Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Is Letterman A Racist?

Surely Not, But According To The Guidelines Set For Republicans He May Be

These guidelines seem to state that if you have anything negative to say about the President, the administration or policy, you would be labeled as having racist tendencies.

To paraphrase, Letterman said that Obama has done so well fighting for healthcare, do the Olympics for Chicago stand a chance? Even Democrat Russ Feingold is walking a slippery slope having the gall to call for hearings questioning the executive power of the czars. Careful Senator.

Security Of The Homeland Begins In Iran And Afghanistan


The Failure of Appeasement

New Yorkers know only to well the results that a policy based on appeasement and benign neglect can generate. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 had their beginnings years before in the embassies in Africa, on the USS Cole and at the World Trade Center in 1993.

The Clinton Administration conducted national security through polling results and focus groups, weighing the public appetite for response and then acting accordingly. As a result, our enemies felt empowered to conduct operations with little fear of true retribution.

Fast forward to today, and we face an enemy who now appears emboldened by the apparent, or fairly obvious, weakness of the Obama Administration. The term Homeland Security seems to have been replaced by the desire of the new administration to be considered the anti-Bush around the world. To be liked and to avoid imposing our will under most if not all circumstances. If Russia doesn't appreciate missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia, we will remove them at a great cost to our NATO allies as well as to our own security. In return for this, Russia will throw us a few crumbs.

If General McCrystal, Commander on the ground in Afghanistan, placed there by President Obama, says that a troop surge is required to avoid mission failure, the President will respond that he will get back to him after he reviews options and potential plans. This while the Taliban continues to spread its tentacles around the country and our men and women on the ground are put at increased risk. Our national security seems to be based on the phrase: We will speak softly and carry no stick at all.

The Iranian Missile Crisis

October 1st the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain will be sitting down in Geneva for what are billed as substantive talks regarding Iran's continuing efforts to develop nuclear arms. This only days after a 2nd nuclear enrichment plant was revealed and two days of ballistic missile tests were conducted. The stick to be held out will be the threat of "severe" sanctions to be imposed by the Group of Five nations.

The problem will be that some of our "friends" will violate those sanctions, and Iran could care less about the well being of its people. These talks will serve as a smokescreen for the countries participating to buy time to avoid the ultimate response, which will be military action to take out the installations. In the meantime, Israel, with the most to lose, may be forced to act unilaterally.

The Impact On Our Safety

What is the seriousness of the threat to the world and to New York in particular? Imagine the reality of Iran possessing the materials required to build a nuclear device for a warhead, or possibly enough for several suitcase bombs. Where will the targets be, and who or what will the delivery mechanism be?

It is a safe bet that New York City will be high up on the list in this eventuality, and while President Obama panders to the left wing of his party by playing the diplomacy card with madmen, New Yorkers among others will have been hung out to dry. Decisions that the President makes are in no small part influenced by his desire to get healthcare through, resulting in the need to make no waves on foreign policy.

If in fact Iran is allowed to go nuclear, and if in fact we retreat in Afghanistan and let the Taliban run wild, healthcare will probably not matter anyway!

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

"The Troop Surge" and "One Iranian Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words"


This Is A Photo Of One Of The Iranian Missile Tests, Fired Days After A Second Uranium Enrichment Plant Was Exposed. The Missile Fired On Monday Had The Capacity To Reach Israel And U.S. Interests

The missile tests on Sunday and Monday put a clear face on our October 1st negotiations partner in Geneva. This should serve as a wake up call to President Obama as to the futility of negotiations with this type of regime.

The argument will be that Iran's purpose in conducting these tests is to gain leverage in the upcoming talks. My thinking is that it is further indication of the insanity of the Iranian leadership.

Will The Real Robert Gates Please Stand
Up

A force behind the Iraqi troop surge back in 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has apparently found the appetite for politics at the expense of our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan as well as the security of the United States.

Remember on September 21st when General McCrystal, the chief of operations in Afghanistan who was placed there by President Obama, had this to say regarding the prospect of not increasing troop strength:

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

Now you would typically put a man in place whose opinions you trust as the gospel. If not, why have him there? President Obama and Robert Gates apparently seem to feel that Nancy Pelosi and the left of the Democrat Party have a better grasp on what is needed there, and it does not include troops.

No, it encompasses a time table for withdrawal. The idea of the Democrat leadership is to abandon the mission, admit defeat, and let the Taliban run wild taking control of the country to turn it into one large training ground for terrorist trainees.

All we need to do is examine the 3 foiled terrorist plots over the past week or so to realize that giving the Taliban free reign to train and deploy its own "troops" would be an unacceptable outcome for the United States!

Now the situation on the ground is not a simple one by any means. Violence has reached an 8 year high, and the Afghan government needs to gain the confidence of its people as well as step up the capacity for it's own soldiers to eventually take over from the United States. This, so that at some time in the future we can pull back.

(Washington Examiner) "...Gates told ABC's "This Week," Obama will decide, within weeks, "whether or not to make adjustments in the strategy" in the wake of the country's recent election, as well as a dire new assessment of the war by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

"And that includes the question of, is McChrystal's approach, in the view of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Central Command commander, the right approach?" Gates told host George Stephanopoulos. "And if so, then what would be the additional resources required?..."

The Conclusion

Gentlemen, this is no time for focus groups, reading the polling data or consultation with the far left. This is the reason that you were elected. To make the critical decisions that are required for the security of the country.

Not to politicize, but to strategize!

General McCrystal has made his assessment and no doubt has discussed it with the Joint Chiefs. Our men and woman on the ground face increased danger without the surge, and the mission will "result in failure" without the surge. It appears that their are two possible choices:

1) Complete and immediate withdrawal with all of the unpleasant future outcomes this would enable;

2) The troop surge as recommended by the Obama administration "expert" on the ground.

As Malone said to Eliot Ness in "The Untouchables": "What are you prepared to do?" Well Mr. President, what are you prepared to do?


Monday, September 28, 2009

Secret Nuclear Plant In Iran Should Surprise No One! and Hamas Educational Aide

I Declare The Charade With Iran Over!

I have actually been declaring it over for as long as I can remember, but the game goes on. October 1st is the newest installment with all of the players meeting in Geneva. These include the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany along with the returning champion Iran. This show will be hosted by Soupy Sales.

Why is this Iranian crisis the equivalent of a bad game show? Let's take a closer look at some of the players, their thoughts and their actions:

Iran

"God willing, this plant will be put into operation soon, and will blind the eyes of the enemies," Head of Supreme Leader's Office Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani

(The Australian) "Hossein Salami, air force commander of the Revolutionary Guards, said that today there would be a test-firing of a long-range missile Iran says has a range of 1300-2000km and is capable of hitting arch-foe Israel." This test firing came on Sunday, days before the Geneva meetings.

(Digital Journal) Iran announced its intent to continue with its missile tests, moving to mid-range missiles on Sunday evening and to new "upgraded long-range missiles" on Monday. The mid-range varieties are believed to be capable of reaching targets within Israel. The tests on Monday coincide with the holy Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, an echo of the 1973 Arab attack on Israel.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "I fundamentally raise two questions regarding the Holocaust ... The first question is that assuming the Holocaust did happen, where did it exactly happen and who were the perpetrators? The second question is how exactly does that connect to the Palestinian issue?"

United States

"It is always welcome when Iran makes a decision to comply with the international rules and regulations, and particularly with respect to the IAEA," Hillary Clinton, United States Secretary of State

"While you don't take options off the table, I think there's still room left for diplomacy," United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

(Hays Daily News) President Obama says: "Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice" between international isolation and giving up any aspirations to becoming a nuclear power, he said. If they refuse to give ground, they will stay on "a path that is going to lead to confrontation."

President Obama: "If the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East - then they must be held accountable." Really? What do these words actually mean? More rhetoric.

Israel

Netanyahu: “This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others.”

(Reuters) Israel: Many analysts believe the risk of a strike by Israel against Iran's nuclear program, even one not endorsed by its ally the United States, is significant.

Summary

Compare the rhetoric of the Iranians versus the naiveté of the American politicians. Religious fundamentalism versus political speak. The desire to destroy versus the desire to negotiate. The Iranians will not be talked out of their goal, but will go along for the ride for as long as it lasts.

Israel on the other hand will not allow the game to drag on. Therefore, my money is on them to win, because they do not have the option of losing.

In the event missiles are launched, the safe bet is that Israel will be the first target. As a result, they are willing to act unilaterally, and may very well be forced to do so. The reason is that the other players on its team are not playing to win, but to run out the game clock. That is the equivalent of the prevent defense which only prevents one thing, winning.

This is not really a game, it is serious business. Not only for Israel, but for the entire world community.

Indoctrination Provided By Hamas


Sunday, September 27, 2009

Are We Teaching Our Children About Winning AND Losing?


It's Football Sunday, And Events Have Pushed This Question Into My Mind

Are Our Kids Learning How To Lose And To Become Independent?

Now this is not earth shattering news, it does not concern Iran's nukes or Obama's Czars, but for the future of society it is one often overlooked that needs to be addressed by parents around the country. And what better day than an NFL Sunday to do it. Tomorrow it is back to the larger questions at hand.

The Simplicity Of Competition

You either come in first, or you lose. My mentality in any sport I have ever played was to give 110%, and to play to win. Little joy was taken from the fact that both teams played hard, but only one could win and it wasn't me. But that's life!

In any endeavor, play to win is the only way, but by the same token, to understand that the potential to lose also exists. Not to be happy about losing, not to get a thrill from the experience, but to accept it and understand that the next time you go out there adjustments will have to be made either within yourself, the team concept or in the style of play to improve the result. At the end of the game, you would shake the hands of the other team who got you this time, but not next time.

Kids Today Are Sheltered, Protected From The Inevitable Disappointments Or Bumps In The Road - Some examples:

Everybody makes the team or some team - no cuts

Everybody plays at least part of the game regardless of the impact on the team

Parents will talk to coaches at all levels about playing time, unable to objectively see the capabilities of their child or to respect the parent/coach relationship

Screaming at referees and kids on other teams because winning is the only option, and losing can only be the fault of someone else, not ourselves

I don't like the teacher, change my kid to another class

Classes are pass/fail because kids shouldn't be differentiated by grades.

Writing the college essay for kids helping make sure they get into the college they want

Calling Johnny's mother to find out why your son wasn't invited to his party, and then getting your son invited

It Sounds Trivial, But They All Send A Message

When kids grow up and leave the house for college or career, a parents ability to manage the expectations and results of life's road ends, or at the very least is severely curtailed. Your professor gives you a bad grade, a boss is overbearing or unfair or a relationship hits the rocks, it is up to your child to handle it, resolve it, or not. We are out of the loop, but have they been adequately prepared for that eventuality?

By teaching children that losing, or disappointments, are extremely rare or that any unpleasant situation can be resolved to an acceptable result, we are implanting unreasonable expectations and a sense of entitlement that does not exist in "real life". There are going to be winners, and there are going to be losers. That is the reality.

While nobody wants to see a kid crying or devastated from disappointment, parents have to use them as a tool to teach life's lessons. When kids see parents getting on the phone to talk to the league commissioner to try and push their son or daughter onto a team they probably don't belong on, you are teaching them a dangerous lesson that at some point will come back to haunt them or you.

Play hard, try hard, fight hard, work hard and give 110%, and if it wasn't good enough this time, it may be next time. Shake hands and move on.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Obama On Iran Sure Sounded Promising


But Then I Kept Reading And My Hope Turned Back To Angst

The statement you are about to read was made by President Obama at the G-20 Summit. It is regarding the second, smaller nuclear plant that Iran confessed to having this week. On its face it sounds as if we are ready to act to take it out. While that may be the case behind the scenes, follow-up statements by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates would seem to suggest otherwise. He makes a vague statement about how using military force would only be a stop-gap measure good for about three years of time.

Here is where my confusion bubbles to the top. If we do nothing and negotiate, impose toothless sanctions and U.N. Resolutions that also have no bite, it seems to me that Iran will be much less than three years away from having a deployable weapon. So what exactly is our Gates saying? Do the following statements have Ahmadinejad quaking in his boots. Judging from his rhetoric at the U.N. I think not.

October 1st negotiations will come and go, and the problem will still be there, growing more critical by the day. Here are the statements, first by the President, and then by Gates:

(New York Times) “Iran is on notice that when we meet with them on Oct. 1 they are going to have to come clean and they will have to make a choice,” he said. The alternative to giving up their program, he warned, is to “continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation.

It seemed unlikely that by “confrontation” Mr. Obama meant military action. While the president said that option was still on the table, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said on CNN on Friday that “the reality is that there is no military option that does anything more than buy time — the estimates are three years or so...”

Hopefully the rhetoric of Gates is meant to throw Iran a curve ball. Hopefully.

Friday, September 25, 2009

If You Thought You Were The Only One, You're Wrong!




Did you ever get the feeling that you were having a dream, and the only character was Barack Obama? You would leave the house, there he was. You would get on a bus. There he was. Drive to a new town. Who do you think is the only one walking down Main Street? You got it, President Obama. Well apparently you are not alone.

Capped off this week by his visit to Letterman, speech at the U.N., speech at the G 20, television commercial on healthcare, song about him sung by the school children in New Jersey (like a song that would be sung to Kim Jung-il, it seems that wherever you turn, Big Brother is there.

As the cartoon above depicts, exposure can be a good thing, but with overexposure you run the real risk of being tuned out. What did I just say? See what I mean.

So my amateur advice to the President might be to pull in the horns a little bit and come around when you truly have something new and important to say. Rehashing the same healthcare points over and over again is not the way. As an idea, how about a substantive speech on national security with real action and not just rhetoric. Give it a try. It would be in the best health interests of the country!

What Do Obama And Richie Cunnungham Have In Common?


"Happy Days" Are Here Again?

I have been talking for some time about the fact that the goal of President Obama is to be well liked in the world. To be the anti-Bush. To make no waves, speak the words that everyone wants to hear, promote an agenda of diplomacy no matter what with the hint that there is the potential for strong action behind it. Does anyone really believe that to be the case. President Bush was hated around the world, but our enemies knew that he carried a big stick. Does anyone fear Obama and his sidekicks Pelosi and Reid? It is critical as a superpower for that to be the case. As an example, to play diplomacy games with Iran is a losing proposition if they know that they can just string us along with no fear of the end game. All because he wants to make friends.

Just like Richie, when we need a little more Fonz!

The Cunningham Effect

(RealClearPolitcs) "Happy Days pivoted around the friendship between two very different American teenagers, Richie Cunningham and Fonzie Fonzarelli.

Richie was clean-cut, wholesome, an absolute goody-goody, and everybody loved him. Fonzie, especially in the early series, was a tough nut. Greased-back hair, always astride his outlaw motorbike, decked out in Marlon Brando T-shirt, Fonzie inspired fear and envy in men, and swoons among the gals.

Everyone was frightened of Fonzie. He could banish bad guys with a look. In one episode, Fonzie tried to teach Richie his style. Richie practised the grimaces, the flexes, the stares, but alas the bad guys were not impressed and certainly not deterred.

In the midst of a desperate scrape, Richie turned to Fonzie imploringly and asked: Why are my deadly looks, threatening flexes and strategic grimaces having no effect?

Oh yeah, Fonzie replied, I forgot to tell you. For all that to work, once in your life you have to have hit someone. You cannot imagine a deeper strategic insight.

At some point, Obama is going to have to do something seriously unpleasant to someone..."

Does he have it in him?

Thursday, September 24, 2009

How Far Is Too Far In Advertising?

This Is Extremely Funny, But Where Is The Line And When Will It Be Crossed?

By The Way, I LIke To Put The Lime In Myself

The Ostriching Of America


Ostriching Is Not A Word, But It Seems To Tell The Story

The Votes Have Been Counted

Ostriching is defined (by me) as being taken in by words, by the delivery of those words and by rhetoric in general. Of exhibiting the characteristic of being unwilling or unable to look beyond one's nose for reality.

Leadership Qualities

Has the United States under President Obama exhibited the leadership required in many of the critical areas that are facing us? The answer is not really, excepting on a government takeover of healthcare (if you believe that is critical), but even in that endeavor the Presidents leadership has been somewhat lacking. He has bent on areas that were supposed to be written in stone, has been hard pressed to get to a consensus within his own party and if anything does get passed it will bear little resemblance to what had been originally intended by him. The shortfall in votes required for the bills passage led to the overbearing Obama media blitz this past weekend capped off by a guest stint on the Letterman Show. Nothing new was brought to the party, and few minds were swayed.

Gallup

What leads me to this rambling discussion is a recent Gallup poll which questioned people on the leadership qualities of the President. Incredibly, fully 66% say that he is a strong and decisive leader while 72% say that he is willing to make the tough decisions.

As seen by his statements regarding additional troop deployments in Afghanistan, the leadership quality of the President is clearly in question. His Commander on the ground said that if 10,000 - 40,000 new troops are not deployed, this mission could or would end in failure.

President Obamas response: let me get back to you. He will have to check out the options, the plans, the tea leaves, the tarot cards and as a last resort the Ouija board. Then he will consult with the far left and see how they feel about it. He will then make the decision but not before he consults with our allies so as to make sure we do not ruffle anyones feathers. Then he will most likely make a decision All this while our troops on the ground are under fire, being wounded and killed. Not by being asked questions on Letterman, but by the explosively-formed penetrators (EFPs) being supplied by Iran. Strong and decisive? I think not.

What is the leadership plan for the S-300 surface to air missiles that Russia is selling to Iran? What will the President decide?What will our options be once they are deployed, effectively negating our ability to take out that country's nuclear sites? Where is the tough decision making there? We did not elect a president to make decisions by omission. Presidents are elected to make decisions by commission in whatever form that takes. Worthless negotiations with an insane leadership leading to no action is very much a decision by omission. The end result is that Israel will be forced to act unilaterally prior to the SAM's becoming operational because once they are it will be to late.

Take a look at some of the other numbers in the poll below. Simply astounding. I have to go feed my ostrich now.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

A Legislative Flip Flop Outrageous Even By Massachusetts Standards


Political Expediency At Its Worst

Back in 2004, when it appeared that John Kerry might be reporting for duty at the White House, the Democrats in Massachusetts feared that Governor Romney would use his powers to name a Republican to the potentially vacant U.S. Senate seat. To prevent this from happening, the state legislature, led by the Democrat majority, instituted a special election instead, giving the vote to the people of Massachusetts.

Fast forward to 2009 where Massachusetts now has a Democrat governor, and the vacant U.S. Senate seat left by the death of Ted Kennedy looms large in the battle for President Obama's healthcare legislation. With this seat, the Democrats in Washington would have the 60 vote majority (although they don't have 60 Democrats on board) needed for passage.

When the Massachusetts legislature voted now regarding the giving of the choice for U.S. Senator back to the Governor, it was obvious that many members recognized the hypocrisy and potential backlash. With 16 Republicans in the House the measure passed 95-59, and with 5 Republicans in the Senate it passed 24-16.

Back in 2004 the Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature argued that voters should always fill a Senate vacancy. Today, that sentiment has obviously been supplanted by political expediency. Even for politics, this flip flop purely for political gain should be hard to justify and accept. Obviously not in Massachusetts.

What will Governor Deval Patrick do? Sign an emergency order so that he can appoint a replacement immediately or wait for a January election? You make the call. The ball is in his court and I think that we all know who he is going to throw it to. This type of maneuvering is an outrage.

Wake Up And Smell The Coffee With Your Bagel And Schmeer


New York City Forced To Welcome The U.N. General Assembly While A Terror Alert Is Issued

As New York welcomes back diplomats and world leaders to the U.N. General Assembly, this yearly photo opportunity bonanza with typically little tangible results, the Department of Homeland Security issued an elevated terror alert for mass transit systems around the country. The weapon is feared to be backpack bombs similar to those used in subway bombings overseas.

Take a look at the map and you will get an idea of the scope of the problem trying to safeguard something of this size.

These diplomats and world leaders, led by President Obama today, who are converging on New York don't have to worry about using mass transit (although some such as Gadhafi may have trouble finding a place to stay). In this yearly pilgrimage which causes an enormous amount of upheaval to the daily lives of New Yorkers, "dignitaries" are safely and comfortably ensconced in limousines, driving down empty streets closed by the police for their own security.

This while the citizens of the City, operating under a new terror alert aimed at mass transit systems, are forced to take this very form of transportation as getting around the streets by bus or cab becomes a nightmare. As tens of thousands of people are forced underground, Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi will be driving overhead.

How ironic that New York, considered by some to be the signature city of the Country, is put into the position to welcome some of the very leaders and nations who would like to destroy it. As they say it is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, housed in the U.N.

The very U.N. that New York would gladly see move elsewhere, funded in a majority way by the U.S., and which does extremely little to further any of our major issues.

(AP)"... Publicly, law enforcement officials have repeatedly said they are unaware of a specific time or target for any attacks. Privately, officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the case said investigators have worried most about the possible use of backpack bombs on New York City trains, similar to attacks carried out in London in 2005 and Madrid in 2004.

Backpack bombs ripped apart four commuter trains and killed 191 people in Madrid on March 11, 2004. On July 7 the next year, bombing attacks in London killed 52 subway and bus commuters.
In a bulletin issued Friday, the FBI and Homeland Security Department warned that improvised explosive devices are the most common tactic to blow up railroads and other mass transit systems overseas. And they noted incidents in which bombs were made with peroxide.

In the bulletin, obtained by The Associated Press, officials recommended that transit systems conduct random sweeps at terminals and stations and that law enforcement make random patrols and board some trains and buses.
The effects of the warning were not immediately clear Monday. New York's transit agency said it was in touch with an FBI-NYPD task force but wouldn't comment further.

The task force feared Zazi may have been involved in a potential plot involving hydrogen peroxide-based explosives, according to two law enforcement officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation..."

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Step Up Or Step Out


This Was The Phrase Said To The Kids On My Basketball Team During A Timeout. Maybe The President Should Try It In Afghanistan!

General McChrystal, the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan made the following statement in a report to the President fully three weeks ago and leaked yesterday:

(New York Times) "Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan, in a confidential assessment submitted to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, warns in grim and urgent language that he needs additional troops — from 10,000 up to 45,000 more in the next year — or the conflict “will likely result in failure.”

The assessment, made public by The Washington Post, says that success “will not be attained simply by trying harder or doubling down on the previous strategy....”

President Obama, our Commander in Chief, has not decided what to do. He feels that more input is necessary to study options before making a decision. This while undermanned men and woman are sacrificing their lives. If he doesn't have faith in the Generals opinion on the ground that he put there, why is he there? Exactly whose input is he looking for?

Nancy Pelosi, has said she didn't "think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan"

This is the leadership we have on a critical war front where the General on the ground says we will not win without more troops. Our men and woman soldiers are putting their lives on the line, some losing them due to the inaction of the President and the politicizing of the issue. What are these people thinking?

The situation is considered "urgent", but while healthcare is in the hopper all other issues just need to take a back burner.

Either add more troops to win, or pull the troops out all together. Do not play not to lose with our peoples lives on the line!

Step Up, Or Step Out!

Joe Wilson Versus Charlie And His Congressional "Angels"

Why Is This Man Smiling?


You'd be smiling too if you knew that ethically you could get away with anything just short of murder, even as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Meet Charlie Rangel. His Committee "has jurisdiction over all taxation, tariffs and other revenue-raising measures" in the United States. Lucky for him that he can write the law, but doesn't necessarily have to follow the law.

Some Of The Indiscretions That Charles Rangel Is Accused Of:
  • Failure to disclose all of his assets and earned income.
  • Improper vehicle storage in a House parking lot for years.
  • May have violated New York State housing law, House gift rules and campaign finance laws.
  • Failure to disclose rental income on a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.
  • Helped preserve a tax loophole that benefited a firm allegedly contributing to his campaign. If this was pay to play multiple offenses may be on the table.
  • Soliciting funds for an outside venture using Capital stationary, a violation of House rules.
So He Must Be In A Lot Of Trouble, Right?

Remember this? Democrats taking over in Congress promised a new era of commitment to higher ethical standards.

Well, the ethics probe of Rangel is now over a year old, he has said the problems are all clerical in nature and/or an oversight, he is still in charge of his powerful committee and Nancy Pelosi is going to wait until the confidential results of the probe are released. Well who do you think is helping to "investigate" Rangel. Members whose campaigns he has contributed to. 

The end result, unless the situation becomes politically to hot to handle, is that there will be no end result. Unlike you or I, he will no doubt get off Scot free. Remember the pledge to "drain the swamp" and clean up when the Democrats came back into power?

The stench you are smelling is a very full swamp under a hot noon day sun filled with rotting garbage.

Representative Joe Wilson, However, Earns A Quick "Resolution of Disapproval"

During the Obama speech on healthcare, at a point in the discussion concerning the coverage of illegals, Joe Wilson took exception to a point the President made and reflexively shouted out "you lie". It was wrong to shout that out, although he was most likely correct in the thought, and he quickly apologized to the President. The Democrat Party leadership however, wanted more. They wanted yet another apology, this time on the floor of the House which Wilson, rightfully, refused to do. Had he complied, he could have avoided the slap on the wrist he actually received.

So for offending the senses of members of the House, Nancy Pelosi was able to get a reprimand vote to the floor only one week after this "major" transgression took place by Joe Wilson. Charlie Rangel, who has committed what appear to be significant and many violations of House rules, and also apparently the crime of tax evasion, is still under investigation a year later.

Looks like the swamp is about to overrun its banks.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Thinks Like His Boss

Now what exactly did Brzeinski say?

We have a former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter and the ex-President himself, both of whom are seemingly not great friends to Israel. Jimmy Carter was discussed a few days ago in Jimmy Carter: One Term Wasn't Enough, but the blatant speak of Brzeinski denying Israels right to self-defense has to be examined.



It would appear that the basic stance of the world body, Obama included, is to wage the war of rhetoric until Iran has the capability to deploy nukes. I think that it is understood they have the will to use them, and country's will just square dance around the problem until it has reached a critical mass (no pun intended). It never ceases to amaze how the path of least resistance is always going to be the one chosen by those in positions of power, who do not want to run the chance of losing that power by making extremely tough, albeit correct decisions.

All this while a small country whose very existence is threatened daily, not only by countries on it's border but by decisions made in cabinet rooms in nations around the world, sits and waits. Now what exactly did Brzeinski say?

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- "Zbigniew Brzezinski said the United States should make clear that it will attack Israeli jets if they fly over Iraq on their way to attack Iran.

"We are not exactly impotent little babies," said Brzezinski, national security adviser during the Carter administration, in an interview with The Daily Beast Web site when asked how aggressive President Obama can be in telling Israel that a military strike in Iran is not in America's interest. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

"We have to be serious about denying them that right," continued Brzezinski, who endorsed Obama early in the Democratic primary but was not an official adviser to the campaign. "That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse."

Israeli forces mistakenly attacked the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War."

Where was this tough talk when he was in a position of power?

Now certainly an Israeli air strike, particularly done unilaterally, is not anyones idea of a good solution to the problem that is a nuclear capability in Iran. But, as they say, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Are we to believe that this regime has anything but the worst intentions for the weapons that they are developing along with the ability to deliver them? Who is going to step up and take the fate of the world into their hands. President Obama? Medvedev or Putin? France or Germany? China or Japan? Not one will take the steps necessary to deal with this problem. We will negotiate, threaten sanctions, negotiate a little more, throw in another really harsh sanction and before you know it, none of that will matter any more.

And so we will wait, and wait, and wait until God forbid it is to late!

The Domestic Face Of "Overseas Contingency Operations"



Take A Good Look At This Man

Remember back in March when the name change order came down from the top? No more Global War On Terror. It was now to be known as Overseas Contingency Operations. I suppose that GWOT had negative connotations for the Obama administration.

The President had the idea of putting lipstick on the pig that had been named right after 9/11 (the worst domestic attack on our Country), changing it to something a little more palatable for the American people.

But, you know what, the pig is still a pig and the war on terror is still very much global!
It is critically important for the everyday citizens to keep their guards up and stay ever so vigilant for anything going on that may not seem just right. Let me tell you how I know that.

A Domestic Face Of Terror

This is Najibullah Zazi, and allegedly he wants to kill Americans right here at home. Not overseas. Not in someone else's back yard. No right here in one of the hubs of President Obama's overseas contingency operations.

He received weapons and explosives training at an Al Qaida training camp near Pakistan in 2008. He, along with his father were arrested, with more being sought. 


On his computer nine pages of notes were found on how to build an explosive device and a detonator to trigger it. He was found with video of Grand Central Station (large commuter rail hub in New York City) and had researched the interiors of football stadiums and other large venues. Apparently he was the man who would make the call on when an attack would take place.

So what does it all mean to us?

Number one it means law enforcement did a great job monitoring, tracking and arresting Zazi before another tragedy took place.

Number two it means that Americans, who possess extremely short memories, need to wake up and understand that the War On Terror is not over, and may never be over. That those who wish to kill us have not changed their minds.

Number three is that this enemy understands number two only too well, and has the patience to wait 5 or 10 years to take the next shot (the first World Trade Center attack took place in 1993, eight years before 9/11).

Number four is that parts of our government need to understand these facts, and along with the ACLU stop trying to tie the hands of the very people who are tasked with protecting us.

Number five is that organizations such as the ACLU and the far left play right into the hands of our enemies.

Those that want to kill us must sit back and laugh at the arguments that go on regarding interrogation and the rights of terrorist suspects held at Gitmo. These discussions don't go on in their governments or leaderships. It is this weakness that we convey that only serves to embolden them.

Number six is that these "negotiations" with Iran over its nuclear intentions are a charade, and that they will never stop trying to amass weapons of mass destruction to kill us, either themselves or through a proxy.

Number seven is a summary of the first 6. We as Americans need to wake up and see that our very existence is constantly threatened.

How many people around the country are not even aware of the arrest and the intent of those arrested?

Let your representatives in Washington know (particularly those represented by the Pelosi left) that the philosophy they are trying to invoke on the American people is hazardous to our health and well being, and they need to step up and start facing that fact.

This healthcare debate which is consuming all of the thought and time of Congress, is merely a smoke screen if the terrorists have their way. Step up and protect the country in the way that this great land needs to be.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Sunday Afternoon Update: Documented Foreign Policy Failure

They Like Me, They Really Really Like Me

I have been opining for some time that the Obama administration policy of being well liked around the world as a first priority was actually detrimental to our actual foreign policy goals. While the most recent example is the abandoning of our allies and missile defense in Poland and Czechoslovakia to appease the Russians, prior to getting any assurances of help on the Iranian front, there have been many more.



It is the responsibility of leadership to maintain our standing around the world, not to speak softly and carry no stick. It has become apparent that the current administration is viewed as being weak, along the same lines as many of our European allies. Likable, easy to talk to, great to have a beer with but weak.

Examples From An Unlikely Source, The New York Times

The situation must be reaching a critical stage when that bastion of political partisanship, The New York Times, actually recognizes and reports on the failings of a democrat administration. Particularly this one. This is what they had to say:

(New York Times) WASHINGTON — "As President Obama welcomes world leaders to the United States this week, he has gone a long way toward meeting his goal of restoring the country’s international standing. Foreign counterparts flock to meet with him, and polls show that people in many countries feel much better about the United States.

But eight months after his inauguration, all that good will so far has translated into limited tangible policy benefits for Mr. Obama. As much as they may prefer to deal with Mr. Obama instead of his predecessor, George W. Bush, foreign leaders have not gone out of their way to give him what he has sought.

European allies still refuse to send significantly more troops to Afghanistan. The Saudis basically ignored Mr. Obama’s request for concessions to Israel, while Israel rebuffed his demand to stop settlement expansion. North Korea defied him by testing a nuclear weapon. Japan elected a party less friendly to the United States. Cuba has done little to liberalize in response to modest relaxation of sanctions. India and China are resisting a climate change deal. And Russia rejected new sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program even as Mr. Obama heads into talks with Tehran."

It may be time to take the kid gloves off Mr. President, and when the bell rings show them that the United States is still a force to be reckoned with.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Missile Defense: A Roll Of The Dice

Huge Concession To Russia. Will Russia Do The Same For Us?



President Obama better hope so! When we meet with Russia at the G 20 and the U.N. General Assembly, we had better get backing from Russia on Iranian action, or the weakening of our defenses will have been in vain, and America under this administration will once again be viewed as weak and ineffectual at a great cost to the American people and others around the world.

Even if they make overtures of agreement on action against Iran, will they follow through? Will they still operate through the back door? We know we have given up our plan, but how do we really know if the Russians ever give up theirs?

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: "We appreciate the responsible approach of the U.S. president." Of course he does!

"I discussed this issue with the U.S. president during our meetings in London and Moscow. At that time, in our joint statement, we agreed to, and set in stone that Russia and the United States will seek to work together to assess the risks of missile proliferation in the world." All well and good, but what is Russia bringing to the table?

Excerpt from September 9th story here: Eastern European Missile Defense: Da Comrades, Izvi`Neete

In it I made the following comments: "It now appears that the United States stands ready to abandon the plans for missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia. This at the urging of our "good" friends in Moscow. What do we stand to gain by weakening our ability to defend against longer range Iranian missiles.

We HOPE that through this appeasement, Moscow will end its shipments of materials to Iran that are actually assisting its program of developing nuclear weapons. We also hope that Moscow will then cease giving aid in the development of Iran's missile defenses designed to stop a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities or nuclear weapons themselves. Quite a leap of faith!"

Yet cave to Russian pressure is exactly what we did! We know why the Russian President is smiling above, but why President Obama? Does he know something we don't know? I certainly hope so.

The Need For Strength Of One's Convictions

Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates said this on scrapping the old plan for the new: (ABC News) “...The original program that I recommended would have had no capability against short and medium range missiles until probably 2018. What the new system provides is some capability beginning in 2011 that will grow steadily each year in terms of its sophistication and its coverage of Europe,” he added..."

Now Gates was there at the inception of the planned missile defense installations in Poland and Czechoslovakia during the Bush administration, citing its critical importance at the time. Now he is reversing that position. If he was honest then, he should resign in protest of this decision. If he is being honest now, then we need him to resign as well. What is the good to the security of our country if the Secretary of Defense is merely a pawn of the President with no convictions he is willing to stand behind?

Friday, September 18, 2009

Ahmadinejad On al-Quds Day: "The Holocaust Is A Lie"

Do We Really Want To Negotiate In Good Faith With This Guy? Won't The Negotiations Be Short One Serving Of Good Faith?



On September 15th I posed the question: What is the purpose of the nuclear ambitions talks planned with Iran on October 1st? This was my hypothesis at the time:

"So What Will It Really Mean?

So Why Are These Guys Smiling? (EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili?)

In diplomatic speak, they have bought themselves time to maintain the status quo. While supposed negotiations go on, Iran will have the unfettered ability to continue along on its merry way, while the United States and its allies have achieved the appearance of action, while the stalemate with this rogue nation continues.

But is it really a stalemate when one side continues doing exactly what they want, and the other side, save using force, is powerless to stop them? These guys will be dancing while Rome burns. There is a great deal at stake here, and politics is not one of them."

Fast Forward To Today's al-Quds Day (anti-Israel) Rally

(VOANews) "...In his address to the country Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has again called the Holocaust a lie by western nations designed to create a pretext for the creation of the Jewish state of Israel.

The Iranian president called the Holocaust a myth and an unprovable lie designed to promote support for Israel."

This on the day after the United States decided not to pursue our missile defense plans in Poland, and while Iran is one day closer to developing the bomb (if they haven't already) and the capability to deliver it a very long distance. The Iranian intent is fairly clear to anyone with eyes and ears, so what exactly is our plan?

As I had opined only 3 days ago, Israel, the country with the most at stake in the short-term, will be hung out to dry by the world community, forced to do unilaterally what should be done multi-nationally. Israel, who will have done the dirty work, will no doubt be condemned by the world community it had protected as a by product of preserving its own very existence.

When will the world leaders, led by the one great superpower, step up and make the difficult choices necessary to stop the terror that rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea along with organizations like Al-Qaeda are trying to perpetrate? Or will we just go through the machinations and pretense until it is to late?

We need a great leader to step up and to worry about global issues as much as, if not more than domestic ones.

Jimmy Carter: One Term Wasn't Enough?

One Disastrous Term Wasn't Enough For Jimmy Carter To Establish His Legacy? It was For Me And I would Venture To Say Most Everyone Else As Well.



No, this former peanut farmer from Georgia wants to make sure that his name goes down in history as a destructive career diplomat as well, both foreign and domestic. His current diatribe concerns the fact that any criticism of the new administration must have its foundation in racism. While blatantly untrue, why is this ex-President playing the race card, particularly when it is so far off base? Why is he making statements at all?

Knowing the record of this man, why is his voice one that is getting, or deserving of, any attention.

His Presidency Was Marked By Economic Woe And A Degradation Of United States Standing In The World. His Post Presidency Record, Save Participation In Habitat For Humanity, Has Not Been Much Better

Here are some snippets of the lowlights (the right to list highlights are reserved for the time they are discovered)

Presidency Lowlights
  • U.S. and Panama sign treaties to end American control of Panama Canal by year 2000 (1977).
  • Iranian militants seize more than 50 hostages at U.S. embassy in Tehran (not freed until Ronald Reagan took office) (1979).
  • Russian invasion of Afghanistan (1979)
  • U.S. military rescue of hostages in Iran aborted (1980).
  • U.S. boycotts Summer Olympics in Moscow (1980).
  • Economic malaise
  • Stagflation (inflation and recession occurring simultaneously)

Post-Presidency Lowlights
  • 1994 negotiations with Kim Jong-il, an agreement soon broken
  • Visited Cuba in 2002 and had a grand old time with Castro.
  • As an election observer, he certified the results of the questionable election in Venezuela in 2004, keeping Hugo Chavez in control of the country.
  • He ridiculed Tony Blair for his alliance with the us in the war on terror (or whatever acronym given to it now by the current administration). Incredibly, he said this about then President Bush: “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.” I actually usually vote for Carter when that question comes up.
  • His book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid" made the Osama Bin Laden best seller list with the comment by Bin Laden “After you read the suggested books, you will know the truth, and you will be greatly shocked by the scale of concealment that has been exercised on you.”
So what is his agenda invoking the race card? Stupidity or wanting to deal a blow to the Obama administration? Most likely the former as his goal was in no way to hurt the President, particularly at this critical time in his healthcare bill negotiations. But as this former peanut farmer showed while in office and after, conflict resolution may not be his strong suit.

Sometimes former Presidents should be seen and not heard!

Thursday, September 17, 2009

ACORN: Todays Stop, San Diego

New Footage Of An ACORN Official, Child Prostitution, Human Smuggling, etc.

The following segment of tape is of yet more corruption and offers by an ACORN official to help an undercover couple conduct illegal activities, including child prostitution. The scope and scale of the actions of ACORN has reached a level so abhorrent that even the White House has been unable to ignore it.

Although the statement made by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is just slightly disingenuous (the accountability piece), the fact that it was even made is a signal of the depth and breadth of the problem, and that it is no longer politically expedient to ignore it.

The statement will also serve as the go ahead for the mainstream media to now get involved. Coverage of the story can now be provided to those around the country who may not get the cable channels.

(ABC News) "Obviously the conduct you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable," Gibbs said, raising the issue of videotapes posted online by BigGovernment.com and aired frequently by Fox News Channel that seem to show ACORN employees advising a faux prostitute and faux pimp on how to skirt housing and tax laws. "The administration takes accountability extremely seriously."

Watch and decide for yourself if this organization should receive your hard earned tax dollars. If the answer is no, let your representatives know today!

You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well do ya, punk?


The Second Amendment In Action Through A Craigslist Personals Ad

To the Guy Who Mugged Me Downtown (Downtown, Savannah )

I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message. I'd like to apologize.

I didn't expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn't that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 .45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it?

I know it probably wasn't a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. I couldn't have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster.

I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They'll be on your bill in case you'd like to know which ones. Alltel recently shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I hope they haven't permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA's office with it. Oh well.

So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I'd like to make it up to you. I'm sure you've already washed your pants, so I'd like to help you out. I'd like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I'd also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky. If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry. Peace! - Alex Peace!

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Charles Gibson: Hard Hitting Newsman?

ACORN Scandal, What ACORN Scandal?

Maybe Charles Gibson, host of ABC World News Tonight, should start watching some cable channels to find out some of the news stories going on in the world. Either he is living in a dark room, or he just doesn't want to discuss the story. Either way, this reflects the state of news non-reporting from the mainstream media.



On the Wade and Roma show on 890 WLS Radio in Chicago Gibson was asked the following question, and then had the most incredible response:

Don: "Okay, here’s my news question. A Senate bill yesterday passes, cutting off funds to this group called ACORN. Now, we got that bill passed and we have the embarrassing video of ACORN staffers giving tax advice on how to set up a brothel with 13-year-old hookers. It has everything you could want – corruption and sleazy action at tax-funded organizations and it’s got government ties. But nobody’s covering that story. Why?"

Gibson: "HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning."

Say no more!

The Healthcare Public Option And Other Short Stories

A Rose By Any Other Name Or Speak No Evil, See No Evil, Hear No Evil

Things have been a little quiet on the healthcare debate front over the past day or two, but the 800 pound gorilla is still in the room and is still very much alive and well. During this short lull I wanted to take a look at the critical public option piece for the program, and the fact that it is apparently losing its luster with many on the near left as a it remains a huge impediment to any legislation having a chance of being passed. And not getting something passed will doom the democrats in mid-term elections.

We have had the discussion many times regarding the fact that government cannot efficiently or successfully run simple programs (cash for clunkers) as well as the more complex (FDIC,Social Security, Medicaid, USPS, Amtrak). The potential for Uncle Sam to take such a huge, incredibly complex and incredibly important piece of society as healthcare and run it in any way that is even close to the private sector is zero. And we, the people will be the ones holding the bag whether it is through a loss of top doctors, long waiting periods for what we now consider to be routine care and the potential for rationed care where the government will decide basically who should live (by getting treatment) and who should die (by not getting treatment).

Does that mean a government run option is off of the table? Not exactly. Even if the public option per se is not included in the verbiage of any new proposal from the democrats, stay vigilant and watch for the public option trigger. This seemingly benign label in reality depicts a backdoor way into the original intention of government control.

Truth, Lies and Videotape

The Democrat's, since the Joe Wilson outburst during the Obama infomercial last week, have tried to turn it around and attempt to show that it is actually the Republicans that are less than total truth tellers.

In Townhall today John Hawkins wrote a great piece on 10 "You Lie" moments in the debate on healthcare. They are very interesting, and extremely telling. Here they are:

1) "The President is working with Republicans: Obama has refused to meet with Republican leaders on health care since April.

2) Republicans haven't suggested a plan for health care: Republicans have actually submitted 35 plans.

3) The public option won't put the insurance industry out of business and lead to a government takeover of health care: Of course, it will. That's the whole purpose of putting it in the bill. Don't take my word for it, listen to Barney Frank explain it in his own words.

4) Medicare won't be cut to fund this health care bill: Actually, there are $500 billion in cuts to Medicare planned to help pay for this bill.

5) The health care plan won't add "one dime to our deficits either now or in the future." There is simply no bill that fits that description winding its way through Congress. According to the neutral Congressional Budget Office, the House bill adds $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years -- and even those numbers rely on very unlikely streams of revenue coming into the program. Moreover, the CBO only estimates numbers 10 years out. Over the long haul, all evidence points to costs skyrocketing into the stratosphere just as Social Security and Medicare have over time.

6) Preventative care will be required in these bills and it'll save money: Studies show that preventative care increases, not decreases costs. That's not only because of the cost of the tests, but because it leads to large numbers of people being treated for potential problems that would never end up coming to fruition.

7) Health care reform will help create more jobs: That's simply not true. According to the Natural Federation of Independent Businesses, this health care bill would wipe out 1.6 million jobs.

8) Abortion won't be covered under the bill: Unless the bill specifically says abortion isn't covered, it's covered by default. Abortion is not mentioned in the House bill and thus, is covered.

9) This bill won't lead to rationing of health care and people being denied life saving operations: Of course, it will. Barack Obama himself has even alluded to it with his famous, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller" quip. In nations like Canada and Britain, long waits for surgeries and people being denied proven life saving operations for financial reasons is commonplace. How can anyone believe that we're going to copy their system and not have the same result?

10) Obama's "Plan" doesn't have these problems you're talking about: Obama hasn't submitted any sort of plan to Congress. In other words, there is no special Obama plan. His only "plan" is to sign anything that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can push through Congress."

The American public has to remember that it is not the people who talk the loudest or most often that are always correct in what they say. Many times it is the exact opposite. The democrats have the control, for now, of the bully pulpit in the form of the airwaves. But access does not always mean the truth.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The ACORN 7, Or Is It 9?

You've Seen The Video Of ACORN, Or Have You?

If you watch any news broadcasts not part of the main stream media you have seen the video of ACORN staffers advising on how to avoid paying taxes, how to reclassify prostitution as a more legal vocation and how to cover-up the fact that underage Ecuadorian illegal immigrants will be living in your house.

If you happen to only watch the MSM, here is a clip:



In any event, the Senate voted yesterday to de-fund ACORN, but 7 voted against the proposal and 2 abstained. Here is the list, and if they represent you, perhaps you should let them know that you do not agree with their position:

Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
Roland Burris, D-Ill.
Dick Durbin, D-Ill.
Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Bob Casey, D-Pa.
Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Not voting were Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V

Nuclear Talks With Iran: What Could The Agenda Be?



















Why Are These Guys Smiling?

Coming as little surprise to most logical thinkers, Iran has agreed to talks with the EU on October 1st regarding its nuclear ambitions and ongoing program to enrich uranium. Why wouldn't the Iranians agree to talks? They understand how the game is played with governments around the world who recognize the dangers they pose, but who have very little political will to do anything about it.

If you listen carefully you can hear these protecters of freedom around the world whisper, "I just hope nothing happens on my watch." These are your representatives tasked with protecting the free world from a nuclear holocaust. Much like the mayor who doesn't paint the bridge, because if it collapses when the next guy is mayor, it's the next guys fault, heads of state I fear think the same way! Hard to believe they can think in those terms when it comes to a potential nuclear calamity, but politicians will be politicians, extremely reluctant to ever be proactive, with the exception being when the polls tell them to be.

The Iranian nuclear chief had this to say in Vienna at the IAEA conference: (AP) "...In blunt criticism of the U.S., he accused Washington of amassing "frightening and dreadful weaponry in ... the Persian Gulf" in the pretext of acting in America's national interest while denying Iran its right to develop enrichment for peaceful purposes..."

What exactly will the agenda be for the October meeting? The last talks with Iran failed over a year ago due to its' refusal to put its uranium enrichment program on the table? That same problem exists today. What has changed to create a scenario for this meeting to end with a nuclear free Iran? Not much. So why is it taking place?

This talks are set to be between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, although it is assumed that representatives from the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany would be present. Likely outcome? That these discussions will lead to a framework for more discussions down the road, that will in turn lead to more discussions after that.

It will be announced with excitement and fanfare at the news conference after the meeting is done, that substantive talks were held, that a vague understanding of some kind had been reached, and that these are very positive steps. The two will appear smiling and shaking hands, answering direct questions with politician like non-answers.

So What Will It Really Mean?

Let's see. Iran still formally refuses to discuss the enrichment issue. Iran has warned the United States and Israel against any military actions to take out nuclear program installations. Speaking at the IAEA conference in Vienna, Jalili said "This hovering of threats achieves nothing but adding to my great nation's determination and solidarity,"

So Why Are These Guys Smiling?

In diplomatic speak, they have bought themselves time to maintain the status quo. While supposed negotiations go on, Iran will have the unfettered ability to continue along on its merry way, while the United States and its allies have achieved the appearance of action, while the stalemate with this rogue nation continues.

But is it really a stalemate when one side continues doing exactly what they want, and the other side, save using force, is powerless to stop them? These guys will be dancing while Rome burns. There is a great deal at stake here, and politics is not one of them.

One wild card remains, which is Israel being forced to do the worlds dirty work, with the world then most likely taking the position of condemnation. Israel for one does not have the luxury of pretense, as its very survival is on the line every day.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Is Tort Reform Really On The Table?

The Chances That Tort Reform Is A Reality

We all heard the gratuitous line concerning tort reform issued by President Obama in his speech pushing for passage of his healthcare bill. While creation of the bill in its' current form has been extremely partisan in nature, the President made this statement as an apparent "overture" to the Republican Party.

There is little doubt that frivolous lawsuits help to increase the cost of healthcare through higher malpractice insurance premiums, as well as what the doctors see as the need to practice "defensive" medicine.

Now obviously not all lawsuits are frivolous, and there are too many tragic stories of true medical malpractice to count,
but one only has to watch the myriad of commercials from lawyers seeking plaintiffs to know that this can be an extremely lucrative field. So lucrative that any negative outcome, no matter how well the doctor performed, is considered by many to be grounds to sue.

Need a personal injury lawyer? Go to one of the hundreds of websites offering this service, pick from the menu, and you are on your way:
  • Auto Accidents
  • Dog Bites
  • Slip and Fall
  • Nursing Home Litigation
  • Railroad Accidents
  • Personal Injury Basics
  • Etc.
Nobody would ever deny the rights of those truly harmed by medical malpractice to receive just compensation, but not someone who may just be a dissatisfied customer seeing an opportunity.

Who Helps To Stand In The Way Of Tort Reform? The American Association For Justice

Who is this group, and what is its' purpose?

AAJ

(Open Secrets)"Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), this group of plaintiffs' attorneys and others in the legal profession now goes by the name of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and boasts 56,000 members worldwide. A lobbying heavyweight, the association has been battling any attempt at tort reform, including recent proposals to cap awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. AAJ also lobbies Congress on any legislation that may inhibit the ability of consumers to bring lawsuits, particularly against health care providers, asbestos companies or insurance companies processing claims related to terrorism. The association favors Democrats, who oppose most attempts to initiate tort reform."

How Much Does The AAJ Contribute, And To Which Party Do Its Contributions Typically Go?

CycleTotalDemocratsRepublicans% to Dems% to RepubsIndividualsPACsSoft (Indivs)Soft (Orgs)
2010$627,000$603,000$24,00096%4%$1,000$626,000$0$0
2008$2,991,290$2,845,540$140,75095%5%$19,790$2,971,500$0$0
2006$2,841,440$2,707,990$120,95095%4%$22,440$2,819,000$0$0
2004$2,595,082$2,384,582$205,50092%8%$56,083$2,538,999$0$0
2002$4,248,588$3,884,653$348,93591%8%$25,750$3,119,753$0$1,103,085
2000$4,057,100$3,624,550$427,55089%11%$17,400$3,059,500$0$980,200
1998$3,117,776$2,685,440$417,33686%13%$12,590$2,690,136$250$414,800
1996$3,486,888$2,982,788$489,10086%14%$29,050$2,654,438$0$803,400
1994$2,509,538$2,320,788$187,75093%8%$11,503$2,411,535$0$86,500
1992$2,539,785$2,297,085$225,00090%9%$8,900$2,530,885$0$0
1990$1,719,942$1,460,092$259,85085%15%$9,342$1,710,600N/AN/A
TOTAL$30,734,429$27,796,508$2,846,72190%9%


Courtesy of OpenSecrets.org

As long as there is a great amount of money to be gotten from this organization, your leaders, primarily on the left, will do little or nothing about tort reform. Don't ever bite the hand that feeds you, right?

As the chart above shows, the breakdown is that currently 96% of the contributions made by the AAJ goes to Democrats. How do you think that they will vote on any legislation that may impact this group, no matter how beneficial to their constituents that legislation may be.

I guess that's just politics.


;