cost the system as much as the old people do. Let them remain uninsured until they turn 30 and have a family and realize they need to be responsible and then they will get coverage. That figure ranges from 325,000 to 2.35 million.
While we are discussing dire straits – the fact is, NO AMERICAN or illegal is unable to get emergency medical care in the United States of America – NONE. No one. Every human being within our borders can get emergency medical care – FREE, if they have no money. If they have some money, they pay SOME. If they own a home, they will pay more. If they are indigent and cannot pay – IT’S FREE. Before you head down to your emergency room – understand it is a service we should not take advantage of – we all end up paying the costs, which I am not opposed to, IF the person getting the care is in dire straits.
So why not spend $25 billion and cover the 12 million people – create an arm of medicare, just for the uninsured. No new bureaucracy, no new constituency – just incorporate a few people into an already existing system. Isn't that what we all hear – the need to care for the uninsured. My plan would cover them. Care taken care of and no new government invasion into the core of our most private of spaces – our bodies.
Alas, that is not what it is all about, or my plan would suffice.
It is about politics, it is about power.
So the issue becomes – oh, but we all pay so much and we don’t want to.
Get the major insurance companies to lower their premiums by 20%. How – agree to let them write off a certain amount of loss in their taxes each year. Would 20% make you all happy? Of course not – which is why it really isn’t about health care nor is it about affordability – it is something more.
Why not allow every American to write off, say $900 per year in health insurance premiums, and send each uninsured person a $900 check payable to ‘Major Insurance Company’ for $900. Secure approval of the company to lower premiums 1-2 months worth if it is all paid up front. The $900 would pay all or very nearly all of an HMO premium for at least 10 months. Allow people who have their own insurance, to write off $900 worth of premiums, and people who receive the government $900 check, must use it or they would not receive a check the next year.
Even if we raised the premium tax deduction to $1200 and sent $1200 checks to all 12 million uninsured (or more likely 5 million people) – it would still be worth it. I could stay with my PPO, you could have an HMO, we would continue as we always have and the government would not have any role, but to ensure the general welfare via a tax deduction. Would it make my life easier each month – not a great deal, but at the end of the year, I would feel better.
If the concern was about our medical needs and health care – my plans would work and no new government bureaucracy would need to be created and the United States would not go into debt another $1.5 – 7 trillion in the next few years. But of course, this is not about health care – it is about power and controlling the people. Who would end up paying for this colossal government invasion of my privacy? Oh, wait, before we answer that, let’s consider a couple options on the table:
Fat tax – just like the cigarette tax, it reduced smoking and has paid for medical care for people who smoke – oops, can’t say that because we need reasons for the national health system and it cannot already be funded or the argument would lose steam, so – the taxes on cigarettes reduced the number of smokers. The plan is to tax fat. Tax sodas and tax candy and tax anything fattening – I assume cookies, cakes, pies, ice cream, crackers, licorice … The estimate is it would raise $500 billion to put toward our health care system. Brilliant, not. Like cigarettes, fewer people will buy fat stuff and the anticipated revenue will decrease, and just like the lotto which was promoted as the source of revenue for schools, it will decrease and state funding would have to increase. You would ban it into non-existence.
What a boring life. Oh but the benefits they will tell you – we would all be healthier, we would enjoy life longer, live longer and … well, if we live to 98, we will be going to the doctor quite a few more times each year, more medications, more surgeries, more …. more costs and the health care system would be overwhelmed as we live longer and the revenue we depended upon from fat, would be gone, with fewer people paying taxes because we have all gotten older … the end of the world as we know it and we’ll feel fine.
Soak the rich tax at 1% - the rich did so well under Bush so now they have to pay up. 1% of their wealth. This would begin for individuals or businesses making $250,000 to $320,000 a year and up. So according to some fools - Garofalo - these rich people would pay up because they feel obliged to pay, and this soak the rich tax would raise billions to fund and pay for our health care system. Isn't that a brilliant plan. Who is the advocate for the rich - no one. So soak them all day every day and no one will say stop because they don't want to be linked with the rich and get soaked along the way. Except, the rich are rich because they are smart - much smarter than a writer for some rinky dink newspaper or magazine. Year 1, the rich will pay, but by year 2, the rich have new ways of hiding their money, thus necessitating you (federal government) to spend billions to collect billions from the rich. In the end, it is a long drawn out process and the billions you were counting on just do not materialize. So the rich devise new ways to be compensated, perhaps through retirement or 401k plans - so you (government) tax those plans, and along the way fail to realize it taxes everyone else as well so the soak the rich plan just became tax everyone plan. That idea will not work. By that time the rich have new lawyers and new accountants and now receive their paychecks in German Deutschmarks, paid into accounts in banks in Jersey (not the state), and you end up, by year 3 with less revenue than you expected and higher health costs because you were planning a little ahead of yourself.
And I thought you were too stupid to figure out that the poor and middle class would pay more!
(Does this count as fishy? Sure, why not - in the world of Obama and ACORN, it has to be fishy becvause it questions what he and they believe - but not in the United States of America.)
Obama
Obama
[Cue the sighs, moans, and gasps]
Interesting these numbers. No more than 3-4 years ago the numbers were more like 33-35 million. The highest I have ever seen is 40 million and then suddenly it is 47 million.
I cannot imagine for the life of me who would create a number so high as 47 million (and coming soon - 50 million)? I cannot imagine for the life of me, who would want to promote such a high number - who has a political agenda so attached to the higher number as to become the lifeblood of the cause?
Hmmm.
I think the numbers are important because we are bargaining $1.5 trillion upward of $7 trillion on a health system that would cover 30, 35, 40, or 47 million people, and make no mistakes - with 100% certainty we know the cost will be greater than 3-4 trillion and much closer to 5, that in the end perhaps even $6 trillion. What these foolish and politically driven minions do not say aloud is - once it is in place, no one can disassemble it if the cost goes higher. They will simply say they didn't know, costs being what they are ... and you the foolish electorate will believe them - again.
We, the United States, do not have a health care crisis. We have the best medical system in the world. THEY - that is everyone else, come here when they need serious medical care - if they can afford it (and I addressed this issue in a past post - if you are a foreigner you cannot have our Blue Cross insurance so you would need to pay cash - which is only reasonable and logical.). The issue of prescriptions is incidental and unrelated to the larger issue.
Digression: Canada has cheaper medications because their GOVERNMENT contracts with AMERICAN pharmaceutical companies to buy at a discount. Then the Canadian government underwrites a subsidized cost for Canadians. They buy Imitrex for $40 for 20 pills instead of the $60 for 20 pills, it sells for in the US. Then the Canadian government underwrites 30% and sells it to Canadians for $28, while in the US we buy it for $60 minus whatever our insurance will cover. Canada has up to 70% taxation levels that help pay for this 'cheaper' medication.
Anyone who writes that the US has anything but the best medical system doesn't have a fucking clue (ignorant), is a liar, or is misinforming you of the facts. It is one of the three, and no other options possible. A liar, ignorant, or misinforming you ... which could be a lie or ignorance, depending upon whether they know and why they are misinforming you.
We have the best medical system, and we also have a complicated and convoluted insurance system.
The estimates for the numbers of uninsured in this country range from 30 million up to 47 million people. Some explication of who those 30-47 million people are is important.
45% of those people who are uninsured will be insured within 90 days: 45% ranges from 13.5 million up to 21.15 million.
We need to deduct those numbers before we continue.
We would have anywhere from 16.5 million up to 25.85 million uninsured.
Illegals comprise 10 million of those figures.
That leaves us with between 6.5 million up to 15.9 million uninsured Americans.
Of the total number we started with, 8% make between $50k to $75,000 per year, are either single or married with no children. That number ranges from 520,000 to 3.76 million
Of the total number we started with, 5% are between 18-25, and DO NOT WANT to pay for insurance. Forcing them to do something is not good policy, in large part because they do not cost the system as much as the old people do. Let them remain uninsured until they turn 30 and have a family and realize they need to be responsible and then they will get coverage. That figure ranges from 325,000 to 2.35 million.
Finally, of the total figure we started with (between 30-47 million), the number of children under the age of 18, whose family income is less than $65,000 is 6 million. These children are currently and have been covered under the CHIP program, yet they are also counted in the figure of 30 to 47 million uninsured. Wrongly, falsely, and I believe politically. The figure comes from MSNBC 10/7/07.
Looking at the numbers - if we had 30 million uninsured, we suddenly have 345,000 more insured than were uninsured. So we can dismiss the 30 million as it is simply inconvenient to accept those numbers.
These numbers just will not do, so we need to devise a new way of counting - how about 47 million? That would provide for 3,740,000 uninsured Americans.
The total number of uninsured Americans ranges from 1.25 million who are purportedly uninsured but do not exist up to nearly 4 million who do not have insurance.
If we do the math differently, we come up with 12 million uninsured. How did I reach 12 million. Recalculate the numbers but take the 8% and 5% off of the balance and not the original number. It is more accurate doing it my way, but we do need to create a crisis.
The range then, to be very conservative – from 4 million to 12 million Americans uninsured.
Less than 5% of the population is without insurance.
For this 5%, Democrats want to spend between $1.5 trillion upwards to $7 trillion.
Some estimates suggest several million fetuses are aborted each year – those two million do not count, but 4 million up to 12 million are certainly a political force, and one must wonder why. More than 40% of this country is vehemently opposed to this program Obama has proposed – a lot more than 4 million and still much more than 12 million – yet they are persisting in this cause.
To be clear – 2 million aborted fetuses do not count, 40% of the electorate do not count, but 5% of the population do count.
Is anyone curious about why?
If I were you, I would be.
The highest estimate is 12 million Americans and for 12 million, some people want to spend $1.5 trillion to fix a problem that can be solved without government intrusion, intervention, or political gain – imagine the party that creates the largest (or near largest) federal bureaucracy – imagine the workers who would vote for that party for having created that hiring entity.
Imagine the 12 million voters who would thereafter vote for that political party. Even if it was not 12 million, which it is certainly not – imagine the nearly 4 million voters who would become the constituency of that party in an effort to preserve their own interests (health benefits). Then imagine the employees hired into that bureaucracy – certainly several hundred thousand – all Democratic voters for all time.
The reason behind the push – the force used in propelling this legislation to a vote – entirely political.
Sure, along the way they help a few people and feel good – but it is regardless of the few nice things they will do – political.
Obama is a student of history. He has considered what FDR did to seal the Democratic party as the party of power for four decades – and he intends to ensure Democratic control of the Congress for at least that long or longer.
Do I belittle the real issues and the struggle people make to pay their policies or keep the policy they may be losing when they were laid off – no.
First - the issue of illegals. They are 'illegal' and as such should not receive FREE medical care in the United States. If they want free care, let them go home and get it - back to their wonderful country wherever they come from where they can wave their flags and enjoy the freedom and opportunity.
In any event - Canada has a population of about 35 million people. They spend about $50 billion to cover all 35 million people. Surely we could spend $25 billion and cover 16 million – the 12 million American citizens and perhaps another 3-4 million who are in dire straits.
While we are discussing dire straits – the fact is, NO AMERICAN or illegal is unable to get emergency medical care in the United States of America – NONE. No one. Every human being within our borders can get emergency medical care – FREE, if they have no money. If they have some money, they pay SOME. If they own a home, they will pay more. If they are indigent and cannot pay – IT’S FREE. Before you head down to your emergency room – understand it is a service we should not take advantage of – we all end up paying the costs, which I am not opposed to, IF the person getting the care is in dire straits.
So why not spend $25 billion and cover the 12 million people – create an arm of medicare, just for the uninsured. No new bureaucracy, no new constituency – just incorporate a few people into an already existing system. Isn't that what we all hear – the need to care for the uninsured. My plan would cover them. Care taken care of and no new government invasion into the core of our most private of spaces – our bodies.
Alas, that is not what it is all about, or my plan would suffice.
It is about politics, it is about power.
So the issue becomes – oh, but we all pay so much and we don’t want to.
Get the major insurance companies to lower their premiums by 20%. How – agree to let them write off a certain amount of loss in their taxes each year. Would 20% make you all happy? Of course not – which is why it really isn’t about health care nor is it about affordability – it is something more.
Why not allow every American to write off, say $900 per year in health insurance premiums, and send each uninsured person a $900 check payable to ‘Major Insurance Company’ for $900. Secure approval of the company to lower premiums 1-2 months worth if it is all paid up front. The $900 would pay all or very nearly all of an HMO premium for at least 10 months. Allow people who have their own insurance, to write off $900 worth of premiums, and people who receive the government $900 check, must use it or they would not receive a check the next year.
Even if we raised the premium tax deduction to $1200 and sent $1200 checks to all 12 million uninsured (or more likely 5 million people) – it would still be worth it. I could stay with my PPO, you could have an HMO, we would continue as we always have and the government would not have any role, but to ensure the general welfare via a tax deduction. Would it make my life easier each month – not a great deal, but at the end of the year, I would feel better.
If the concern was about our medical needs and health care – my plans would work and no new government bureaucracy would need to be created and the United States would not go into debt another $1.5 – 7 trillion in the next few years. But of course, this is not about health care – it is about power and controlling the people. Who would end up paying for this colossal government invasion of my privacy? Oh, wait, before we answer that, let’s consider a couple options on the table:
Fat tax – just like the cigarette tax, it reduced smoking and has paid for medical care for people who smoke – oops, can’t say that because we need reasons for the national health system and it cannot already be funded or the argument would lose steam, so – the taxes on cigarettes reduced the number of smokers. The plan is to tax fat. Tax sodas and tax candy and tax anything fattening – I assume cookies, cakes, pies, ice cream, crackers, licorice … The estimate is it would raise $500 billion to put toward our health care system. Brilliant, not. Like cigarettes, fewer people will buy fat stuff and the anticipated revenue will decrease, and just like the lotto which was promoted as the source of revenue for schools, it will decrease and state funding would have to increase. You would ban it into non-existence.
What a boring life. Oh but the benefits they will tell you – we would all be healthier, we would enjoy life longer, live longer and … well, if we live to 98, we will be going to the doctor quite a few more times each year, more medications, more surgeries, more …. more costs and the health care system would be overwhelmed as we live longer and the revenue we depended upon from fat, would be gone, with fewer people paying taxes because we have all gotten older … the end of the world as we know it and we’ll feel fine.
Soak the rich tax at 1% - the rich did so well under Bush so now they have to pay up. 1% of their wealth. This would begin for individuals or businesses making $250,000 to $320,000 a year and up. So according to some fools - Garofalo - these rich people would pay up because they feel obliged to pay, and this soak the rich tax would raise billions to fund and pay for our health care system. Isn't that a brilliant plan. Who is the advocate for the rich - no one. So soak them all day every day and no one will say stop because they don't want to be linked with the rich and get soaked along the way. Except, the rich are rich because they are smart - much smarter than a writer for some rinky dink newspaper or magazine. Year 1, the rich will pay, but by year 2, the rich have new ways of hiding their money, thus necessitating you (federal government) to spend billions to collect billions from the rich. In the end, it is a long drawn out process and the billions you were counting on just do not materialize. So the rich devise new ways to be compensated, perhaps through retirement or 401k plans - so you (government) tax those plans, and along the way fail to realize it taxes everyone else as well so the soak the rich plan just became tax everyone plan. That idea will not work. By that time the rich have new lawyers and new accountants and now receive their paychecks in German Deutschmarks, paid into accounts in banks in Jersey (not the state), and you end up, by year 3 with less revenue than you expected and higher health costs because you were planning a little ahead of yourself.
Soaking the rich and the fat people just will not do it. So back to the question - who ends up paying for it?
And I thought you were too stupid to figure out that the poor and middle class would pay more!
(Does this count as fishy? Sure, why not - in the world of Obama and ACORN, it has to be fishy becvause it questions what he and they believe - but not in the United States of America.)
Obama
Obama
The British (US) Surrender in Afghanistan
So you will throw the lives away to establish different zones. One for the Taliban and one for Karzai. One where women are raped and murdered, and one where civilized law exists. And then, when stories of the brutality emerge, you will condemn, criticize, and demand an end to ... and then go on about your business.
The British have lost their will. This is what happens to a country that has within forty years become a socialist state - giving up its military in favor of social programs. The US, in fifty years would be in this position - negotiating with killers because we are tired of fighting.
THIS is what the Taliban and al qiada have counted on - and they are winning.
Britain calls for Northern Ireland style peace deal in Afghanistan as Brown signals end to Operation Panther's Claw
By Daily Mail Reporter
27th July 2009
The Daily Mail
A Northern Ireland-style peace deal could be struck with the Taliban in Afghanistan in a bid to end the conflict, the Government signalled today.
Ministers said that talking to the insurgents who have killed almost 200 British soldiers might be the only way to curtail the bloody war.
The suggestion of 'talks with the Taliban' came as Gordon Brown revealed the biggest offensive by UK troops in Helmand Province since the conflict began is now over.
The Prime Minister insisted Operation Panther's Claw, aimed at clearing southern Helmand of insurgents ahead of Afghan elections in August, had been worthwhile.
His announcement came as the latest soldier to die in the conflict was named as Bombardier Craig Hopson, of the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery.
In total, 20 soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since the operation began at the end of June - 10 directly linked to the mission. Hundreds of others have been injured, many severely.
'The effort of our troops in Helmand have been nothing short of heroic. There has been a tragic human cost but this has not been in vain,' Mr Brown said.
'It has pushed back the Taliban and made it harder for them and other extremists to operate. Britain will be safer as a result.
'The men and women of our armed forces have shown once again their bravery and professionalism. The whole country is immensely proud of them.'
Commander of Task Force Helmand, Brigardier Tim Radford, hailed the 'significant' achievement and said: 'I am absolutely certain that the operation has been a success.'
Brigadier Radford, in a briefing at the MoD today, admitted it had been a 'very, very hard fight'.
'When I have been on the ground, you look into the eyes of some of the soldiers and they have certainly grown up during this period,' he said. 'My admiration for the troops on the ground has been quite huge. They have done an exceptional job.'
He refused to give details about Taliban deaths but said they had been 'significant' and had seriously affected their capability as well as their morale. Only three civilians deaths have been reported.
UK troops will remain in the region but will move into the next phase of their mission which is to hold onto ground won from the Taliban in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, Britain wants moderate Taliban fighters to lay down their weapons in a reconciliation process similar to the one struck to end the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband, speaking at Nato's headquarters in Brussels today, said a political process had to be adopted alongside military action to make peace a realistic possibility.
Less radical insurgents should be offered incentivese including jobs and land to encourage them to turn their back on the fight against coalition troops, he claimed.
'We need to help the Afghan government exploit the opportunity, with a more coherent effort to fragment the various elements of the insurgency, and turn those who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan Constitution,' he said.
'The Afghan government needs effective grass-roots initiatives to offer an alternative to fight or flight for the foot soldiers of the insurgency.
'Essentially this means a clear route for former insurgents to return to their villages and go back to farming the land, or a role for some of them within the legitimate Afghan security forces.'
He insisted a distinction had to be drawn between 'conservative' nationalists and 'those committed to violent jihad', allowing those not bent on destruction back into society.
Urging the Afghan state to take more responsibility, Mr Miliband said: 'It is only if the political will is there that a meaningful package of incentives and sanctions can be developed to support reconciliation and reintegration.
'It is only with political will that genuine progress will be made in rooting out corrupt and incompetent ministers at all levels of government; and that district by district, province by province, the Afghan Security Forces will take on responsibility for security.
'And it is only with political will that the Afghan government will succeed in deepening their co-operation with the Pakistani Authorities.'
International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander, who is currently in Afghanistan, admitted the idea of co-operation with the Taliban was a 'difficult message' to send out when they were killing British soldiers.
[...]
Helmand leader's 'shame' at deaths of British troops
The governor of Afghanistan's Helmand Province told tribal elders the country was ashamed that scores of British soldiers have been killed helping the nation.
Gulab Mangal attacked the Taliban who have bullied civilians into submission for years and urged village leaders to lobby their people against insurgents.
He spoke to two hundred elders at a key 'shura', or meeting, in the village of Pay Kalay they should side with the coalition forces and the Afghan National Police.
He said: 'The British guys have come here to defend us against an enemy and they are dying for you. They are our guests and are getting shot at. They come to bring security for us.
'It is a source of shame and embarrassment that they are being attacked because they bring money to build our country.
'They didn't come to smash Afghanistan, they came to help us. And until we don't need them they will stay here. They have given us a great amount and are keeping you secure.'
Captain Cathy Lowder, of the Military Support and Stabilisation Team, said tribesmen still needed convincing it was worth turning their backs on the Taliban.
'Having shuras like this means we've made progress. The biggest stumbling block is some of the damage that has been caused here. There are some compounds (homes) with holes through because of the fighting and damage to crops,' she said.
[To read the rest of the article click on the title link]
And now the US wants to negotiate. How do you negotiate with evil - they get 1/2 and can do as they wish in 1/2 and civilized behaviro will occur in the other half and no one will interfere with the other ... or does the Taliban accept 1/2 and then begin attacks on the 1/2 they do not control, it is justified in Islam to make deals with the enemy even if it appears you are abandoning jihad, in order to gain advantage and prevail against the enemy. Obama.
taliban
The British have lost their will. This is what happens to a country that has within forty years become a socialist state - giving up its military in favor of social programs. The US, in fifty years would be in this position - negotiating with killers because we are tired of fighting.
THIS is what the Taliban and al qiada have counted on - and they are winning.
Britain calls for Northern Ireland style peace deal in Afghanistan as Brown signals end to Operation Panther's Claw
By Daily Mail Reporter
27th July 2009
The Daily Mail
A Northern Ireland-style peace deal could be struck with the Taliban in Afghanistan in a bid to end the conflict, the Government signalled today.
Ministers said that talking to the insurgents who have killed almost 200 British soldiers might be the only way to curtail the bloody war.
The suggestion of 'talks with the Taliban' came as Gordon Brown revealed the biggest offensive by UK troops in Helmand Province since the conflict began is now over.
The Prime Minister insisted Operation Panther's Claw, aimed at clearing southern Helmand of insurgents ahead of Afghan elections in August, had been worthwhile.
His announcement came as the latest soldier to die in the conflict was named as Bombardier Craig Hopson, of the 40th Regiment Royal Artillery.
In total, 20 soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since the operation began at the end of June - 10 directly linked to the mission. Hundreds of others have been injured, many severely.
'The effort of our troops in Helmand have been nothing short of heroic. There has been a tragic human cost but this has not been in vain,' Mr Brown said.
'It has pushed back the Taliban and made it harder for them and other extremists to operate. Britain will be safer as a result.
'The men and women of our armed forces have shown once again their bravery and professionalism. The whole country is immensely proud of them.'
Commander of Task Force Helmand, Brigardier Tim Radford, hailed the 'significant' achievement and said: 'I am absolutely certain that the operation has been a success.'
Brigadier Radford, in a briefing at the MoD today, admitted it had been a 'very, very hard fight'.
'When I have been on the ground, you look into the eyes of some of the soldiers and they have certainly grown up during this period,' he said. 'My admiration for the troops on the ground has been quite huge. They have done an exceptional job.'
He refused to give details about Taliban deaths but said they had been 'significant' and had seriously affected their capability as well as their morale. Only three civilians deaths have been reported.
UK troops will remain in the region but will move into the next phase of their mission which is to hold onto ground won from the Taliban in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, Britain wants moderate Taliban fighters to lay down their weapons in a reconciliation process similar to the one struck to end the 'Troubles' in Northern Ireland.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband, speaking at Nato's headquarters in Brussels today, said a political process had to be adopted alongside military action to make peace a realistic possibility.
Less radical insurgents should be offered incentivese including jobs and land to encourage them to turn their back on the fight against coalition troops, he claimed.
'We need to help the Afghan government exploit the opportunity, with a more coherent effort to fragment the various elements of the insurgency, and turn those who can be reconciled to live within the Afghan Constitution,' he said.
'The Afghan government needs effective grass-roots initiatives to offer an alternative to fight or flight for the foot soldiers of the insurgency.
'Essentially this means a clear route for former insurgents to return to their villages and go back to farming the land, or a role for some of them within the legitimate Afghan security forces.'
He insisted a distinction had to be drawn between 'conservative' nationalists and 'those committed to violent jihad', allowing those not bent on destruction back into society.
Urging the Afghan state to take more responsibility, Mr Miliband said: 'It is only if the political will is there that a meaningful package of incentives and sanctions can be developed to support reconciliation and reintegration.
'It is only with political will that genuine progress will be made in rooting out corrupt and incompetent ministers at all levels of government; and that district by district, province by province, the Afghan Security Forces will take on responsibility for security.
'And it is only with political will that the Afghan government will succeed in deepening their co-operation with the Pakistani Authorities.'
International Development Secretary Douglas Alexander, who is currently in Afghanistan, admitted the idea of co-operation with the Taliban was a 'difficult message' to send out when they were killing British soldiers.
[...]
Helmand leader's 'shame' at deaths of British troops
The governor of Afghanistan's Helmand Province told tribal elders the country was ashamed that scores of British soldiers have been killed helping the nation.
Gulab Mangal attacked the Taliban who have bullied civilians into submission for years and urged village leaders to lobby their people against insurgents.
He spoke to two hundred elders at a key 'shura', or meeting, in the village of Pay Kalay they should side with the coalition forces and the Afghan National Police.
He said: 'The British guys have come here to defend us against an enemy and they are dying for you. They are our guests and are getting shot at. They come to bring security for us.
'It is a source of shame and embarrassment that they are being attacked because they bring money to build our country.
'They didn't come to smash Afghanistan, they came to help us. And until we don't need them they will stay here. They have given us a great amount and are keeping you secure.'
Captain Cathy Lowder, of the Military Support and Stabilisation Team, said tribesmen still needed convincing it was worth turning their backs on the Taliban.
'Having shuras like this means we've made progress. The biggest stumbling block is some of the damage that has been caused here. There are some compounds (homes) with holes through because of the fighting and damage to crops,' she said.
[To read the rest of the article click on the title link]
And now the US wants to negotiate. How do you negotiate with evil - they get 1/2 and can do as they wish in 1/2 and civilized behaviro will occur in the other half and no one will interfere with the other ... or does the Taliban accept 1/2 and then begin attacks on the 1/2 they do not control, it is justified in Islam to make deals with the enemy even if it appears you are abandoning jihad, in order to gain advantage and prevail against the enemy. Obama.
taliban
Democrats - Won't Read but demand a Vote
You prove the point Conyers.
I would be very embarassed by what you said, if it was me saying it. What you basically said was: I should not be a Congressman - because I do not read the bills. I will not do what is needed to ensure I can read the bill, and I belong to a party that thrusts these 1000 page bills down my throat and tells me I should simply vote on something I know nothing about. And the funny part - I do, because I do what my party says to do.
What is the point you ask - then you should POSTPONE THE VOTE you bloody fool.
CNSNews.com
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
democrats
I would be very embarassed by what you said, if it was me saying it. What you basically said was: I should not be a Congressman - because I do not read the bills. I will not do what is needed to ensure I can read the bill, and I belong to a party that thrusts these 1000 page bills down my throat and tells me I should simply vote on something I know nothing about. And the funny part - I do, because I do what my party says to do.
What is the point you ask - then you should POSTPONE THE VOTE you bloody fool.
CNSNews.com
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter
(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
democrats
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Swine Flu: England Under Siege
flu
City plans to use catacombs for swine flu victims
Jul 25 06:12 PM US/Eastern
A city council said Saturday it was considering using underground burial chambers, currently a tourist attraction, to store the corpses of swine flu victims if the pandemic worsens.
Exeter City Council said the empty 19th-century catacombs could become an emergency mortuary.
A council spokesman said the plan could be put into operation if the cemeteries and the crematorium could not keep up with funeral demands.
He said: "We have some empty catacombs in an old cemetery in the city. These are 19th century underground burial chambers which are normally a tourist attraction," he said.
"They can, however, be safely used for their original purpose and allow us to temporarily store bodies in the remote possibility that the need should arise."
Figures out Friday showed that 72 people were in hospital with swine flu in the Devon and Cornwall area surrounding Exeter, while 2,000 visited their doctors for treatment.
At least 30 people with swine flu have died in Britain, which has been hit harder than any other European territory by the A(H1N1) virus.
Officials said Thursday that there were around 100,000 new cases of swine flu in England last week as a new website and telephone service was launched to help people identify symptoms and receive drugs.
*****************************
For you Madison:
And WHO has said it is unstoppable, a pandemic beyond control.
It keeps getting worse. Maybe I will rethink my trip to England !! It isn't that important.
flu
City plans to use catacombs for swine flu victims
Jul 25 06:12 PM US/Eastern
A city council said Saturday it was considering using underground burial chambers, currently a tourist attraction, to store the corpses of swine flu victims if the pandemic worsens.
Exeter City Council said the empty 19th-century catacombs could become an emergency mortuary.
A council spokesman said the plan could be put into operation if the cemeteries and the crematorium could not keep up with funeral demands.
He said: "We have some empty catacombs in an old cemetery in the city. These are 19th century underground burial chambers which are normally a tourist attraction," he said.
"They can, however, be safely used for their original purpose and allow us to temporarily store bodies in the remote possibility that the need should arise."
Figures out Friday showed that 72 people were in hospital with swine flu in the Devon and Cornwall area surrounding Exeter, while 2,000 visited their doctors for treatment.
At least 30 people with swine flu have died in Britain, which has been hit harder than any other European territory by the A(H1N1) virus.
Officials said Thursday that there were around 100,000 new cases of swine flu in England last week as a new website and telephone service was launched to help people identify symptoms and receive drugs.
*****************************
For you Madison:
And WHO has said it is unstoppable, a pandemic beyond control.
It keeps getting worse. Maybe I will rethink my trip to England !! It isn't that important.
flu
Lies My Government Told me
Ironic, just a bit.
Keep your hands off my body.
No means No.
Stay out of my bedroom.
Privacy and Civil Rights means no government snooping.
And yet the same die-hard loons above, have NO problem swallowing the lie that it isn't stealing, it is really just being considerate and ... you are not being forced to have sex, just being helped to cooperate, you are not being told you cannot have an abortion, simply re-educated ... the problem with liberals is - whatever they do is fine. No matter what conservatives do - they are evil.
Steal my money - sharing.
Tax me - helping the poor.
lies my government told me
Obama and Rasmussen - From bad to worse
He hasn't started any wars, hasn't yet caused the deaths of 4,800 people ... and his numbers have plummeted.
50% disapproval <-- the Rasmussen poll results - approval ratings.
Not a good sign. He will have to save a little old lady from being run over, perhaps pull a child from the fire, sent missiles against an invading alien force or kill bin Laden, to pull his numbers up - but remember, if he kills bin Laden, he should have showed restraint and not caused unnecessary damage or deaths, not taken chances and risked the lives of innocents.
It will be funny to watch although i suspect he will, revise history and the facts and create his own reality, and people will follow. I don't expect 50% disapproval for long .... if we had a parliamentary system, he would be on the verge of going.
But then, so would Bush ... on the other and, Clinton's government would have fallen also.
So maybe the good with the bad.
Bad day for Obama
50% disapproval <-- the Rasmussen poll results - approval ratings.
Not a good sign. He will have to save a little old lady from being run over, perhaps pull a child from the fire, sent missiles against an invading alien force or kill bin Laden, to pull his numbers up - but remember, if he kills bin Laden, he should have showed restraint and not caused unnecessary damage or deaths, not taken chances and risked the lives of innocents.
It will be funny to watch although i suspect he will, revise history and the facts and create his own reality, and people will follow. I don't expect 50% disapproval for long .... if we had a parliamentary system, he would be on the verge of going.
But then, so would Bush ... on the other and, Clinton's government would have fallen also.
So maybe the good with the bad.
Bad day for Obama
Illegals - A Serious Budgetary Threat to California (so say more than a majority)
64% of California Voters Say Illegal Immigrants Are Major Strain on State Budget
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Nearly two-out-of-three California voters (64%) say illegal immigrants put a significant strain on the state budget as lawmakers struggle to close a $26 billion deficit.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California voters shows that just 25% say illegal immigrants are not a major strain on the state budget. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
Adults under 30 are less likely to believe illegal immigrants are a budget strain than those who are older.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party see illegal immigrants as a serious budget strain. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of California voters oppose the budget deal worked out by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators from both parties. The legislature is expected to vote on the deal today.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of all voters in the state believe the availability of government money and services draws illegal immigrants to California. Twenty-two percent (22%) disagree and say the money and services are not a draw to illegal immigrants.
Men believe this more than women, whites more than blacks and those of other races.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of GOP voters and 66% of unaffiliateds see state services and money as a magnet for illegal immigrants. Among Democrats, 49% agree, but 39% don’t think this is true.
Children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States are eligible for welfare payments, but California voters are more closely divided over whether those benefits should be cut off because of the state budget crisis. Forty-seven percent (47%) say the welfare payments to the children of illegals should be stopped, but 39% oppose such a cut-off.
Women voters by five points are more supportive of a welfare cut-off than men.
Republicans by a two-to-one margin over Democrats favor a cut-off of welfare payments to the children of illegal immigrants. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats oppose such a cut-off. A plurality of unaffiliated voters – by 16 points – supports a cut-off of the payments.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of married California voters favor a cut-off, compared to 43% who are not married. But voters with children living with them are evenly divided.
President Obama recently hosted a White House meeting to relaunch the legislative process for “comprehensive” immigration reform, which is likely to include an amnesty provision for those now in the country illegally. But the president and like-minded legislators face strong opposition from voters.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration, but just 32% of America’s Political Class agrees.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of the Political Class say it’s important to legalize the status of illegal immigrants, but voters in general are evenly divided on the question.Immigration reform is also low on the list of priorities for most voters.
A sizable majority of voters consistently have said the government is not doing enough to control the borders and that border control is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers in the country.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
immigration
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Nearly two-out-of-three California voters (64%) say illegal immigrants put a significant strain on the state budget as lawmakers struggle to close a $26 billion deficit.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of California voters shows that just 25% say illegal immigrants are not a major strain on the state budget. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.
Adults under 30 are less likely to believe illegal immigrants are a budget strain than those who are older.
Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party see illegal immigrants as a serious budget strain. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
Fifty-five percent (55%) of California voters oppose the budget deal worked out by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators from both parties. The legislature is expected to vote on the deal today.
Sixty-five percent (65%) of all voters in the state believe the availability of government money and services draws illegal immigrants to California. Twenty-two percent (22%) disagree and say the money and services are not a draw to illegal immigrants.
Men believe this more than women, whites more than blacks and those of other races.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of GOP voters and 66% of unaffiliateds see state services and money as a magnet for illegal immigrants. Among Democrats, 49% agree, but 39% don’t think this is true.
Children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States are eligible for welfare payments, but California voters are more closely divided over whether those benefits should be cut off because of the state budget crisis. Forty-seven percent (47%) say the welfare payments to the children of illegals should be stopped, but 39% oppose such a cut-off.
Women voters by five points are more supportive of a welfare cut-off than men.
Republicans by a two-to-one margin over Democrats favor a cut-off of welfare payments to the children of illegal immigrants. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats oppose such a cut-off. A plurality of unaffiliated voters – by 16 points – supports a cut-off of the payments.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of married California voters favor a cut-off, compared to 43% who are not married. But voters with children living with them are evenly divided.
President Obama recently hosted a White House meeting to relaunch the legislative process for “comprehensive” immigration reform, which is likely to include an amnesty provision for those now in the country illegally. But the president and like-minded legislators face strong opposition from voters.
Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration, but just 32% of America’s Political Class agrees.
Seventy-four percent (74%) of the Political Class say it’s important to legalize the status of illegal immigrants, but voters in general are evenly divided on the question.Immigration reform is also low on the list of priorities for most voters.
A sizable majority of voters consistently have said the government is not doing enough to control the borders and that border control is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers in the country.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.
immigration
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments