CAIR spent $160,000 to silence Savage
Shared via AddThis
Monday, October 19, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Warning for all REAL Americans
I got this in my email box today. Thought it was worth passing along. **Deb**
A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS
By TERRI CARRIO on September 02nd,
This had better scare us to our knees!!
From Naval Aviator, Commander Jerry WilsonWe lived in California during the winters of 2007 and 2008. We became addicted to Fox News and watched O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes every night. When we got back home, we upgraded our cable to get Fox. I watched the Presidential campaign very closely. Initially because I thought the Democrats would nominate Hillary Clinton and then in astonishment when they chose an even more hard-left candidate. All of last year I told everyone I could that Obama was not aDemocrat, he was a Marxist. He is far to the left of any European leader and even our far left party, the NDP.I read Saul Alinsky when I was in University. I studied him and his writing carefully. When Bill Ayers and his idiot wife were bombing and killing people at random in the Weather Underground. Weather Underground and the Black Panthers were closely allied. I read David Horowitz's account of changing from a Marxist to a conservative after seeing that the government was afraid to prosecute members of the Panthers for murdering his personal assistant. He suddenly understood the evil that Marxism really was.After the student radicals failed in creating a Marxist revolution in the United States by violent means, they embraced Alinsky. You would be wise to read "Rules for Radicals" because it outlines how Hillary and Obama planned to get into power, and what they intended to do when they got it.Socialism is not the correct descriptor for what Obama and the Democrats are doing. They are going to be much more far reaching than anything Sweden has ever been able to do. Obama is following Alinsky's plans, those set out in "Rules for Radicals" and his other writing. The Democrats are attempting to create one party rule in the U.S. and in achieving that, will create crisis after crisis by their own actions and use those crisis to nationalize the means of production in the U.S. You are in the middle of a communist revolution and few in the U.S. can actually see it for what it truly is.The U.S. . is now on the path of financial destruction. The Constitution has been shredded and individual human rights are being trampled. In less than 8 months. Obama has used a recession to take over the two largest industries in the U.S. He will debase the Dollar and is on the road to creating an incredible energy shortage that will allow him and Congress to take over the energy industry.But by and large I think that by the 2010 elections, the Democrats will have gerrymandered electoral districts to the point that it will be impossible for them to lose control of both houses of Congress. The incredible increase in the money supply is going to create Zimbabwe and Venezuela style inflation, and with it, controls on the currency and the amount of money that can be taken out of the country.I love America , I cannot believe how the ignorance of the American public has created a situation whereby they are going to lose their Republic and slip into an age of repression and tyranny.I may be nuts, but so far I have been 100% in my predictions of what Obama was going to do, because I merely had to look at "Rules for Radicals" to see what was coming next.I read Glenn Beck's book, "Common Sense" and in it re-read Thomas Paines pamphlet with the same name. I recommend the book.When the storm finally hits (and it will), those of you who supported the Obama administration will be affected as well. It won't just be us gun owners or Flat-Taxers, or Pro-Lifers that get hit. You'll be right there next to us.You all thought the Conservatives were nut cases. You know, all of us who believe in God, small government, the SecondAmendment, etc. You thought you could just go back to sleep after the election was over. In your world, America will continue as before. You'll still have the same rights, the same nice house, the same big screen television. After all, your high school football team won and the other team lost - go team! Even if you have bothered to look up from the daily grind since Nov 4th, you dismissed everything that has occurred as "politics as usual-the same old stuff".In the end, it'll all be OK won't it? Not this time.There are a growing number of citizens in the US that are ready to fight to shut down the government's grab of personalfreedom, it's blatant abuse of the constitution, and it's attempt to replace the American way of life with socialism. You have to listen carefully to hear them, but they are there. I won't start that fight, but when it goes down I will join it.As for you, why, you'll be shocked because you didn't see it coming. And eventually you'll be saddened when you see that we have truly lost the way of life with which you grew up. You'll be saddened that your children and grandchildren live in a socialist, government-controlled gulag where their every movement from cradle to grave is tracked by the government. But most of all, you'll be saddened by the death of friends and relatives who are brave enough to fight and die for something they believe in.You know, McCain wasn't much of a candidate. I'll give you that. He was the lesser of two evils for most of us. I don't blame you for not voting for him since, at the time, you didn't know what we all know now. But at least John McCain was an American. He was a supporter of the American way of life and he understood that you can't negotiate with terrorists. He understood and appreciated the sacrifice made by my father and other members of the Greatest Generation.Mark my words friends. All across America groups are forming. They are forming out of anger and out of desperation at the thought of losing America . They're not militia groups, terrorists as the Department of Homeland security would have you believe; they are Americans, loyal to the constitution. They are mothers and fathers and grandparents. They belong to groups like the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, the Peaceful Resistance, the Constitution Party, the Young Conservatives, the 9/12 Project, and Grassfire. Right now they are fragmented, each focused on their own cause. But sometime in thenext two years, our government is going to do something really stupid and these groups will come together. Watch for it, wait for it-get ready. It will happen.When that event happens, whatever "it" is, our great country is going to plunge into chaos for a while. I pray to God that we make it through that time and emerge a stronger, smarter country.Naval Aviator, Commander Jerry Wilson, jerrywilson@centurytel.netLive Free or Die Fighting
A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS
By TERRI CARRIO on September 02nd,
This had better scare us to our knees!!
From Naval Aviator, Commander Jerry WilsonWe lived in California during the winters of 2007 and 2008. We became addicted to Fox News and watched O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes every night. When we got back home, we upgraded our cable to get Fox. I watched the Presidential campaign very closely. Initially because I thought the Democrats would nominate Hillary Clinton and then in astonishment when they chose an even more hard-left candidate. All of last year I told everyone I could that Obama was not aDemocrat, he was a Marxist. He is far to the left of any European leader and even our far left party, the NDP.I read Saul Alinsky when I was in University. I studied him and his writing carefully. When Bill Ayers and his idiot wife were bombing and killing people at random in the Weather Underground. Weather Underground and the Black Panthers were closely allied. I read David Horowitz's account of changing from a Marxist to a conservative after seeing that the government was afraid to prosecute members of the Panthers for murdering his personal assistant. He suddenly understood the evil that Marxism really was.After the student radicals failed in creating a Marxist revolution in the United States by violent means, they embraced Alinsky. You would be wise to read "Rules for Radicals" because it outlines how Hillary and Obama planned to get into power, and what they intended to do when they got it.Socialism is not the correct descriptor for what Obama and the Democrats are doing. They are going to be much more far reaching than anything Sweden has ever been able to do. Obama is following Alinsky's plans, those set out in "Rules for Radicals" and his other writing. The Democrats are attempting to create one party rule in the U.S. and in achieving that, will create crisis after crisis by their own actions and use those crisis to nationalize the means of production in the U.S. You are in the middle of a communist revolution and few in the U.S. can actually see it for what it truly is.The U.S. . is now on the path of financial destruction. The Constitution has been shredded and individual human rights are being trampled. In less than 8 months. Obama has used a recession to take over the two largest industries in the U.S. He will debase the Dollar and is on the road to creating an incredible energy shortage that will allow him and Congress to take over the energy industry.But by and large I think that by the 2010 elections, the Democrats will have gerrymandered electoral districts to the point that it will be impossible for them to lose control of both houses of Congress. The incredible increase in the money supply is going to create Zimbabwe and Venezuela style inflation, and with it, controls on the currency and the amount of money that can be taken out of the country.I love America , I cannot believe how the ignorance of the American public has created a situation whereby they are going to lose their Republic and slip into an age of repression and tyranny.I may be nuts, but so far I have been 100% in my predictions of what Obama was going to do, because I merely had to look at "Rules for Radicals" to see what was coming next.I read Glenn Beck's book, "Common Sense" and in it re-read Thomas Paines pamphlet with the same name. I recommend the book.When the storm finally hits (and it will), those of you who supported the Obama administration will be affected as well. It won't just be us gun owners or Flat-Taxers, or Pro-Lifers that get hit. You'll be right there next to us.You all thought the Conservatives were nut cases. You know, all of us who believe in God, small government, the SecondAmendment, etc. You thought you could just go back to sleep after the election was over. In your world, America will continue as before. You'll still have the same rights, the same nice house, the same big screen television. After all, your high school football team won and the other team lost - go team! Even if you have bothered to look up from the daily grind since Nov 4th, you dismissed everything that has occurred as "politics as usual-the same old stuff".In the end, it'll all be OK won't it? Not this time.There are a growing number of citizens in the US that are ready to fight to shut down the government's grab of personalfreedom, it's blatant abuse of the constitution, and it's attempt to replace the American way of life with socialism. You have to listen carefully to hear them, but they are there. I won't start that fight, but when it goes down I will join it.As for you, why, you'll be shocked because you didn't see it coming. And eventually you'll be saddened when you see that we have truly lost the way of life with which you grew up. You'll be saddened that your children and grandchildren live in a socialist, government-controlled gulag where their every movement from cradle to grave is tracked by the government. But most of all, you'll be saddened by the death of friends and relatives who are brave enough to fight and die for something they believe in.You know, McCain wasn't much of a candidate. I'll give you that. He was the lesser of two evils for most of us. I don't blame you for not voting for him since, at the time, you didn't know what we all know now. But at least John McCain was an American. He was a supporter of the American way of life and he understood that you can't negotiate with terrorists. He understood and appreciated the sacrifice made by my father and other members of the Greatest Generation.Mark my words friends. All across America groups are forming. They are forming out of anger and out of desperation at the thought of losing America . They're not militia groups, terrorists as the Department of Homeland security would have you believe; they are Americans, loyal to the constitution. They are mothers and fathers and grandparents. They belong to groups like the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, the Peaceful Resistance, the Constitution Party, the Young Conservatives, the 9/12 Project, and Grassfire. Right now they are fragmented, each focused on their own cause. But sometime in thenext two years, our government is going to do something really stupid and these groups will come together. Watch for it, wait for it-get ready. It will happen.When that event happens, whatever "it" is, our great country is going to plunge into chaos for a while. I pray to God that we make it through that time and emerge a stronger, smarter country.Naval Aviator, Commander Jerry Wilson, jerrywilson@centurytel.netLive Free or Die Fighting
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
When did the Dems become so Anti American?
I say this because now that their Candidate of choice has hijacked the white house, they don't like a Free Society any longer. They are against free speech, Free trade and everything America stands for. Was it not them that were out there protesting everything our former President did. The Anti Bush blogs were so overwhelming yet they want to shut down the blogs and free speech against the Great Messiah now in office. How utterly hypocritical of them.
George Bush and his supporters had to endure 8 years of the constant Anti Bush BS bunch but the same people that were spewing obscenities Bush's way want to silence the people that don't back the Black Socialist Messiah Obama. Why can't people see what is going on? Bush never lashed out against media outlets as this President has and they were all against Bush. It's totally bizarre to me to watch what is happening in this country now. It's amazing that the liberals are no longer liberal but have turned into Socialists or worse, Marxists. Read the definitions. This administration fits the bill.
George Bush and his supporters had to endure 8 years of the constant Anti Bush BS bunch but the same people that were spewing obscenities Bush's way want to silence the people that don't back the Black Socialist Messiah Obama. Why can't people see what is going on? Bush never lashed out against media outlets as this President has and they were all against Bush. It's totally bizarre to me to watch what is happening in this country now. It's amazing that the liberals are no longer liberal but have turned into Socialists or worse, Marxists. Read the definitions. This administration fits the bill.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Maybe The Govt. might want to pay attention to articles like this before they try to cram bad bills through.
45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul
By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILYPosted 09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET
View Enlarged Image
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.
Major findings included:
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.
It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."
Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."
The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.
• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
var articlePage = 1;
By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILYPosted 09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET
View Enlarged Image
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.
The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.
It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.
Major findings included:
• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.
It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."
Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."
The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.
• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.
More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.
• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
var articlePage = 1;
Monday, September 14, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Michael Savage on Edward Kennedy
The Real Ted Kennedy
The leftist media in this country has erupted in tributes to Ted Kennedy. Democrats praise him. Republicans praise him. Liberals praise him, conservatives praise him. And while we mourn when a man dies, does that mean that all criticism must stop? Does a man who spent his entire political life destroying the fundamental tenets of American morality become miraculously rehabilitated on his passing? Do conservatives stop being conservatives when such a man dies?No! And yet it seems that the Republicans in Congress have forgotten what Ted Kennedy did to our borders. Too many so-called conservative commentators have forgotten what Ted Kennedy did to our language. Too many fawning media lackeys have forgotten that Ted Kennedy succeeded in nearly destroying our culture.We cannot forget that he opened the borders as early as 1965. We cannot forget that he voted to destroy the flag and destroy traditional marriage. We cannot forget in spite of his death, that he voted for late-term abortion – i.e., infanticide. We can't forget that…
He voted no on a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
He voted no on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
He voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.
He voted no on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
He voted yes on allowing illegals to participate in Social Security.
We cannot forget what he has done to our country.And so now the Soros-run media sets on anyone who dares disclose the truth about Ted Kennedy. As in a Soviet show trial, persecution falls on anyone who refuses to take the party line that the great lying lion of the left must be praised. We will not be silenced. Silence is death. Speak the truth about Ted Kennedy. Americans must know his reckless record of destructive social engineering.
The leftist media in this country has erupted in tributes to Ted Kennedy. Democrats praise him. Republicans praise him. Liberals praise him, conservatives praise him. And while we mourn when a man dies, does that mean that all criticism must stop? Does a man who spent his entire political life destroying the fundamental tenets of American morality become miraculously rehabilitated on his passing? Do conservatives stop being conservatives when such a man dies?No! And yet it seems that the Republicans in Congress have forgotten what Ted Kennedy did to our borders. Too many so-called conservative commentators have forgotten what Ted Kennedy did to our language. Too many fawning media lackeys have forgotten that Ted Kennedy succeeded in nearly destroying our culture.We cannot forget that he opened the borders as early as 1965. We cannot forget that he voted to destroy the flag and destroy traditional marriage. We cannot forget in spite of his death, that he voted for late-term abortion – i.e., infanticide. We can't forget that…
He voted no on a constitutional ban on flag desecration.
He voted no on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
He voted yes on adding sexual orientation to the definition of hate crimes.
He voted no on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
He voted yes on allowing illegals to participate in Social Security.
We cannot forget what he has done to our country.And so now the Soros-run media sets on anyone who dares disclose the truth about Ted Kennedy. As in a Soviet show trial, persecution falls on anyone who refuses to take the party line that the great lying lion of the left must be praised. We will not be silenced. Silence is death. Speak the truth about Ted Kennedy. Americans must know his reckless record of destructive social engineering.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Will 'cash for clunkers' tank the used car market? (OneNewsNow.com)
It really figures that there is a big big down side to this that will affect the economy and those who really depend on the used car market when they can't afford to buy a new car to replace an old one or a BIKE perhaps....
Will 'cash for clunkers' tank the used car market? (OneNewsNow.com)
Shared via AddThis
Will 'cash for clunkers' tank the used car market? (OneNewsNow.com)
Shared via AddThis
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Deadly Docs... Advisors want to ration care.
Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.
New York Post
Last updated: 1:13 am
July 24, 2009
Posted: 1:03 amJuly 24, 2009
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.
Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.
Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)
Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.
In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?
New York Post
Last updated: 1:13 am
July 24, 2009
Posted: 1:03 amJuly 24, 2009
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.
Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).
Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).
The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.
Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.
Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.
Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)
Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.
In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?
Monday, August 10, 2009
How's this for apocalyptic literature. This was written by a pastor's wife in biblical prose as a commentary of current events. It is brilliant. ------------------------ And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that person known as "The One." He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He hypnotized the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed. And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said "We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!" Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "Sock it to them!" "And redistribute their wealth." And the people said, "Show us the money!" And the he said, " Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody." And Joe the plumber asked, " Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats?" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom! Then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and having zero military experience or knowledge, how will he deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah. We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!" Then "The One" said, "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one, lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!" Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell your homes!" And the people yawned and the slumping housing market collapsed. And He said. "I shall mandate employer-funded health care for every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give me some of that!" Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?" Then "The One" said, "I shall bankrupt the coal industry and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!" Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bilingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!" And they made him king! And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The bank banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support. Then "The One" said, "I am the "the One"- The Messiah - and I'm here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more..." And the world said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!" And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed then and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built. And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "Give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late, and their homeland was no more. You may think this a fairy tale, but it's not. It's happening RIGHT NOW
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Wise Words from Ben Stein
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu . If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat. Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking. Billy Graham 's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina )... Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?' In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem ( Dr. Spock 's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in. My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully, Ben Stein
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Congress's Own Health Care plans. They should have to use whatever they propose for the rest of us and we might get something decent.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-congress-benefits-chart2-2009aug02,0,7635564.story?track=rss
Click the above link. If Congress didn't have a Gold Plated Health Plan and couldn't exclude themselves from the Health Care system they propose for the rest of us... If they had to actually read these bills they so quickly push through... Do you think they would be acting so quickly to get rid of the private insurance sector that majority of American's are quite happy with? Very doubtful. There wouldn't be any such horrible options on the table. They don't want their elderly parents getting "end of life counseling sessions" every 5 years from the age 65. They wouldn't want their kid denied care just because he was a bad risk. They wouldn't want to deny their sister of that Cancer Therapy just because the prognosis didn't look so rosey for her. Why do they propose such awful things for the rest of us. The rest of us who are "WE THE PEOPLE" who they are supposedly representing and working for?
Click the above link. If Congress didn't have a Gold Plated Health Plan and couldn't exclude themselves from the Health Care system they propose for the rest of us... If they had to actually read these bills they so quickly push through... Do you think they would be acting so quickly to get rid of the private insurance sector that majority of American's are quite happy with? Very doubtful. There wouldn't be any such horrible options on the table. They don't want their elderly parents getting "end of life counseling sessions" every 5 years from the age 65. They wouldn't want their kid denied care just because he was a bad risk. They wouldn't want to deny their sister of that Cancer Therapy just because the prognosis didn't look so rosey for her. Why do they propose such awful things for the rest of us. The rest of us who are "WE THE PEOPLE" who they are supposedly representing and working for?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Regarding the Fleecing of Disney Theme Park "guests"
This week Walt Disney Theme park tickets went up to 79.00 plus Taxes. This doesn't include the 12.00 parking we are charged before we even enter the park. These prices are horrid at best and Americans should be boycotting and fighting them. When so many American's are out of work and losing their homes, family's being ripped apart.. They go and hike an already severely overpriced ticket by 4.00 a person. By the way.. Kids tickets, 3-9 are 68.00. Big discount there! @@ Disney used to at least run resident specials where Florida residents could get somewhat of a break in the pricing but that isn't even offered any longer. There is never any savings on a single day ticket price to one park. NEVER!
We were going to try to go to Disney this year for Rob's 8th Birthday. They are offering free admission to the birthday person, which does help some. Thing is.... So we won't have to pay 68.00... Before my husband and I even get into the gate.... We have spent 180 some dollars for the two of us to enter (the park of the Elite) for just two admissions. This pricing doesn't cover the overpriced drinks and food we must also purchase throughout the day or any souveniers we might want. It's simply to walk into the fricken park. It amazes me that so many people aren't fighting against this price gouging. Disney makes a ton of money with it's merchandising, movies and everything. They could charge 50.00, keep the price there forever and still be making a big profit. It disgusts me that people have to put out this kind of money just so their kids can "enjoy" the happiest place on Earth. Not the happiest if you ask me.... Just the Most expensive, overcrowded, hot, unhappy place on earth.
I don't think we will follow through on our plans to take Rob there for his 8th. I think we might just swing over to Tampa's Busch Gardens, where we can go the entire year for about half the price it would cost to get into one day of fun at Disney Parks. Up Yours Disney Co. Walt wouldn't be happy with you guys. He wanted his park to be accessible to everyone, not just the Elite.
Maybe Congress should be forced to use Health Care Plan they propose for us.
Congress' own healthcare benefits: Membership has its privileges
Lawmakers can choose among several plans and get special treatment at federal medical facilities. In 2008, taxpayers spent about $15 billion to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents.
By Mark Z. Barabak and Faye Fiore August 2, 2009
Too much, too fast, too expensive. Those are some of the objections lawmakers have voiced against the healthcare overhaul Democrats are attempting on Capitol Hill.But many Americans think Congress is out of touch. How, they wonder, can lawmakers empathize with the underinsured or those lacking insurance when they receive a benefits package -- heavily subsidized by taxpayers -- that most of us can only envy?
House panel OKs healthcare bill, setting...
How the bills compare
Obama changes healthcare tack to win over the insured
Obama's bill of consumer health insurance rights
Healthcare debate's next hurdle: abortion
FOR THE RECORD:
Healthcare benefits: An article in Sunday's Section A about congressional healthcare benefits said that Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) "has refused to accept federal healthcare benefits, making him the only member of Congress to do without." Other members have also declined federal healthcare benefits; Kagen is the only member to have no health insurance coverage whatsoever. —
Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.
Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.Generous plans are available in private industry. But the federal coverage far surpasses that enjoyed by 70 million Americans who are underinsured and at financial risk in the event of a major health crisis -- not to mention the estimated 46 million who have no medical insurance."For the average worker, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan would probably look quite attractive," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a pinch-penny advocacy group.Indeed, a question often surfaces: Why can't everyone enjoy the same benefits as members of Congress? The answer: The country probably couldn't afford it -- not without reforms to bring costs way, way down.Given their choices, lawmakers can tailor coverage in a way most Americans cannot. If a child has asthma, for instance, a federal employee might opt for coverage that costs a little more but has a bigger doctor network and lower office-visit fees.The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit.Federal employees also enjoy a significant benefit denied the average American: There is no such thing as a preexisting condition, which keeps many sick people from obtaining insurance. Once hired, federal workers are eligible for coverage no matter their health, with no waiting period.Voters sense a disconnect. A recent Gallup Poll found that about half of those surveyed said they have "a good understanding" of the issues involved in the healthcare debate. By contrast, respondents believe that fewer than three in 10 members of Congress share that understanding.Lawmakers' ample benefits make a ripe target.Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sponsored an amendment requiring members of Congress to forgo their current health coverage and enroll in any government plan they pass to compete with private insurers."Let's demonstrate leadership and confidence in the system," Coburn said before his amendment squeaked through the Senate Health Committee. A similar measure was defeated in the House.A spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi demurred when asked if she would sign up for a government-run plan. The San Francisco Democrat joined President Obama in pushing unsuccessfully for passage of a healthcare bill before lawmakers headed home for their summer recess."The point is to give people a choice," said Pelosi's communications director, Brendan Daly. "If you like what you have now, you can keep it. If you don't like it, you'll have other choices that are available to you."Virtually every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has considered expanded or universal medical coverage. President Eisenhower, a famous cost-cutter, signed into law the legislation giving federal employees their generous benefits. His reasons were partly personal: His mother-in-law's illness required two years of medical care that took a steep financial and emotional toll on the president. Politically, the hope was to spur more private employers to follow the government's lead.
Lawmakers can choose among several plans and get special treatment at federal medical facilities. In 2008, taxpayers spent about $15 billion to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents.
By Mark Z. Barabak and Faye Fiore August 2, 2009
Too much, too fast, too expensive. Those are some of the objections lawmakers have voiced against the healthcare overhaul Democrats are attempting on Capitol Hill.But many Americans think Congress is out of touch. How, they wonder, can lawmakers empathize with the underinsured or those lacking insurance when they receive a benefits package -- heavily subsidized by taxpayers -- that most of us can only envy?
House panel OKs healthcare bill, setting...
How the bills compare
Obama changes healthcare tack to win over the insured
Obama's bill of consumer health insurance rights
Healthcare debate's next hurdle: abortion
FOR THE RECORD:
Healthcare benefits: An article in Sunday's Section A about congressional healthcare benefits said that Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) "has refused to accept federal healthcare benefits, making him the only member of Congress to do without." Other members have also declined federal healthcare benefits; Kagen is the only member to have no health insurance coverage whatsoever. —
Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.
Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.Generous plans are available in private industry. But the federal coverage far surpasses that enjoyed by 70 million Americans who are underinsured and at financial risk in the event of a major health crisis -- not to mention the estimated 46 million who have no medical insurance."For the average worker, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan would probably look quite attractive," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a pinch-penny advocacy group.Indeed, a question often surfaces: Why can't everyone enjoy the same benefits as members of Congress? The answer: The country probably couldn't afford it -- not without reforms to bring costs way, way down.Given their choices, lawmakers can tailor coverage in a way most Americans cannot. If a child has asthma, for instance, a federal employee might opt for coverage that costs a little more but has a bigger doctor network and lower office-visit fees.The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit.Federal employees also enjoy a significant benefit denied the average American: There is no such thing as a preexisting condition, which keeps many sick people from obtaining insurance. Once hired, federal workers are eligible for coverage no matter their health, with no waiting period.Voters sense a disconnect. A recent Gallup Poll found that about half of those surveyed said they have "a good understanding" of the issues involved in the healthcare debate. By contrast, respondents believe that fewer than three in 10 members of Congress share that understanding.Lawmakers' ample benefits make a ripe target.Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sponsored an amendment requiring members of Congress to forgo their current health coverage and enroll in any government plan they pass to compete with private insurers."Let's demonstrate leadership and confidence in the system," Coburn said before his amendment squeaked through the Senate Health Committee. A similar measure was defeated in the House.A spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi demurred when asked if she would sign up for a government-run plan. The San Francisco Democrat joined President Obama in pushing unsuccessfully for passage of a healthcare bill before lawmakers headed home for their summer recess."The point is to give people a choice," said Pelosi's communications director, Brendan Daly. "If you like what you have now, you can keep it. If you don't like it, you'll have other choices that are available to you."Virtually every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has considered expanded or universal medical coverage. President Eisenhower, a famous cost-cutter, signed into law the legislation giving federal employees their generous benefits. His reasons were partly personal: His mother-in-law's illness required two years of medical care that took a steep financial and emotional toll on the president. Politically, the hope was to spur more private employers to follow the government's lead.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
ACLU can BITE ME!
I AM HONORED TO DO THIS
Did you know that the ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed and another suit to end prayer from the military completely. They're making great progress. The Navy Chaplains can no longer mention Jesus' name in prayer thanks to the retched ACLU and our new administration. I'm not breaking this one. If I get it a 1000 times, I'll forward it a 1000 times!
Let us pray...
Prayer chain for our Military... Don't break it!
Please send this on after a short prayer.. Prayer for our soldiers Don't break it!
Prayer:
'Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands Protect them as they protect us Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.'
Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world.
There is nothing attached. Just send this to people in your address book. Do not let it stop with you. Of all the gifts you could give a Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, & others deployed in harm's way, prayer is the very best one.
GOD BLESS YOU FOR PASSING IT ON!
There were very touching pictures that go with this however they didn't come through on the cut and paste.
Did you know that the ACLU has filed a suit to have all military cross-shaped headstones removed and another suit to end prayer from the military completely. They're making great progress. The Navy Chaplains can no longer mention Jesus' name in prayer thanks to the retched ACLU and our new administration. I'm not breaking this one. If I get it a 1000 times, I'll forward it a 1000 times!
Let us pray...
Prayer chain for our Military... Don't break it!
Please send this on after a short prayer.. Prayer for our soldiers Don't break it!
Prayer:
'Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands Protect them as they protect us Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need. Amen.'
Prayer Request: When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops around the world.
There is nothing attached. Just send this to people in your address book. Do not let it stop with you. Of all the gifts you could give a Marine, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, & others deployed in harm's way, prayer is the very best one.
GOD BLESS YOU FOR PASSING IT ON!
There were very touching pictures that go with this however they didn't come through on the cut and paste.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Mayo Clinic calls House plan bad medicine - Washington Times
HOPEFULLY the American Public will see articles like this and will listen to what Doctors and Healthcare facilities actually do have to say about all this. The OBAMACARE Health Plan is just plain BAD for everyone but OBAMA and our Govt. pretty much. CONGRESS: Take your time, READ, learn and then JUST SAY NO!!!!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Obama Approval Ratings Dip
This doesn't surprise me a bit and makes me extremely happy that finally people seem to be waking up. Shame congress isn't looking at these polls however. I wrote to my Democrat reps and they could care less what majority of their constituents say... They are voting for healthcare reform and the cap and trade bills when they come through. They better watch their mail boxes more closely because even their democrat backers are telling them not to vote yes on these bills. They will all be going home in 2010 hopefully. A similar poll was on facebook recently. Same results. Different network site and most the people on facebook fall into the Obama supporter age group of teens-40s... America is waking up. The govt. needs to wake up or they will find themselves permanently back in their home districts next year. YAY!
Obama Approval Ratings Dip
Shared via AddThis
Obama Approval Ratings Dip
Shared via AddThis
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Walter Cronkite Dies at 92. The last REAL Journalist with integrity.
In my humble opinion, this man is and was the last man in journalism that the American people could actually trust and get an objective, factual story from. His reports weren't full of his own opinions and Spin and he , unlike the misfit Anchors of today never let us know his Candidates of choice. He is what we need more of today but unfortunately in this world of 24/7 news cycle coverage... All we get is sensationalism, personal opinion and spin. You will be missed Walter. RIP.
Cronkite remembered as 'honorable' and 'an icon'
By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer Frazier Moore, Ap Television Writer – 5 mins ago
NEW YORK – The death of Walter Cronkite elicited tributes from colleagues, presidents past and present, world-famous astronauts and those who hoped in vain to fill his empty anchor chair, all honoring the avuncular face of TV journalism who became the "most trusted man in America."
Cronkite died with his family by his side Friday night at his Manhattan home after a long illness, CBS vice president Linda Mason said. Marlene Adler, Cronkite's chief of staff, said Cronkite died of cerebrovascular disease. He was 92.
"It's hard to imagine a man for whom I had more admiration," Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" said on CNN. "... He was a superb reporter and honorable man."
Cronkite was the face of the "CBS Evening News" from 1962 to 1981, when stories ranged from the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to racial and anti-war riots, Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis.
It was Cronkite who read the bulletins coming from Dallas when Kennedy was shot Nov. 22, 1963, interrupting a live CBS-TV broadcast of a soap opera.
"Walter was who I wanted to be when I grew up," said CBS's "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer, 72, who began working at CBS News in 1969.
"He set a standard for all of us. He made television news what it became."
Cronkite died just three days before the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, another earthshaking moment of history linked inexorably with his reporting.
"He had a passion for human space exploration, an enthusiasm that was contagious, and the trust of his audience. He will be missed," astronaut Neil Armstrong said.
President Barack Obama issued a statement saying that Cronkite set the standard by which all other news anchors have been judged, echoing sentiments from former Presidents George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.
"He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down," Obama said. "This country has lost an icon and a dear friend, and he will be truly missed."
Cronkite was the broadcaster to whom the title "anchorman" was first applied; and his name was at one point synonymous with the role even outside the U.S. — in Sweden anchors were sometimes termed Kronkiters; in Holland, they were Cronkiters.
"Walter Cronkite was and always will be the gold standard," said ABC News anchor Charles Gibson. "His objectivity, his evenhandedness, his news judgment are all great examples."
CBS has scheduled a prime-time special, "That's the Way it Was: Remembering Walter Cronkite," for 7 p.m. Sunday.
"He was a great broadcaster and a gentleman whose experience, honesty, professionalism and style defined the role of anchor and commentator," CBS Corp. chief executive Leslie Moonves said in a statement.
A former wire service reporter and war correspondent, Cronkite valued accuracy, objectivity and understated compassion. He expressed liberal views in more recent writings but said he had always aimed to be fair and professional in his judgments on the air.
But when Cronkite took sides, he helped shape the times. After the 1968 Tet offensive, he visited Vietnam and wrote and narrated a "speculative, personal" report advocating negotiations leading to the withdrawal of American troops.
"We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds," he said, and concluded, "We are mired in stalemate."
After the broadcast, President Lyndon B. Johnson reportedly said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."
He also helped broker the 1977 invitation that took Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, the breakthrough to Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.
Off camera, his stamina and admittedly demanding ways brought him the nickname "Old Ironpants." But to viewers, he was "Uncle Walter," with his jowls and grainy baritone, his warm, direct expression and his trim mustache.
When he summed up the news each evening by stating, "And THAT's the way it is," millions agreed. His reputation survived accusations of bias by Richard Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, and being labeled a "pinko" in the tirades of a fictional icon, Archie Bunker of CBS's "All in the Family."
Polls in 1972 and 1974 pronounced Cronkite the "most trusted man in America." Like fellow Midwesterner Johnny Carson, Cronkite seemed to embody the nation's mainstream. When he broke down as he announced Kennedy's death, removing his glasses and fighting back tears, the times seemed to break down with him.
Cronkite was the top newsman during the peak era for the networks, when the nightly broadcasts grew to a half-hour and 24-hour cable and the Internet were still well in the future. In the fall of 1972, responding to reports in The Washington Post, Cronkite aired a two-part series on Watergate that helped ensure national attention to the then-emerging scandal.
As many as 18 million households tuned in to Cronkite's top-rated program each evening. Twice that number watched his final show, on March 6, 1981, compared with fewer than 10 million in 2005 for the departure of Dan Rather.
Rather, who replaced Cronkite at the anchor desk, called Cronkite "a giant of the journalistic craft."
Cronkite had stepped down at a vigorous 64 years old with the assurance that other duties awaited him at CBS News, but he found little demand there for his services. He hosted the short-lived science magazine series "Walter Cronkite's Universe" and was retained by the network as a consultant, although, as he was known to state wistfully, he was never consulted.
He also sailed his beloved boat, the Wyntje, hosted or narrated specials on public and cable TV, and issued his columns and the best-selling "Walter Cronkite: A Reporter's Life."
For 24 years he served as onsite host for New Year's Day telecasts by the Vienna Philharmonic, ending that cherished tradition only in 2009.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Cronkite was asked to introduce the postponed Emmy awards show. He told the audience that in its coverage of the attack and its aftermath, "television, the great common denominator, has lifted our common vision as never before."
Cronkite joined CBS in 1950, after a decade with United Press, during which he covered World War II and the Nuremberg trials, and a brief stint with a regional radio group.
At CBS he found a respected radio-news organization dipping its toe into TV. He was named anchor for CBS's coverage of the 1952 political conventions, the first year the presidential nominations got wide TV coverage. From there, he was assigned to such news-oriented programs as "You Are There" and "Twentieth Century." (He also briefly hosted a morning show, accompanied by a puppet named Charlemagne the Lion.)
On April 16, 1962, he replaced Douglas Edwards as anchor of the network's "Evening News."
"I never asked them why," Cronkite recalled in a 2006 TV portrait. "I was so pleased to get the job, I didn't want to endanger it by suggesting that I didn't know why I had it."
He was up against the NBC team of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, which was solidly ahead in the ratings. Cronkite lacked Brinkley's wry wit and Huntley's rugged good looks, but he established himself as an anchorman to whom people could relate.
His rise to the top was interrupted just once: In 1964, disappointing ratings for the Republican National Convention led CBS boss William S. Paley to dump him as anchor of the Democratic gathering. Critics and viewers protested and he was never displaced again.
Cronkite won numerous Emmys and other awards for excellence in news coverage. In 1978, he and the evening news were the first anchorman and daily broadcast ever given a DuPont award.
Cronkite's salary reportedly reaching seven figures, he was both anchorman and star — interviewed by Playboy, ham enough to appear as himself on an episode of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." But he repeatedly condemned television practices that put entertainment values ahead of news judgment.
"Broadcast journalism is never going to substitute for print," he said. "We cannot cover in depth in a half hour many of the stories required to get a good understanding of the world."
Walter Leland Cronkite Jr. was born Nov. 4, 1916, in St. Joseph, Mo., the son and grandson of dentists. The family moved to Houston when he was 10. He joked years later that he was disappointed when he "didn't see a single damn cowboy."
He got a taste of journalism at The Houston Post, where he worked summers after high school and served as campus correspondent at the University of Texas. He also did some sports announcing at a local radio station.
Cronkite quit school after his junior year for a full-time job with the Houston Press. After a brief stint at KCMO in Kansas City, Mo., he joined United Press in 1937. Dispatched to London early in World War II, Cronkite covered the battle of the North Atlantic, flew on a bombing mission over Germany and glided into Holland with the 101st Airborne Division. He was a chief correspondent at the postwar Nuremberg trials and spent his final two years with the news service managing its Moscow bureau.
Cronkite returned to the United States in 1948 and covered Washington for a group of Midwest radio stations. He accepted Edward R. Murrow's invitation to join CBS in 1950.
In 1940, Cronkite married Mary Elizabeth "Betsy" Maxwell, whom he met when they both worked at KCMO. They had three children, Nancy, Mary Kathleen and Walter Leland III. Betsy Cronkite died in 2005.
In his book, he paid tribute to her "extraordinarily keen sense of humor, which saw us over many bumps (mostly of my making), and her tolerance, even support, for the uncertain schedule and wanderings of a newsman."
Cronkite remembered as 'honorable' and 'an icon'
By FRAZIER MOORE, AP Television Writer Frazier Moore, Ap Television Writer – 5 mins ago
NEW YORK – The death of Walter Cronkite elicited tributes from colleagues, presidents past and present, world-famous astronauts and those who hoped in vain to fill his empty anchor chair, all honoring the avuncular face of TV journalism who became the "most trusted man in America."
Cronkite died with his family by his side Friday night at his Manhattan home after a long illness, CBS vice president Linda Mason said. Marlene Adler, Cronkite's chief of staff, said Cronkite died of cerebrovascular disease. He was 92.
"It's hard to imagine a man for whom I had more admiration," Mike Wallace of "60 Minutes" said on CNN. "... He was a superb reporter and honorable man."
Cronkite was the face of the "CBS Evening News" from 1962 to 1981, when stories ranged from the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to racial and anti-war riots, Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis.
It was Cronkite who read the bulletins coming from Dallas when Kennedy was shot Nov. 22, 1963, interrupting a live CBS-TV broadcast of a soap opera.
"Walter was who I wanted to be when I grew up," said CBS's "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer, 72, who began working at CBS News in 1969.
"He set a standard for all of us. He made television news what it became."
Cronkite died just three days before the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, another earthshaking moment of history linked inexorably with his reporting.
"He had a passion for human space exploration, an enthusiasm that was contagious, and the trust of his audience. He will be missed," astronaut Neil Armstrong said.
President Barack Obama issued a statement saying that Cronkite set the standard by which all other news anchors have been judged, echoing sentiments from former Presidents George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter.
"He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down," Obama said. "This country has lost an icon and a dear friend, and he will be truly missed."
Cronkite was the broadcaster to whom the title "anchorman" was first applied; and his name was at one point synonymous with the role even outside the U.S. — in Sweden anchors were sometimes termed Kronkiters; in Holland, they were Cronkiters.
"Walter Cronkite was and always will be the gold standard," said ABC News anchor Charles Gibson. "His objectivity, his evenhandedness, his news judgment are all great examples."
CBS has scheduled a prime-time special, "That's the Way it Was: Remembering Walter Cronkite," for 7 p.m. Sunday.
"He was a great broadcaster and a gentleman whose experience, honesty, professionalism and style defined the role of anchor and commentator," CBS Corp. chief executive Leslie Moonves said in a statement.
A former wire service reporter and war correspondent, Cronkite valued accuracy, objectivity and understated compassion. He expressed liberal views in more recent writings but said he had always aimed to be fair and professional in his judgments on the air.
But when Cronkite took sides, he helped shape the times. After the 1968 Tet offensive, he visited Vietnam and wrote and narrated a "speculative, personal" report advocating negotiations leading to the withdrawal of American troops.
"We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds," he said, and concluded, "We are mired in stalemate."
After the broadcast, President Lyndon B. Johnson reportedly said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."
He also helped broker the 1977 invitation that took Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, the breakthrough to Egypt's peace treaty with Israel.
Off camera, his stamina and admittedly demanding ways brought him the nickname "Old Ironpants." But to viewers, he was "Uncle Walter," with his jowls and grainy baritone, his warm, direct expression and his trim mustache.
When he summed up the news each evening by stating, "And THAT's the way it is," millions agreed. His reputation survived accusations of bias by Richard Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, and being labeled a "pinko" in the tirades of a fictional icon, Archie Bunker of CBS's "All in the Family."
Polls in 1972 and 1974 pronounced Cronkite the "most trusted man in America." Like fellow Midwesterner Johnny Carson, Cronkite seemed to embody the nation's mainstream. When he broke down as he announced Kennedy's death, removing his glasses and fighting back tears, the times seemed to break down with him.
Cronkite was the top newsman during the peak era for the networks, when the nightly broadcasts grew to a half-hour and 24-hour cable and the Internet were still well in the future. In the fall of 1972, responding to reports in The Washington Post, Cronkite aired a two-part series on Watergate that helped ensure national attention to the then-emerging scandal.
As many as 18 million households tuned in to Cronkite's top-rated program each evening. Twice that number watched his final show, on March 6, 1981, compared with fewer than 10 million in 2005 for the departure of Dan Rather.
Rather, who replaced Cronkite at the anchor desk, called Cronkite "a giant of the journalistic craft."
Cronkite had stepped down at a vigorous 64 years old with the assurance that other duties awaited him at CBS News, but he found little demand there for his services. He hosted the short-lived science magazine series "Walter Cronkite's Universe" and was retained by the network as a consultant, although, as he was known to state wistfully, he was never consulted.
He also sailed his beloved boat, the Wyntje, hosted or narrated specials on public and cable TV, and issued his columns and the best-selling "Walter Cronkite: A Reporter's Life."
For 24 years he served as onsite host for New Year's Day telecasts by the Vienna Philharmonic, ending that cherished tradition only in 2009.
After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Cronkite was asked to introduce the postponed Emmy awards show. He told the audience that in its coverage of the attack and its aftermath, "television, the great common denominator, has lifted our common vision as never before."
Cronkite joined CBS in 1950, after a decade with United Press, during which he covered World War II and the Nuremberg trials, and a brief stint with a regional radio group.
At CBS he found a respected radio-news organization dipping its toe into TV. He was named anchor for CBS's coverage of the 1952 political conventions, the first year the presidential nominations got wide TV coverage. From there, he was assigned to such news-oriented programs as "You Are There" and "Twentieth Century." (He also briefly hosted a morning show, accompanied by a puppet named Charlemagne the Lion.)
On April 16, 1962, he replaced Douglas Edwards as anchor of the network's "Evening News."
"I never asked them why," Cronkite recalled in a 2006 TV portrait. "I was so pleased to get the job, I didn't want to endanger it by suggesting that I didn't know why I had it."
He was up against the NBC team of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, which was solidly ahead in the ratings. Cronkite lacked Brinkley's wry wit and Huntley's rugged good looks, but he established himself as an anchorman to whom people could relate.
His rise to the top was interrupted just once: In 1964, disappointing ratings for the Republican National Convention led CBS boss William S. Paley to dump him as anchor of the Democratic gathering. Critics and viewers protested and he was never displaced again.
Cronkite won numerous Emmys and other awards for excellence in news coverage. In 1978, he and the evening news were the first anchorman and daily broadcast ever given a DuPont award.
Cronkite's salary reportedly reaching seven figures, he was both anchorman and star — interviewed by Playboy, ham enough to appear as himself on an episode of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." But he repeatedly condemned television practices that put entertainment values ahead of news judgment.
"Broadcast journalism is never going to substitute for print," he said. "We cannot cover in depth in a half hour many of the stories required to get a good understanding of the world."
Walter Leland Cronkite Jr. was born Nov. 4, 1916, in St. Joseph, Mo., the son and grandson of dentists. The family moved to Houston when he was 10. He joked years later that he was disappointed when he "didn't see a single damn cowboy."
He got a taste of journalism at The Houston Post, where he worked summers after high school and served as campus correspondent at the University of Texas. He also did some sports announcing at a local radio station.
Cronkite quit school after his junior year for a full-time job with the Houston Press. After a brief stint at KCMO in Kansas City, Mo., he joined United Press in 1937. Dispatched to London early in World War II, Cronkite covered the battle of the North Atlantic, flew on a bombing mission over Germany and glided into Holland with the 101st Airborne Division. He was a chief correspondent at the postwar Nuremberg trials and spent his final two years with the news service managing its Moscow bureau.
Cronkite returned to the United States in 1948 and covered Washington for a group of Midwest radio stations. He accepted Edward R. Murrow's invitation to join CBS in 1950.
In 1940, Cronkite married Mary Elizabeth "Betsy" Maxwell, whom he met when they both worked at KCMO. They had three children, Nancy, Mary Kathleen and Walter Leland III. Betsy Cronkite died in 2005.
In his book, he paid tribute to her "extraordinarily keen sense of humor, which saw us over many bumps (mostly of my making), and her tolerance, even support, for the uncertain schedule and wanderings of a newsman."
Monday, July 6, 2009
Great Idea Obama Sh** for Brains releasing those Terrorists huh?
MULLAH SPRUNG FROM GITMO JAIL NOW LEADS FOE IN AFGHAN CAMPAIGN
Last updated: 3:50 amJuly 5, 2009 Posted: 3:16 amJuly 5, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan -- As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban.
Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.
Zakir was a senior fighter during the Taliban regime in the 1990s. In a memorandum prepared for his administrative review board at Guantanamo, Zakir apparently "felt it would be fine to wage jihad against Americans, Jews, or Israelis if they were invading his country."
And he acknowledged that he was "called to fight jihad in approximately 1997," when he joined the Taliban.
In 2001, he surrendered to US and Afghan forces in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif as the regime was collapsing. He spent the next several years in custody, was transferred to Guantanamo around 2006, then to Afghanistan government custody in late 2007, and was eventually released around May 2008. American officials won't say why he was let go and have not released a photograph of him.
Zakir wasted little time rekindling his relationship with the Taliban, especially its inner shura, or leadership council, based in Pakistan. According to some accounts, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar appointed Zakir as a senior military commander in mid-2008. He quickly developed a reputation as a charismatic leader.
By this time, the Taliban had established a system of shadow-government structures in parts of Afghanistan: provincial governors, military commanders, and mullahs who served on Islamic courts.
The Taliban's goal, as with many insurgent groups, has been to provide more effective law and order than the Afghan government. But it has been one of the most oppressive governments in modern history, banning many forms of entertainment, prohibiting women from working, and conducting public executions of suspected collaborators.
It was in this context that Zakir made his defining contribution to the southern insurgency -- and created an opportunity for US forces to exploit. Early this year, he began to reorganize the Taliban. He helped create an "accountability commission" to monitor and evaluate the performance of key Taliban leaders and track spending.
In some ways, Zakir's efforts paralleled those of the United States, which was laying out a new Afghanistan strategy under the Obama administration at about the same time. The Taliban, apparently concerned that some governors and military commanders had become ineffective and bracing for the growing US military presence, announced its own new strategy in April.
They called it Operation Nasrat ("victory") and pledged to use "ambushes, offensives, explosions, martyrdom-seeking attacks, and surprise attacks." The Taliban also warned that they would attack "military units of the invading forces, diplomatic centers, mobile convoys and high-ranking officials" of the Afghan government.
As Marines move through Helmand, they will be on the lookout for Zakir and his support network. But like many senior Taliban leaders, Zakir spends a lot of time in Pakistani cities like Quetta and Karachi, frightened he'll be killed in an attack.
Zakir's restructuring presents an opportunity for NATO and Afghan forces. As in any business reorganization, firing senior leaders is bound to create a contingent of disgruntled individuals who may be co-opted to turn against the Taliban. A number of fired Taliban commanders have apparently refused to give up their jobs.
As part of the current US military offensive, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson stated that "where we go, we will stay and where we stay, we will hold, build, and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces."
The allies will need the support, or at least acquiescence, of local Afghans -- including tribes and subtribes that oppose the Taliban but have been intimidated because Afghan and NATO forces have failed to protect them.
The face of the Taliban may not be new, but defeating the Taliban and other insurgent groups requires taking advantage of their vulnerabilities and better understanding local politics in Afghanistan.
Last updated: 3:50 amJuly 5, 2009 Posted: 3:16 amJuly 5, 2009
KABUL, Afghanistan -- As Marine Corps forces roll into southern Afghanistan, they face an enemy familiar to US officials -- Mullah Zakir, a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who now leads a reconstituted Taliban.
Abdul Qayum Zakir, also known as Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, is from Helmand Province and has taken a circuitous route to become head of the radical Islamic group.
Zakir was a senior fighter during the Taliban regime in the 1990s. In a memorandum prepared for his administrative review board at Guantanamo, Zakir apparently "felt it would be fine to wage jihad against Americans, Jews, or Israelis if they were invading his country."
And he acknowledged that he was "called to fight jihad in approximately 1997," when he joined the Taliban.
In 2001, he surrendered to US and Afghan forces in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif as the regime was collapsing. He spent the next several years in custody, was transferred to Guantanamo around 2006, then to Afghanistan government custody in late 2007, and was eventually released around May 2008. American officials won't say why he was let go and have not released a photograph of him.
Zakir wasted little time rekindling his relationship with the Taliban, especially its inner shura, or leadership council, based in Pakistan. According to some accounts, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar appointed Zakir as a senior military commander in mid-2008. He quickly developed a reputation as a charismatic leader.
By this time, the Taliban had established a system of shadow-government structures in parts of Afghanistan: provincial governors, military commanders, and mullahs who served on Islamic courts.
The Taliban's goal, as with many insurgent groups, has been to provide more effective law and order than the Afghan government. But it has been one of the most oppressive governments in modern history, banning many forms of entertainment, prohibiting women from working, and conducting public executions of suspected collaborators.
It was in this context that Zakir made his defining contribution to the southern insurgency -- and created an opportunity for US forces to exploit. Early this year, he began to reorganize the Taliban. He helped create an "accountability commission" to monitor and evaluate the performance of key Taliban leaders and track spending.
In some ways, Zakir's efforts paralleled those of the United States, which was laying out a new Afghanistan strategy under the Obama administration at about the same time. The Taliban, apparently concerned that some governors and military commanders had become ineffective and bracing for the growing US military presence, announced its own new strategy in April.
They called it Operation Nasrat ("victory") and pledged to use "ambushes, offensives, explosions, martyrdom-seeking attacks, and surprise attacks." The Taliban also warned that they would attack "military units of the invading forces, diplomatic centers, mobile convoys and high-ranking officials" of the Afghan government.
As Marines move through Helmand, they will be on the lookout for Zakir and his support network. But like many senior Taliban leaders, Zakir spends a lot of time in Pakistani cities like Quetta and Karachi, frightened he'll be killed in an attack.
Zakir's restructuring presents an opportunity for NATO and Afghan forces. As in any business reorganization, firing senior leaders is bound to create a contingent of disgruntled individuals who may be co-opted to turn against the Taliban. A number of fired Taliban commanders have apparently refused to give up their jobs.
As part of the current US military offensive, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson stated that "where we go, we will stay and where we stay, we will hold, build, and work toward transition of all security responsibilities to Afghan forces."
The allies will need the support, or at least acquiescence, of local Afghans -- including tribes and subtribes that oppose the Taliban but have been intimidated because Afghan and NATO forces have failed to protect them.
The face of the Taliban may not be new, but defeating the Taliban and other insurgent groups requires taking advantage of their vulnerabilities and better understanding local politics in Afghanistan.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Could all American's please wake up and see what is actually going on Please?
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Obama speech quoted jihad verse from Quran
Address to Muslims used Islamic text urging war against nonbelievers
Posted: June 07, 200911:22 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2009 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – In his major address to the Muslim world last week, President Obama quoted a verse from the Quran that is interpreted as urging Muslims to follow Muhammad in waging jihad against nonbelievers.
The context of the verse – first noticed by Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch website – was confirmed by Quranic experts contacted by WND.
"I have pointed to this section of the Quran as showing the importance of jihad and to follow the prophet (Muhammad) in jihad even though a war may be difficult," Abu Abaida Al-Ahmed, the imam of a central mosque in Gaza City, told WND.
Obama quoted the verse in question during a section of his speech where he was stressing a "new beginning" between the U.S. and the Muslim world, and the need for a "sustained effort to listen to each other."
(Story continues below)
Obama continued: "As the Holy Quran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.' That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart."
Obama was reading from chapter 9 verse 119 of the Quran, which deals with the theme of not abandoning Muhammad.
The next Quranic passage continues: "Neither the dwellers of the city, nor the Arabs around them, shall seek to stay behind the messenger of Allah (when he mobilizes for war). Nor shall they give priority to their own affairs over supporting him. This is because they do not suffer any thirst, or any effort, or hunger in the cause of Allah, or take a single step that enrages the disbelievers, or inflict any hardship upon the enemy, without having it written down for them as a credit. Allah never fails to recompense those who work righteousness."
The two passages are part of a Quranic section scolding local Muslims in Medina for refusing to accompany Muhammad on a war expedition to Tabouk in northern Arabia, where he was seeking to fight a Byzantine garrison.
Abu Saqer, the head of Jahidiya Salifiyah, an Islamic outreach movement in Gaza, explained there are two main interpretations of the verse cited by Obama:
"First that you should follow the truth of Allah, but in specific to follow those who are in jihad with the prophet in spite of the great heat of going to war," he said.
Al Ahmed, the Gaza imam, stated, "The verses come from the period of the Al-Tabouk war, the year when the prophet left Mecca for Madina."
The main official Quranic exegesis, or tafsir, concerning verse 119 deals with the importance of speaking the truth. A secondary tafsir, however, uses the verse quoted by Obama to argue for jihad.
That tafsir reads: "(Be careful of your duty to Allah) obey Allah in that which he has commanded you, (and be with the Truthful) with Abu Bakr, 'Umar and their companions when they stay behind and when they participate in jihad."
During his speech in Cairo last week, Obama referred to the Quran as "holy" four times and quoted several verses from the Islamic text. He also used Muslim terminology, such as the Quranic obligation of "zakat" or charity.
The speech, in which Obama referenced his Islamic experiences as a child in Indonesia and the Muslim faith of his paternal family, was a major departure from the tone of his campaign last year, when Obama and his team emphasized the then-candidate's stated Christian faith.
Obama speech quoted jihad verse from Quran
Address to Muslims used Islamic text urging war against nonbelievers
Posted: June 07, 200911:22 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein© 2009 WorldNetDaily
JERUSALEM – In his major address to the Muslim world last week, President Obama quoted a verse from the Quran that is interpreted as urging Muslims to follow Muhammad in waging jihad against nonbelievers.
The context of the verse – first noticed by Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch website – was confirmed by Quranic experts contacted by WND.
"I have pointed to this section of the Quran as showing the importance of jihad and to follow the prophet (Muhammad) in jihad even though a war may be difficult," Abu Abaida Al-Ahmed, the imam of a central mosque in Gaza City, told WND.
Obama quoted the verse in question during a section of his speech where he was stressing a "new beginning" between the U.S. and the Muslim world, and the need for a "sustained effort to listen to each other."
(Story continues below)
Obama continued: "As the Holy Quran tells us, 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.' That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart."
Obama was reading from chapter 9 verse 119 of the Quran, which deals with the theme of not abandoning Muhammad.
The next Quranic passage continues: "Neither the dwellers of the city, nor the Arabs around them, shall seek to stay behind the messenger of Allah (when he mobilizes for war). Nor shall they give priority to their own affairs over supporting him. This is because they do not suffer any thirst, or any effort, or hunger in the cause of Allah, or take a single step that enrages the disbelievers, or inflict any hardship upon the enemy, without having it written down for them as a credit. Allah never fails to recompense those who work righteousness."
The two passages are part of a Quranic section scolding local Muslims in Medina for refusing to accompany Muhammad on a war expedition to Tabouk in northern Arabia, where he was seeking to fight a Byzantine garrison.
Abu Saqer, the head of Jahidiya Salifiyah, an Islamic outreach movement in Gaza, explained there are two main interpretations of the verse cited by Obama:
"First that you should follow the truth of Allah, but in specific to follow those who are in jihad with the prophet in spite of the great heat of going to war," he said.
Al Ahmed, the Gaza imam, stated, "The verses come from the period of the Al-Tabouk war, the year when the prophet left Mecca for Madina."
The main official Quranic exegesis, or tafsir, concerning verse 119 deals with the importance of speaking the truth. A secondary tafsir, however, uses the verse quoted by Obama to argue for jihad.
That tafsir reads: "(Be careful of your duty to Allah) obey Allah in that which he has commanded you, (and be with the Truthful) with Abu Bakr, 'Umar and their companions when they stay behind and when they participate in jihad."
During his speech in Cairo last week, Obama referred to the Quran as "holy" four times and quoted several verses from the Islamic text. He also used Muslim terminology, such as the Quranic obligation of "zakat" or charity.
The speech, in which Obama referenced his Islamic experiences as a child in Indonesia and the Muslim faith of his paternal family, was a major departure from the tone of his campaign last year, when Obama and his team emphasized the then-candidate's stated Christian faith.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
What keeps Obama up in the Polls?
WHAT'S KEEPING OBAMA UP?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 2, 2009
Printer-Friendly Version
The Rasmussen poll conducted over the weekend of May 30-31 asked a key question designed to give us perspective on Obama's current popularity. The question was whether the current problems "are due to the recession that began under the Bush administration or to the policies Obama has put in place since taking office." In other words, who's to blame, Bush or Obama?By 62-27, voters say Bush is still the culprit.As long as this opinion remains prevalent, Obama will continue to enjoy high popularity. But when it changes, as it inevitably must, we will see him begin a long, long fall.And this is the key measurement to watch.The real recession -- dating from the stock market collapse -- began four months before Bush left office. And it is now four months since Obama was inaugurated. From this vantage, it still looks to voters like Bush's recession.But it will become increasingly obvious that the large deficit Obama has incurred while pursuing his cure for the recession is, on its own, causing more problems than it solves. As high interest rates and, most likely, inflation, begin to set in -- with no relief in unemployment -- it will be obvious that Obamanomics isn't working and is, in fact, aggravating the economic trouble.Obama, recognizing the danger, has recently begun to speak out -- without even cracking a guilty smile -- against the huge budget deficit he created. He is trying to blame the deficit, too, on Bush. But voters will not overlook the huge spending sprees of January and February, when Obama quadrupled the 2009 deficit. They will come to see that spending as a huge mistake and will shift their blame to the new president who proposed it.Obama now faces a choice of poisons.He can leave taxes as they are and take the poison of high interest rates, rapid inflation and a new recession, all caused by the massive borrowing he has forced on the Treasury. If the Treasury cannot sell enough bonds at a reasonable interest rate, it will, of course "monetize the deficit" -- economics-speak for printing money so that there will be enough to buy the Treasury debt at moderate interest rates. But the process of so vastly expanding the money supply (or even just leaving the current expansion in place without trying to soak up the extra money) will cause its own runaway inflation.Or Obama can break his pledge and raise taxes on everybody. His soak-the-rich approach will not be enough to cover the deficit. Especially when one factors in his healthcare proposals, big tax increases on the middle class become an increasing likelihood. And when we consider his cap-and-trade legislation, huge increases in utility rates also loom.Either poison will make it clear that the economy is suffering from the medicine Obama administered, rather than the original disease that started under Bush.And, of course, while we cannot predict precisely the start date of the Obama-generated misery, it's pretty clear that it will be a long-lasting pain. Neither inflation nor the pain of higher taxes is going to go away soon. And either approach will probably kindle a new recession.Some economists think we will have an L-shaped recession from which we do not emerge for years and years. Others think it will be a W-shaped recession (not Bush's W) in which we emerge briefly and then go back down again. But a U-shaped recession, in which we go down and then come bouncing back, probably cannot happen with Obama's deficits now firmly in place. Then it will become clear that the cure was worse than the disease.
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on June 2, 2009
Printer-Friendly Version
The Rasmussen poll conducted over the weekend of May 30-31 asked a key question designed to give us perspective on Obama's current popularity. The question was whether the current problems "are due to the recession that began under the Bush administration or to the policies Obama has put in place since taking office." In other words, who's to blame, Bush or Obama?By 62-27, voters say Bush is still the culprit.As long as this opinion remains prevalent, Obama will continue to enjoy high popularity. But when it changes, as it inevitably must, we will see him begin a long, long fall.And this is the key measurement to watch.The real recession -- dating from the stock market collapse -- began four months before Bush left office. And it is now four months since Obama was inaugurated. From this vantage, it still looks to voters like Bush's recession.But it will become increasingly obvious that the large deficit Obama has incurred while pursuing his cure for the recession is, on its own, causing more problems than it solves. As high interest rates and, most likely, inflation, begin to set in -- with no relief in unemployment -- it will be obvious that Obamanomics isn't working and is, in fact, aggravating the economic trouble.Obama, recognizing the danger, has recently begun to speak out -- without even cracking a guilty smile -- against the huge budget deficit he created. He is trying to blame the deficit, too, on Bush. But voters will not overlook the huge spending sprees of January and February, when Obama quadrupled the 2009 deficit. They will come to see that spending as a huge mistake and will shift their blame to the new president who proposed it.Obama now faces a choice of poisons.He can leave taxes as they are and take the poison of high interest rates, rapid inflation and a new recession, all caused by the massive borrowing he has forced on the Treasury. If the Treasury cannot sell enough bonds at a reasonable interest rate, it will, of course "monetize the deficit" -- economics-speak for printing money so that there will be enough to buy the Treasury debt at moderate interest rates. But the process of so vastly expanding the money supply (or even just leaving the current expansion in place without trying to soak up the extra money) will cause its own runaway inflation.Or Obama can break his pledge and raise taxes on everybody. His soak-the-rich approach will not be enough to cover the deficit. Especially when one factors in his healthcare proposals, big tax increases on the middle class become an increasing likelihood. And when we consider his cap-and-trade legislation, huge increases in utility rates also loom.Either poison will make it clear that the economy is suffering from the medicine Obama administered, rather than the original disease that started under Bush.And, of course, while we cannot predict precisely the start date of the Obama-generated misery, it's pretty clear that it will be a long-lasting pain. Neither inflation nor the pain of higher taxes is going to go away soon. And either approach will probably kindle a new recession.Some economists think we will have an L-shaped recession from which we do not emerge for years and years. Others think it will be a W-shaped recession (not Bush's W) in which we emerge briefly and then go back down again. But a U-shaped recession, in which we go down and then come bouncing back, probably cannot happen with Obama's deficits now firmly in place. Then it will become clear that the cure was worse than the disease.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Come on Obama wake up and do something about this Lunatic! NOW!!!!!!
Reports: N. Korea Prepares Long-Range Missile
Monday, June 01, 2009
Print
ShareThis
GeoEye via Reuters
April 5: A North Korean missile launch facility at Musudan-Ri is spied from 423 miles in space.
April 5: A North Korean missile launch facility at Musudan-Ri is spied from 423 miles in space.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea has transported its most advanced missile, believed to be capable of reaching Alaska, to a site where it could be ready for launch in a week or two, news reports said Monday.
The reclusive communist country was also reportedly strengthening its defenses and conducting amphibious assault exercises along its western shore, near disputed waters where deadly naval clashes with South Korea have occurred in the past.
With the launch, Pyongyang could also thumb its nose at U.N. Security Council attempts to rein it in after last week's nuclear test and a series of short-range missile launches.
South Korean media have speculated that the North wants to time the launch for around June 16, when South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has a summit in Washington with President Barack Obama.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the missile had been sent by train to the newly completed missile facility of Dongchang-ni, about 40 miles from the Chinese border.
Yonhap, quoting government sources, said the missile could be ready to launch in a week or two. South Korean defense and intelligence officials refused to comment.
U.S Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking at a news conference in the Philippines, said North Korea appears to be working on a long-range missile, but it's not clear yet what they plan to do with it.
Lee, hosting a conference of Southeast Asian leaders, warned the North against any provocation.
"If North Korea turns its back on dialogue and peace and dares to carry out military threats and provocations, the Republic of Korea will never tolerate that," Lee said in his regular radio address.
Adding to tensions this week, the trial starts Thursday in Pyongyang of two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, accused of entering the country illegally and engaging in "hostile acts."
North Korea faced strong international criticism after its last long-range missile launch, on April 5. The North said the launch was of a rocket intended to put a satellite in orbit. That modified version of the Taepodong-2 rocket flew about 2,000 miles, crossing over Japan before crashing into the Pacific Ocean.
Related Stories
Officials: New Signs of North Korea Missile Preparations
N. Korea Defiantly Fires 6th Missile, Slams U.N.
Emotional Funeral for S. Korea's Roh Moo-hyun
N. Korea Warns U.N. of Action in 'Self-Defense'
Russia's U.N. Envoy Sees Wide Agreement for N. Korea Resolution
U.S., S. Korea Troops on High Alert Amid Threats
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Video
North Korea Watch
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The North later threatened to conduct nuclear and long-range missile tests unless the Security Council apologized for criticizing the launch. On Friday, it warned it would take a further "self-defense" measure if the Security Council provokes it.
Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Monday the U.K. and other members of the council were drafting tough sanctions to rebuke North Korea over its "wrong, misguided, dangerous" nuclear test.
Officials say financial sanctions, a toughened arms embargo and searches of ships carrying suspected nuclear cargo could be included.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed the progress of the Security Council response during a telephone conversation Sunday, Russia's Foreign Ministry said Monday.
The North's missile and nuclear programs have been considered a top regional security concern, though the regime is not yet believed to have mastered the technology to make a nuclear warhead small enough to mount on a missile.
In another sign that a new launch is in the works, the North has designated a large area off its west coast as a "no-sail" zone through the end of next month, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper said, citing unidentified intelligence officials.
Yonhap said North Korean troops conducted amphibious assault maneuvers along with west coast.
Experts said the North's preparations were especially significant because it has never launched a long-range missile from the northwestern base.
Kim Tae-woo, vice president of Seoul's state-run Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, said he thinks the North chose the site because of its proximity to China, making it more risky for the U.S. to strike.
The missile being prepared for launch is believed to be an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of up to 4,000 miles, the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unnamed South Korean official.
That would put Alaska within striking range.
On Monday, the North again said it is being provoked by South Korea and the United States, saying the number of spy planes operating in its airspace has risen dramatically.
"The U.S. imperialists and the South Korean puppets perpetrated at least 200 cases of aerial espionage against the DPRK in May, or 30 cases more than those in the same month of last year," it said in a report in its official Korean Central News Agency.
The DPRK is an abbreviation of North Korea's official name.
See Next Story in World
Monday, June 01, 2009
ShareThis
GeoEye via Reuters
April 5: A North Korean missile launch facility at Musudan-Ri is spied from 423 miles in space.
April 5: A North Korean missile launch facility at Musudan-Ri is spied from 423 miles in space.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea has transported its most advanced missile, believed to be capable of reaching Alaska, to a site where it could be ready for launch in a week or two, news reports said Monday.
The reclusive communist country was also reportedly strengthening its defenses and conducting amphibious assault exercises along its western shore, near disputed waters where deadly naval clashes with South Korea have occurred in the past.
With the launch, Pyongyang could also thumb its nose at U.N. Security Council attempts to rein it in after last week's nuclear test and a series of short-range missile launches.
South Korean media have speculated that the North wants to time the launch for around June 16, when South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has a summit in Washington with President Barack Obama.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the missile had been sent by train to the newly completed missile facility of Dongchang-ni, about 40 miles from the Chinese border.
Yonhap, quoting government sources, said the missile could be ready to launch in a week or two. South Korean defense and intelligence officials refused to comment.
U.S Defense Secretary Robert Gates, speaking at a news conference in the Philippines, said North Korea appears to be working on a long-range missile, but it's not clear yet what they plan to do with it.
Lee, hosting a conference of Southeast Asian leaders, warned the North against any provocation.
"If North Korea turns its back on dialogue and peace and dares to carry out military threats and provocations, the Republic of Korea will never tolerate that," Lee said in his regular radio address.
Adding to tensions this week, the trial starts Thursday in Pyongyang of two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, accused of entering the country illegally and engaging in "hostile acts."
North Korea faced strong international criticism after its last long-range missile launch, on April 5. The North said the launch was of a rocket intended to put a satellite in orbit. That modified version of the Taepodong-2 rocket flew about 2,000 miles, crossing over Japan before crashing into the Pacific Ocean.
Related Stories
Officials: New Signs of North Korea Missile Preparations
N. Korea Defiantly Fires 6th Missile, Slams U.N.
Emotional Funeral for S. Korea's Roh Moo-hyun
N. Korea Warns U.N. of Action in 'Self-Defense'
Russia's U.N. Envoy Sees Wide Agreement for N. Korea Resolution
U.S., S. Korea Troops on High Alert Amid Threats
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Video
North Korea Watch
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The North later threatened to conduct nuclear and long-range missile tests unless the Security Council apologized for criticizing the launch. On Friday, it warned it would take a further "self-defense" measure if the Security Council provokes it.
Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Monday the U.K. and other members of the council were drafting tough sanctions to rebuke North Korea over its "wrong, misguided, dangerous" nuclear test.
Officials say financial sanctions, a toughened arms embargo and searches of ships carrying suspected nuclear cargo could be included.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed the progress of the Security Council response during a telephone conversation Sunday, Russia's Foreign Ministry said Monday.
The North's missile and nuclear programs have been considered a top regional security concern, though the regime is not yet believed to have mastered the technology to make a nuclear warhead small enough to mount on a missile.
In another sign that a new launch is in the works, the North has designated a large area off its west coast as a "no-sail" zone through the end of next month, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper said, citing unidentified intelligence officials.
Yonhap said North Korean troops conducted amphibious assault maneuvers along with west coast.
Experts said the North's preparations were especially significant because it has never launched a long-range missile from the northwestern base.
Kim Tae-woo, vice president of Seoul's state-run Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, said he thinks the North chose the site because of its proximity to China, making it more risky for the U.S. to strike.
The missile being prepared for launch is believed to be an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of up to 4,000 miles, the JoongAng Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unnamed South Korean official.
That would put Alaska within striking range.
On Monday, the North again said it is being provoked by South Korea and the United States, saying the number of spy planes operating in its airspace has risen dramatically.
"The U.S. imperialists and the South Korean puppets perpetrated at least 200 cases of aerial espionage against the DPRK in May, or 30 cases more than those in the same month of last year," it said in a report in its official Korean Central News Agency.
The DPRK is an abbreviation of North Korea's official name.
See Next Story in World
President Panty Waist... Good name!
Barack Obama: all the bad guys are giving President Pantywaist the finger
Posted By: Gerald Warner at May 29, 2009 at 19:41:52 [General]
Posted in: UK Correspondents
Tags:
Barack Obama, Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahedinejad, nuclear tests
Kim Jong-il, the charismatic and popular (if you are a Pyongyang resident and covet a life expectancy of more than 24 hours) Dear Leader of North Korea, is on his sixth or seventh missile this week. See the pretty vapour trails streak across Asian skies, in an impressive firework display to celebrate the arrival of President Pantywaist in the Oval Office.
School's out! Suddenly it is playtime for all the naughtier elements in the more "reclusive" parts of the world who enjoy kicking Uncle Sam's butt but didn't much relish tangling with Dick Cheney and (what was that other guy's name?). This time Comrade Kim is really throwing his toys out of the playpen. He has even unilaterally revoked the 1953 armistice between the Korean War belligerents, which means, in case anybody is interested, that North and South Korea are once more at war.
So, what is the response of the Messiah in the Oval Office? Really severe rhetoric, is the answer. The soundbite manufacturers have been burning the midnight oil and the auto-cue is going into meltdown. So is the confidence of Asian leaders. The word is out: the most powerful nation on earth has got itself a pussycat for a president and all the bad guys are queuing up to give him the finger.
It is a measure of Obama's acknowledged impotence that some of those who are now cheeking him are doing so with a degree of sophistication they had not previously exhibited. Irony and sarcasm are being deployed in an unlikely place: Tehran. It is the worst-kept secret in the world that Iran is dependent on North Korea for the development of its nuclear programme. When Kim last lit the blue touch-paper, in 2006, Tehran roundly supported him. This time the mullahs have come up with a more teasing ploy: they have righteously condemned him.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said piously: "We recommend all countries not to waste national resources and their people's wealth on moving toward nuclear proliferation and making weapons of mass destruction." You have to have respect for a man who can deliver a statement like that with a straight face. On Britain's Got Talent such a virtuoso performance would have knocked Susan Boyle off the radar.
President Pantywaist's enemies are taking his measure and they are liking what they see. Perhaps, in some Macchiavellian way, Obama thinks the appointment to the Supreme Court of a Latina woman of apparent bias, who seems unlikely to find in favour of a white male American, will either appease or frighten his foes. Come back, Dick Cheney, all is forgiven.
Posted By: Gerald Warner at May 29, 2009 at 19:41:52 [General]
Posted in: UK Correspondents
Tags:
Barack Obama, Kim Jong-il, Mahmoud Ahedinejad, nuclear tests
Kim Jong-il, the charismatic and popular (if you are a Pyongyang resident and covet a life expectancy of more than 24 hours) Dear Leader of North Korea, is on his sixth or seventh missile this week. See the pretty vapour trails streak across Asian skies, in an impressive firework display to celebrate the arrival of President Pantywaist in the Oval Office.
School's out! Suddenly it is playtime for all the naughtier elements in the more "reclusive" parts of the world who enjoy kicking Uncle Sam's butt but didn't much relish tangling with Dick Cheney and (what was that other guy's name?). This time Comrade Kim is really throwing his toys out of the playpen. He has even unilaterally revoked the 1953 armistice between the Korean War belligerents, which means, in case anybody is interested, that North and South Korea are once more at war.
So, what is the response of the Messiah in the Oval Office? Really severe rhetoric, is the answer. The soundbite manufacturers have been burning the midnight oil and the auto-cue is going into meltdown. So is the confidence of Asian leaders. The word is out: the most powerful nation on earth has got itself a pussycat for a president and all the bad guys are queuing up to give him the finger.
It is a measure of Obama's acknowledged impotence that some of those who are now cheeking him are doing so with a degree of sophistication they had not previously exhibited. Irony and sarcasm are being deployed in an unlikely place: Tehran. It is the worst-kept secret in the world that Iran is dependent on North Korea for the development of its nuclear programme. When Kim last lit the blue touch-paper, in 2006, Tehran roundly supported him. This time the mullahs have come up with a more teasing ploy: they have righteously condemned him.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said piously: "We recommend all countries not to waste national resources and their people's wealth on moving toward nuclear proliferation and making weapons of mass destruction." You have to have respect for a man who can deliver a statement like that with a straight face. On Britain's Got Talent such a virtuoso performance would have knocked Susan Boyle off the radar.
President Pantywaist's enemies are taking his measure and they are liking what they see. Perhaps, in some Macchiavellian way, Obama thinks the appointment to the Supreme Court of a Latina woman of apparent bias, who seems unlikely to find in favour of a white male American, will either appease or frighten his foes. Come back, Dick Cheney, all is forgiven.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Court Upheld the Law instead of changing it.. YAY
The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before November will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.
By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
Interactive: Gay marriage chronology
Photos: Prop. 8 decision: photos
Full coverage of same-sex marriage, Proposition 8
Answering your questions, taking comments about the Prop. 8 decision
Cheers, anger and tears in response to decision on gay marriage
The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution."If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote."We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical."It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
Interactive: Gay marriage chronology
Photos: Prop. 8 decision: photos
Full coverage of same-sex marriage, Proposition 8
Answering your questions, taking comments about the Prop. 8 decision
Cheers, anger and tears in response to decision on gay marriage
The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution."If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote."We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical."It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
Russia is worried isn't that telling you anything Barack?
Russia Fears Korea Conflict Could Go Nuclear
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Print
ShareThis
APTN
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
MOSCOW — Russia is taking precautionary security measures because it fears tensions over North Korea's atomic test could descend into nuclear war, news agencies quoted an official as saying on Wednesday.
Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying that a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.
"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.
"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added.
North Korea has responded to international condemnation of its nuclear test and a threat of new U.N. sanctions by saying it is no longer bound by an armistice signed with South Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Itar-Tass news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry official as saying the "war of nerves" over North Korea should not be allowed to grow into a military conflict, a clear reference to Pyongyang's decision to drop out of the armistice deal.
var adsonar_placementId="1425871",adsonar_pid="1367767",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
qas_writeAd();
"We assume that a dangerous brinkmanship, a war of nerves, is under way, but it will not grow into a hot war," the official told Tass. "Restraint is needed."
The foreign ministry often uses statements sourced to unnamed officials, leaked through official news agencies, to lay down its position on sensitive issues.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has condemned North Korean tests but his foreign ministry has warned the international community against hasty decisions.
Russia is a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing to discuss the latest stand-off over the peninsula.
In the past, Moscow has been reluctant to support Western calls for sanctions. But Russian officials in the United Nations have said that this time the authority of the top international body is at stake.
"We cannot provide cover for any actions that lead to the destabilisation of the non-proliferation regime," Interfax quoted its foreign ministry source as saying.
Related Stories
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Experts: North Korea a Fully Fledged Nuclear Power
N. Korea May Restart Nuclear Plant in Months
U.N. Deadlock Over N. Korean Rocket Apparently Easing
Japan Strengthens Sanctions Against N. Korea After Rocket Launch
World Eyes Frail Kim Jong Il at North Korea Parliament
North Korean Media: Kim Jong-Il Sobbed During Rocket Launch
First Images of N. Korea Rocket Launch Revealed
N. Korea Rocket Passes Over Japan Without Incident
U.N. Security Council to Hold Emergency Session Over N. Korea Launch
Report: North Korea Turns on Radars, Removes Top Part of the Rocket
North Korea Tracked Closely Ahead of Possible Saturday Rocket Launch
South Korea: North May Launch Rocket Saturday
N. Korea Fueling Rocket in Final Preparation for Launch
N. Korea Threatens to Retaliate With 'Thunderbolt of Fire'
N. Korea 'Will Mercilessly Shoot Down' U.S. Spy Planes
Reports: Iran Experts Aiding North Korea Rocket Launch
Admiral: North Korea Rocket Could Reach Hawaii
Pictures Emerge of N. Korea Launchpad as Warships Move Into Area
Japan Issues Order to 'Destroy' N. Korea Rocket
North Korea Threatens to Restart Nuke Program Over Rocket Launch Sanctions
Japan Readies Crisis Steps for North Korea Missile
FAST FACTS: A Glance at North Korea's Missile Arsenal
U.S.: North Korea Loading Rocket on Launchpad
N. Korea Reasserts Right to Satellite Launch
Intelligence Officials: North Korea's 'Satellite' Is Long-Range Missile
Official Says North Korea is Month Away From Launching Missile or Rocket
North Korea Bans IAEA From Yongbyon Nuclear Facilities
Reports: North Korea Fires Short-Range Missile Into Yellow Sea
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The Interfax source made clear Russia has not finally made up its mind on the U.N. vote yet. "We should not subscribe to any specific option beforehand," the source said.
However, the Tass source indicated Russia could back sanctions.
"The (U.N. Security Council) resolution is most likely to involve sanction-like measures," he said. "The U.N. Security Council is engaged in a tough work."
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
ShareThis
APTN
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
MOSCOW — Russia is taking precautionary security measures because it fears tensions over North Korea's atomic test could descend into nuclear war, news agencies quoted an official as saying on Wednesday.
Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying that a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.
"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.
"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added.
North Korea has responded to international condemnation of its nuclear test and a threat of new U.N. sanctions by saying it is no longer bound by an armistice signed with South Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Itar-Tass news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry official as saying the "war of nerves" over North Korea should not be allowed to grow into a military conflict, a clear reference to Pyongyang's decision to drop out of the armistice deal.
var adsonar_placementId="1425871",adsonar_pid="1367767",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
qas_writeAd();
"We assume that a dangerous brinkmanship, a war of nerves, is under way, but it will not grow into a hot war," the official told Tass. "Restraint is needed."
The foreign ministry often uses statements sourced to unnamed officials, leaked through official news agencies, to lay down its position on sensitive issues.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has condemned North Korean tests but his foreign ministry has warned the international community against hasty decisions.
Russia is a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing to discuss the latest stand-off over the peninsula.
In the past, Moscow has been reluctant to support Western calls for sanctions. But Russian officials in the United Nations have said that this time the authority of the top international body is at stake.
"We cannot provide cover for any actions that lead to the destabilisation of the non-proliferation regime," Interfax quoted its foreign ministry source as saying.
Related Stories
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Experts: North Korea a Fully Fledged Nuclear Power
N. Korea May Restart Nuclear Plant in Months
U.N. Deadlock Over N. Korean Rocket Apparently Easing
Japan Strengthens Sanctions Against N. Korea After Rocket Launch
World Eyes Frail Kim Jong Il at North Korea Parliament
North Korean Media: Kim Jong-Il Sobbed During Rocket Launch
First Images of N. Korea Rocket Launch Revealed
N. Korea Rocket Passes Over Japan Without Incident
U.N. Security Council to Hold Emergency Session Over N. Korea Launch
Report: North Korea Turns on Radars, Removes Top Part of the Rocket
North Korea Tracked Closely Ahead of Possible Saturday Rocket Launch
South Korea: North May Launch Rocket Saturday
N. Korea Fueling Rocket in Final Preparation for Launch
N. Korea Threatens to Retaliate With 'Thunderbolt of Fire'
N. Korea 'Will Mercilessly Shoot Down' U.S. Spy Planes
Reports: Iran Experts Aiding North Korea Rocket Launch
Admiral: North Korea Rocket Could Reach Hawaii
Pictures Emerge of N. Korea Launchpad as Warships Move Into Area
Japan Issues Order to 'Destroy' N. Korea Rocket
North Korea Threatens to Restart Nuke Program Over Rocket Launch Sanctions
Japan Readies Crisis Steps for North Korea Missile
FAST FACTS: A Glance at North Korea's Missile Arsenal
U.S.: North Korea Loading Rocket on Launchpad
N. Korea Reasserts Right to Satellite Launch
Intelligence Officials: North Korea's 'Satellite' Is Long-Range Missile
Official Says North Korea is Month Away From Launching Missile or Rocket
North Korea Bans IAEA From Yongbyon Nuclear Facilities
Reports: North Korea Fires Short-Range Missile Into Yellow Sea
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The Interfax source made clear Russia has not finally made up its mind on the U.N. vote yet. "We should not subscribe to any specific option beforehand," the source said.
However, the Tass source indicated Russia could back sanctions.
"The (U.N. Security Council) resolution is most likely to involve sanction-like measures," he said. "The U.N. Security Council is engaged in a tough work."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Happy to see California Supreme Court actually did the right thing.
I am speaking of Prop 8 of course. I thought with all the liberal special interest money out there rallying against this law or Ban on Gay marriage that the Liberal judges would determine the law passed by the PEOPLE to be unconstitutional. I was pleasantly surprised that wasn't the case. Whether you are for something or against something doesn't give you the right as part of the MINORITY to change a law the people have passed. For so many years California has been overturning things in court that shouldn't have even been heard. It's just a nice change to see that Judges weren't MAKING laws this time and instead inforcing the voice of THE PEOPLE.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Take a Stand against high Gas Prices....
Live frugally and stay close to home on holidays and during the summer months. Demand needs to come down but refineries at the same time need to increase reserves and production. We are heading into Hurricane Season and reserves need to increase as well as production to prepare in case rigs and refineries are damaged by Storm weather later on in the season. Plan ahead people. This happens every year. The soaring gas prices a year or so ago actually started our spiral downward.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Barack has to take a stand against Pelosi
Debs says: "ASK FOR THE WITCHES RESIGNATION. She isn't qualified to be in such a position anyway.
She should climb on her broomstick and fly back to her corrupt San Francisco, where people on the left can say or do anything they wish and only the Conservatives are flogged."
Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence
Wednesday, May 20th 2009, 4:00 AM
He's the man with the silver tongue, "a gift," as he once called his inspired ability with words. Yet while a heated battle with national security implications rages around him, President Obama has pushed his mute button.
It's been six days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went wiggy and accused the Central Intelligence Agency of repeatedly lying to her and others in Congress, saying "they mislead us all the time."
But Obama has not said a single word on the subject. His press secretary has brushed off efforts by reporters to learn whether Obama agrees with fellow Democrat Pelosi or with Leon Panetta, his CIA director.
Panetta, a former Democratic congressman himself, forcefully rejected Pelosi's charges, which, if true, would constitute serious crimes.
Republicans are happy campers, with Pelosi's televised rant providing a welcome break from their own problems. GOP House leader John Boehner, partisan motivations aside, is right when he challenges Pelosi either to offer evidence she was misled by the CIA on the waterboarding of terror detainees, or apologize to those trying to keep America safe.
Pelosi's refusal to budge is Obama's cue to get involved. He must come to the defense of the CIA or explain why he thinks Pelosi has a case.
Silence is not an option. The stakes are too high for the President to take a pass.
In political terms, Obama's desire to stay neutral is understandable. It's a no-win situation, with Pelosi holding the fate of his numerous pieces of sweeping legislation.
He would also pay a price for alienating the CIA by backing Pelosi. The spook-and-dagger crowd is well known for getting even with Presidents it doesn't like - see George W. Bush - and it takes only one disgruntled agent to leak unflattering information.
Yet the presidency is more than just our politician in chief. And the sweeping nature of Pelosi's charges, coming while we are at war with an enemy that vows to attack us again, demands Obama's voice and judgment. We cannot afford to have a demoralized CIA.
If he doubts the seriousness, Obama need only review Pelosi's shocking claims. She said she had attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, where "the only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed."
The CIA disputes that, saying it told her the interrogation technique had been used. Panetta issued a confirming report, citing agency notes.
Curiously, Pelosi does admit she learned from an aide in early 2003 that waterboarding had been used, but never once complained to the CIA or the White House about a technique she calls torture. At the time, she was the top leader of House Democrats, so her complaints could have made a difference.
Some of Pelosi's theatrics heighten the need for Obama's involvement. In what struck me as a partisan fixation bordering on paranoia, Pelosi ranted in an "us against them" way that was disturbing: "This is their policy, all of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceived. This is what they developed. This is what they implemented. This is what they denied was happening."
Later, with reporters questioning her honesty, she tried to turn the tables on the unnamed bogeymen again. "They mislead us all the time. I was fighting the war in Iraq at that point, too, you know, saying to my members the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding. . . . They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them. So they try to turn the attention on us. We had to win the election to make the change."
Indeed, Democrats won two elections in a row and Obama sits in the Oval Office.
That responsibility demands his leadership on this sordid mess.Read more: "Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence" - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html#ixzz0G8xv6wKK&A
Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence
Wednesday, May 20th 2009, 4:00 AM
He's the man with the silver tongue, "a gift," as he once called his inspired ability with words. Yet while a heated battle with national security implications rages around him, President Obama has pushed his mute button.
It's been six days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went wiggy and accused the Central Intelligence Agency of repeatedly lying to her and others in Congress, saying "they mislead us all the time."
But Obama has not said a single word on the subject. His press secretary has brushed off efforts by reporters to learn whether Obama agrees with fellow Democrat Pelosi or with Leon Panetta, his CIA director.
Panetta, a former Democratic congressman himself, forcefully rejected Pelosi's charges, which, if true, would constitute serious crimes.
Republicans are happy campers, with Pelosi's televised rant providing a welcome break from their own problems. GOP House leader John Boehner, partisan motivations aside, is right when he challenges Pelosi either to offer evidence she was misled by the CIA on the waterboarding of terror detainees, or apologize to those trying to keep America safe.
Pelosi's refusal to budge is Obama's cue to get involved. He must come to the defense of the CIA or explain why he thinks Pelosi has a case.
Silence is not an option. The stakes are too high for the President to take a pass.
In political terms, Obama's desire to stay neutral is understandable. It's a no-win situation, with Pelosi holding the fate of his numerous pieces of sweeping legislation.
He would also pay a price for alienating the CIA by backing Pelosi. The spook-and-dagger crowd is well known for getting even with Presidents it doesn't like - see George W. Bush - and it takes only one disgruntled agent to leak unflattering information.
Yet the presidency is more than just our politician in chief. And the sweeping nature of Pelosi's charges, coming while we are at war with an enemy that vows to attack us again, demands Obama's voice and judgment. We cannot afford to have a demoralized CIA.
If he doubts the seriousness, Obama need only review Pelosi's shocking claims. She said she had attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, where "the only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed."
The CIA disputes that, saying it told her the interrogation technique had been used. Panetta issued a confirming report, citing agency notes.
Curiously, Pelosi does admit she learned from an aide in early 2003 that waterboarding had been used, but never once complained to the CIA or the White House about a technique she calls torture. At the time, she was the top leader of House Democrats, so her complaints could have made a difference.
Some of Pelosi's theatrics heighten the need for Obama's involvement. In what struck me as a partisan fixation bordering on paranoia, Pelosi ranted in an "us against them" way that was disturbing: "This is their policy, all of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceived. This is what they developed. This is what they implemented. This is what they denied was happening."
Later, with reporters questioning her honesty, she tried to turn the tables on the unnamed bogeymen again. "They mislead us all the time. I was fighting the war in Iraq at that point, too, you know, saying to my members the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding. . . . They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them. So they try to turn the attention on us. We had to win the election to make the change."
Indeed, Democrats won two elections in a row and Obama sits in the Oval Office.
That responsibility demands his leadership on this sordid mess.Read more: "Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence" - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html#ixzz0G8xv6wKK&A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
