Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Finger Pointing

The Republicans are Experts

The recently failed attempt, by an Al-Qaida operative, to bring down an international flight while landing in Detroit, has sparked the Republican Party to attempt an “I told you so” campaign. While criticizing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, (I have to admit, I am doubtful of her abilities as well) the party of NO, seems to have memory loss, when it comes to who originated DHS and the rules they play by today. It was the Republican Administration of George W. Bush and his fellow criminals who, in 2003, established what some have nicknamed the “Homeboy Security Department”. This farce of a Governmental Agency is supposed to bring together, all intelligence gathered information, so that data can be shared and used for the protection of the American People. However, two of the most important organizations are not bound under Homeland Security Rule; the departments are the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Now, I realize the lack of involvement by these two agencies should not hurt the overall performance of DHS but, it is quite apparent, Homeland Security is falling way short of the intended results it was created to achieve.


The Republican attempt to disparage the present administration will probably fall short. President Obama did not rise up through the politics of Chicago without learning a thing or two about reaction. The following is an article appearing in the Guardian which seems to place the event in perspective; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/30/us-plots-retaliatory-strikes-yemen
US plots retaliatory strikes against al-Qaida in Yemen over plane bomber
Chris McGreal in Washington, Nasser Arrabyee in Sana'a, and Hugh Macleod guardian.co.uk,
The US is planning retaliatory strikes in Yemen against al-Qaida over its attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight on Christmas Day.
American officials say intelligence efforts are focused on identifying and tracking down those who plotted to put Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on the plane with enough explosive in his underwear to bring down the Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam. But they warn that finding those responsible is unlikely to be swift and say that identifying other "high-value" al-Qaida targets for retaliatory attack would also be a priority.
"First we have to find out who put Abdulmutallab on the plane with the bomb," said a US official working alongside intelligence organizations. "He's providing some leads and we're not dealing with an unknown quantity here. We've been watching and listening to what goes on in Yemen and we may have pieces of the puzzle already and just need to fit it together.
"If and when we identify them then we plan how to deal with them. Who they are is one thing, where they are is another.If they're still in Yemen and we can get a lock on them then it won't be too difficult to know what to do. But they know who they are and won't be standing out. After that we can move with the president's authorization. I don't think there's much doubt that authorization will be forthcoming, but no one should think all of this is going to happen overnight."
The official acknowledged that there was likely to be political and public pressure on Barack Obama to strike back at al-Qaida, particularly with Republican opponents breaking with the usual solidarity on national security issues to accuse him of weakness and making America vulnerable to attack.
"The people we want are the ones who put Abdulmutallab on the plane. Until we can get them there are other high-value targets that will make the point that attacking America does not go unpunished," said the official.
But given the regular attacks against al-Qaida in Yemen, these may have a greater impact on American public opinion than on the extremist group.
The US has been conducting a covert assault with drone attacks on al-Qaida bases for about a year, while CIA agents inside the country help direct ground operations. American Special Forces have been training the Yemeni military and may have been involved in raids.
General David Petraeus, the American regional commander, and John Brennan, the president's counterterrorism adviser, both visited Yemen this year.
Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's homeland security committee, who visited Yemen in August, described the country this week as a focus of the assault on al-Qaida. "Yemen now becomes one of the centers of that fight. We have a growing presence there – and we have to – of special operations, Green Berets, intelligence," he said.
Yesterday, Yemeni forces targeted Nasser Ahmed al-Ahdal; a former prisoner released after renouncing violence but believed to have renewed links to al-Qaida. One man was injured and captured but Ahdal and two others escaped.
Several al-Qaida members killed in raids by Yemeni forces in the past fortnight had been released or had escaped from prison. Others who have left jail to rejoin the fight include Nasser al-Wahayshi, the Yemeni leader of al-Qaida, who escaped along with 22 others from prison in Yemen in 2006. His deputy, Saeed al-Shihri, joined al-Qaida in Yemen last year after being released to Saudi Arabia from Guantánamo.
While intelligence officials plan how to hit back abroad, they are under pressure at home after Obama blamed intelligence failings for Abdulmutallab being allowed to board a plane to the US. The president has ordered that a preliminary report be delivered to him today tomorrow explaining how the young Nigerian managed to smuggle the explosives on to the flight.
The criticism is focused on the CIA and the national counterterrorism centre (NCC) established after 9/11. The CIA is under scrutiny because it picked up intelligence from Yemen that a Nigerian was involved in a forthcoming attack at about the same time that Abdulmutallab's father told US diplomats in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, that his son had become radicalized in Yemen and was a possible threat. That information was shared with CIA officials in Abuja who passed it on to the NCC, but it was apparently not matched with the intelligence from Yemen. On Tuesday Obama condemned the failure to share information and other intelligence failings as "totally unacceptable".
CIA in the line of fire
First the finger was pointed at Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary, who blundered after the failure of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's bombing attempt by saying "the system worked".
But with Barack Obama condemning intelligence failures as "totally unacceptable", attention is focused on the CIA and the national counterterrorism centre (NCC), set up after 9/11 to pool information and forestall the kind of plot that Abdulmutallab came close to completing.
The CIA is under pressure after it was revealed that it apparently had two important pieces of the puzzle that might have prevented the attack and did not put them together.
The New York Times said the agency picked up intelligence from Yemen that a Nigerian was at the forefront of a looming attack on American interests. At about the same time, the CIA was part of a briefing at the US embassy in Nigeria after Abdulmutallab's father warned American diplomats that his son was becoming radicalized, and was in Yemen. The CIA drew up a file, but then sat on it for five weeks.
For its part, the NCC was told by the state department about the warnings by Abdulmutallab's father, but then did not check whether the young Nigerian had a US visa. He did.
The president described the handling of the warning as a failure.
Richard Clarke, a former chief counter‑terrorism adviser on the US national security council, said that while Napolitano is feeling the heat for a political misstep, it was the CIA and NCC that should shoulder responsibility. "There does appear to be a failure here either at the CIA or the new national counterterrorism centre. Homeland security didn't get the information. I think the problem lies at the intelligence community and not at homeland security," he said

In the end, I believe the Republican Party is once again, kicking a dead horse and needs to address their internal party problems before they try to convince the American People to trust them again. With our armed forces deployed in the area and the readiness to retaliate, Yemen would do themselves a favor to rid their country of Al-Qaida before we decide to do it for them. Ask Iraq and Afghanistan if that is not a wise decision in hindsight.

That’s How I See It.

Websites of reference;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeland_security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napolitano
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/11/emergency.supplies/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/30/us-plots-retaliatory-strikes-yemen
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/30/yemen-terrorism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091229/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_us_airliner_attack
www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6031772n

Sunday, November 15, 2009

2012

Why I Cannot Wait Until 2013
I am writing this article because I have reached the fed up point of hype. The year 2012 is still, a little more than, two years away and I already cannot wait for 2013. Before I give you my reasons, I want to warn all you readers who suffer from the following; Impressionable, Gullibility, Mental and Emotional vulnerability and outright STUPIDITY!!! You may be insulted by what you read next. Remember, you have been warned!!!

Recently, a movie entitled 2012 was released to movie theaters throughout the country. Prior to this release, the Mayan Calendar has been quoted as being, the tell all, to the end of days for all of us on earth. The Hype for this movie starring John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover and Woody Harrelson has been a testimonial to the special effects of movie making. The problem though, extends to any and all who are trying to exploit the end of days for money making ventures. Now in a Capitalistic Society, this would not be so bad except for those of the populace that cannot tell fiction from fact. From the History Channel to the Discovery Channel and anybody with a website, the attempts to sell the story of the End of Days is now blossoming into public hysteria not seen since the War of the Worlds radio broadcast on October 30, 1938. Inquiries made to NASA have become so frequent and with such fear and apprehension that funds have been spent to create a website for NASA to debunk the claims of Earth’s destruction and assure everyone that we will still be here on December 22, 2012. The following are links to all the NASA websites addressing the 2012 rumor; http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers
http://fora.tv/2009/02/04/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_Pluto_Files#Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_World_Will_Not_End_in_2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_%28mythology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_(Sitchin#Planets_proposed_by_Zecharia_Sitchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_doomsday_prediction
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/

The following article from the Telegraph website says it all about the 2012 fears;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6534662/Mayan-2012-apocalypse-theory-not-true-Nasa-says.html
'Mayan 2012 apocalypse theory' not true, Nasa says
The world is not coming to an end on December 21, 2012, Nasa insisted on Monday in a rare campaign to dispel rumours fueled by the internet and a new Hollywood movie.
The latest big screen offering from Sony Pictures,
"2012," arrives in theatres on Friday , with a $200 million production about the end of the world supposedly based on theories backed by the Mayan calendar. The doomsday scenario revolves around claims that the end of time will come as an obscure Planet X - or Nibiru - collides with Earth. The mysterious planet was supposedly discovered by the Sumerians, according to claims by pseudo-scientists, paranormal activity enthusiasts and internet theorists. Some websites have accused the US space agency of concealing the truth about the wayward planet's existence, but Nasa has denounced such stories as an "internet hoax." "There is no factual basis for these claims," Nasa said in a question-and-answer posting on its website. If such a collision were real, "astronomers would have been tracking it for at least the past decade, and it would be visible by now to the naked eye," it added. "Obviously, it does not exist." "Credible scientists worldwide know of no threat associated with 2012," it insisted. After all, "our planet has been getting along just fine for more than four billion years," added Nasa. Initial theories set the disaster for May 2003, but when nothing happened the date was moved forward to the winter solstice in 2012, to coincide with the end of a cycle of the ancient Mayan calendar. Nasa insisted the Mayan calendar does not in fact end on December 21, 2012, as another period begins immediately afterward. And it said there are no planetary alignments on the horizon for the next few decades.
And even if the planets were to line up as some have forecast, the effect on our planet would be "negligible," Nasa said. Modern Maya in Guatemala and Mexico have also rushed to debunk the "prophesy". they view the burgeoning end-of-the-world 2012 industry with a mixture of confusion, exasperation and anger at what is perceived as a Western distortion of their traditions and beliefs. "There is no concept of apocalypse in the Mayan culture," Jesus Gomez, head of the Guatemalan confederation of Mayan priests and spiritual guides, told The Sunday Telegraph. Cirilo Perez, an adviser to Guatemala's President Alvaro Colom is a prominent ajq'ij - literally a "day counter", a wise man who makes predictions and advice on the most propitious dates to marry, plant or harvest. He decried the commercial exploitation of Mayan culture by outsiders. "This has all become business but there is no desire to understand," he said. "When foreigners, or even some Guatemalans, see us, they think 'Look at the Maya, how nice, how pretty', but they don't understand us."


So, for all of you who have fallen victim to the fears of the world coming to an end, you can be rest assured that, we will all be here tomorrow and for a long time to come. Now, if for some reason you still believe all the erroneous websites quoting doom and gloom, I have eight easy steps to relieve you of your anxiety.
Step 1; Pull all your money out of your bank account.
Step 2; Go to your local Gun Store.
Step 3; Go inside and purchase a hand gun with ammunition.
Step 4; Leave the store.
Step 5; Find a very private place.
Step 6; Load the ammunition into the gun.
Step 7; Place the gun to the side of your head.
Step 8; Pull the trigger.
You will have done yourself and everyone who has had to listen to your whining over life ending, a favor. FOR GOD’S SAKE, SMARTEN UP AND GET A LIFE!

That’s How I See It.

Websites of reference;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6534662/Mayan-2012-apocalypse-theory-not-true-Nasa-says.html
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012.html
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/intro/nibiru-and-doomsday-2012-questions-and-answers
http://fora.tv/2009/02/04/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_Pluto_Files#Neil_deGrasse_Tyson_World_Will_Not_End_in_2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_collision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_%28mythology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nibiru_(Sitchin#Planets_proposed_by_Zecharia_Sitchin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_doomsday_prediction
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_(film)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080502170653AA3tvRa
http://mashable.com/2009/11/12/nasa-debunks-2012/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Mathematics

Saturday, November 14, 2009

A Military Matter

Since the Presidency of George W. Bush, I still find myself a Moderate in Political beliefs. However, I have developed a slight lean towards the Left. I do not associate with either party. I prefer to remain unaffiliated. In this way, my loyalty will be dictated by the ability of the candidate and my confidence in them. Not due to a party affiliation. I voted for Barack Obama and was very glad that many Republicans were voted out of office. I hope many more will go in 2010. If that becomes the case then, by 2012, we will all have a good idea if the Democratic Party can take us into the future or if we will need another change. I may not agree with everything the Democratic Administration is trying to do but, Healthcare is definitely the most important and most needed reform at this time. Job creation runs a close second along with boosting our economy. I am not quite sure I agree with the methods and results so far but, the previous administration has shown we could do much worse. However, a decision has been made recently that I have reservations about. That decision is to prosecute the September Eleven Conspirators in a Federal Court instead of a Military Trial.


Now, I am a firm believer in the Criminal Justice System. I know that successful prosecutions occurred in the trials of the World Trade Center bombings of the early 1990’s. I do not believe that the terror suspects from 9/11 will have some fancy lawyer using some sly tactics to get acquittals for their clients. I do not believe that Liberal Rogue Judges may throw out evidence and cause a mistrial. It is the difference between the attacks back then and what has occurred here, that asks the question whether this is a Civil Investigation or a Military matter. Even the question of Islam and the Muslim world, does not come into play. It is the suspects, motive, opportunity but, more importantly, the overall conspiracy behind the act and the following events which took place afterwards.


In 1993, the World Trade Center bombing was a Criminal Investigation with international cooperation through Law Enforcement Agencies. Then President William Jefferson Clinton did order a limited Military response to Al-Qaida suspected strongholds overseas. However, no Military invasion occurred as a result of the bombings. Convictions were obtained on most suspects. One or two may have been acquitted in trials in their own countries.

In 2001, the Taliban Government of Afghanistan spoke out about the World Trade Center attacks praising the terrorist attackers and claiming to have the Al-Qaida Leader, Osama Bin Laden, within their borders. As we all know a war ensued with Afghanistan to topple the Taliban Government along with the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent regime change within that country as well. It is because of these events is why I believe the suspects being placed on trial in New York City for the 9/11 attacks should be dealt with by a Military Court. Unlike the attacks in 1993, Military action took place in direct response to these attacks and the terrorist group Al-Qaida has declared and still wages a terrorist war against our country.

Many have questioned the legality of the invasion we perpetrated upon the sovereign nation of Iraq and all of the actions taken place during this time. But, I believe that is a question for an International Court to determine. The fact still remains we went to war over the Trade Center attacks. This act alone should make it a Military matter, not civilian.

So, I find myself agreeing with people such as Rudy Giuliani and others on the Right Wing, when it comes to prosecution of the conspirators on 9/11. Any inappropriate procedures or illegal actions should be dealt with militarily in a Military Court. A Civilian Court is not the place for these individuals, nor for these acts, at this time. Let us just hope that justice will prevail and not make a mockery of a system we hold dearly.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Traitor

The Political End Of Joe Lieberman

Earlier this week Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman announced he would join the Republican Party with their Filibuster attempt at the Public Option of President Obama’s Healthcare Bill. Quite frankly, I believe this will be the straw that breaks the camels back, with Senator Lieberman and his ties to the Democratic Party. Unlike Arlen Spector, who is nothing more than an over the hill has been, Mr. Lieberman has found himself on the precipice of political destruction.

The following is an article from CBS News by Stephanie Condon; http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5463995.shtml
Lieberman May Support Republicans in 2010
Posted by
Stephanie Condon
Sen. Joe Lieberman took another step farther away from the Senate Democratic caucus this week, when he said he may support some Republican candidates in the 2010 elections and may not run as a Democrat when he is up for reelection in 2012. "I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the election in 2010. I'm going to call them as I see them," Lieberman told ABC News. "There's a hard core of partisan, passionate, hardcore Republicans," he said. "There's a hard core of partisan Democrats on the other side. And in between is the larger group, which is people who really want to see the right thing done, or want something good done for this country and them -- and that means, sometimes, the better choice is somebody who's not a Democrat." As for whether he would run as a Democrat himself in 2012 , "That's an open question," Lieberman said. Lieberman ran as an independent in the 2006 general election to hold onto his Connecticut Senate seat, after being knocked out of the Democratic primary by challenger Ned Lamont. He managed to hold onto his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee by agreeing to still caucus with the Democratic party. Lieberman's allegiance to the Democrats has proven to be unreliable, however. In the 2008 presidential election, he supported Republican candidate John McCain. Earlier this week, Lieberman said he would
join a Republican filibuster against the Democrats' health care bill as it is currently written. Lieberman opposes the bill's government-run health insurance plan. At least one Democratic leader on health care, however, thinks Lieberman will change his tune on the issue. "When it comes down to getting the 60 votes necessary to pass this bill, I do not believe that Joe Lieberman would want to be the one person who caucuses with the Democrats … to bring this bill down. I don't think he wants to go down in history like that," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters Thursday. "He still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic Caucus. So, I'm sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote." Lieberman also told ABC he will support Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd's reelection campaign in Connecticut next year.



To give a more hardcore perspective is an article by Timothy Nolan of Slate.com;
http://www.slate.com/id/2233743/
Did Lieberman Just Kill the Public Option?
Don't bet on Connecticut's junior senator showing independence from the insurance lobby.
By Timothy Noah
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
says that "Joe Lieberman is the least of [my] problems" in passing health reform with a public option. I'm not so sure.
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was formerly a Democrat but who is now an independent,
announced today that "if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage." In other words, Lieberman will support a filibuster. "I can't see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company," Lieberman said.
One largely unspoken assumption behind Reid's quest to get an "opt out" version of the public option through the Senate is that he doesn't really need 60 votes for the health reform bill itself. He just needs 60 votes for the cloture motion prior to final passage. Once a filibuster is cut off, health reform can pass with 50 votes (the 51st being Vice President Joe Biden, president of the Senate). One reason Reid's gambit looked so promising as recently as yesterday was that Lieberman, despite his previously stated opposition to the health reform bill even without a public option (i.e., as passed by the Senate finance committee), had
agreed not to support a filibuster against it. It now appears that Lieberman either changed his mind or was misunderstood.
Reid seems to think he can keep Lieberman onboard by allowing him to "be involved in the amendment process." In his 2008 book
The Good Fight, Reid writes that he and Lieberman differed on the Iraq war but "on other issues, he's always with me." But can Reid really count on Lieberman this time? In recent years Lieberman has not shown himself to be an especially trustworthy character. (The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has the details here and here.)
Ezra Klein of Washingtonpost.com and Jonathan Chait of the New Republic both point out that Lieberman's reason for opposing the public option—that it's too expensive—makes no sense, because the public option actually lowers the cost of health reform by exerting downward competitive pressure on the private-insurance premiums whose purchase the government would subsidize. The Congressional Budget Office's scoring of the Reid proposal is expected to show this. But any illogic in Lieberman's position strikes me as evidence not that Lieberman is likely to change his mind when he becomes better acquainted with the facts but, rather, that Lieberman has already decided facts shouldn't get in the way of his opposition.
Why would Lieberman want to sink health reform? Klein points out that in the pretty recent past, Lieberman has
supported the general goal, if not the specifics, of Obamacare. But consider Lieberman's political situation. He is no longer a Democrat. That means he no longer has a political base. In the future, he will have to rely more on constituencies and on cash. The White House suggests that Lieberman wouldn't dare alienate voters by opposing health reform. But what's the most cash-rich constituency in the Nutmeg State? The insurance industry, which is headquartered in Connecticut and employs 64,000 people.
At the moment, insurers probably aren't too pleased with Connecticut's other senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, because Dodd is a prominent advocate for the public option. As I've
noted previously, Dodd, during the past 20 years, received $2.3 million in contributions from insurers—more than any member of the House or Senate except John McCain, R-Ariz. During that same period, Dodd collected $774,000 from health insurers, ranking second only to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Lieberman, even though he's from Connecticut, has during that same period had to settle for 14th place in both insurance-industry contributions and health-insurance-industry contributions. Blocking the public option might allow Lieberman to displace Dodd as "the senator from Aetna."
Support for this hypothesis may be found in Lieberman's timing in announcing his opposition to the Senate finance bill. It was
Oct. 13. That was one day after the insurance lobby released its study dumping on the finance bill. Until then, it seemed likely the insurers would either support the finance bill (which contained no public option and was poised to make them half a trillion dollars richer) or keep mum. Lieberman's quick seconding of the insurers' opposition suggests that he will permit no daylight between himself and the insurance lobby.
Further evidence can be found in the substance of Lieberman's argument that the public option would bust the budget. It may be nonsensical, as Chait and Klein say, but it isn't randomly so. It's the same argument the insurers are making. "Probably all people who have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up," Lieberman
said, "because there's going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid." The proposition that cost savings achieved through public insurance programs never impose financial efficiencies on doctors, hospitals, and private insurers but, instead, lead doctors and hospitals to shift more of their costs onto private insurers lies at the heart of the insurance lobby's opposition to both the Senate finance bill and the public option. But the health insurers haven't persuaded most economists, and the Congressional Budget Office thinks the cost-shifting argument against health reform is incorrect.
If I'm right that Lieberman is determined to line up behind the insurance industry, then there's no hope he will ever support any version of the public option, even on a procedural cloture vote, because there's no hope insurers will support a public option. And if health insurers decide in the end to oppose health reform without a public option, Lieberman will oppose that, too. Please, God, let me be wrong.

I personally believe Joe Lieberman is a Traitor to the voters of the state of Connecticut and has slapped the Democratic Party in the face for the last time. Also, I do not believe the Republican Party is willing to accept him with open arms. If they were, he would have received the nomination for Vice President on the McCain ticket last year. Instead he was snubbed for the likes of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.

I hope a petition is started in Connecticut and Mr. Lieberman is recalled and a new election takes place. It would serve the voters of Connecticut well to throw this Traitor out of office. I also call upon the present administration to strip Mr. Lieberman of any and all Chairmanships he holds. He no longer deserves the prestige nor honor of holding these positions.

You know what would be a nice touch? If there is a recall election and Mr. Lieberman is voted out. How about Rham Emanual and Harry Reid go to Joe Lieberman’s Office, grab him by the scruff of the neck and the seat of his pants and throw him out of the Capital Building, right down the front stairwell for all to see. Maybe party loyalty, honesty and integrity just might start making a comeback. But, then again, honesty, integrity plus politics probably will never mix. I guess we can only hope.

That’s How I See It.

Websites of reference;
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5463995.shtml
http://www.slate.com/id/2233743/
http://lieberman.senate.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28788.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/independent-sen-joe-lieberman-hell-back-republicans-2010/story?id=8952240
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/is-anybody-still-surprise_b_336685.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/lieberman-i-stand-with-the-small-minority-of-americans-who-oppose-public-option.php
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/somebody-buy-joe-lieberman-puppy.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300067
http://www.courant.com/topic/politics/joe-lieberman-hpp2355.topic
http://liebermanmustgo.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/top-15-lieberman-betrayal_n_336024.html

Sunday, October 25, 2009

How Revolutions Start

What The Wealthy Should Fear The Most

Soon after President Barack Obama took Office Right Wing Lunatic, Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, insinuated that people were angry and may need to revolt to gain control of their government again. Even if those were not her exact words, the references were sure there. I have given some thought to what it would take for an Average Joe or Josephine to reach a point where they felt they had nothing more to loose. Maybe, to even strap a bomb on themselves and be willing, to sacrifice themselves for something better. Sure, we have the fanatical of any group who can talk weak minded souls into doing their bidding for them. But, what is the word you can use to describe when a point has been reached that, the masses as a whole, decide to rise up and cause change. I believe that word is hope.

The hope in having a safe home to live in. The hope in having the ability to feed yourself and your family. The hope that you can provide all the basic necessities, like healthcare, needed to live a decent life in this world. Hope, something the wealthy in this world, never needs to worry about. Unless, all hope is lost. At that point, I believe the wealthy, the elite and the Corporate Stronghold should have plenty to cause deep concern. It is at that point when the wealthy and company will stand to loose everything as well.

The gap between the wealthy, the middle class and the poor is much too big. The greed being consumed by the wealthy is eroding the one safeguard that keeps the mass population from rising up and destroying everything the wealthy wishes to hoard. The following is an article by Vice President Joe Biden. This was posted on the USA Today Website on January 30, 2009. I believe this article brings home the point I am trying to make here; http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/time-to-put-mid.html
Time to put middle class front and center
Commentary by Joe Biden
For years, we had a White House that failed to put the middle class front and center in its economic policies.
President Obama has made it clear that is going to change. And it's why he has asked me to lead a task force on the middle class.
America's middle class is hurting. Trillions of dollars in home equity, retirement savings and college savings are gone. And every day, more and more Americans are losing their jobs.
For the backbone of the USA, it's insult on top of injury. Over the course of America's last economic expansion, the middle class participated in very few of the benefits. But now in the midst of this historic economic downturn, the middle class sure is participating in all of the pain. Something is seriously wrong when the economic engine of this nation — the great middle class — is treated this way.
President Obama and I are determined to change this. Quite simply, a strong middle class equals a strong America. We can't have one without the other.
An economy for all Americans
Right now, our most urgent task is to stabilize our nation's economy and put it back on track. That is what our economic recovery package moving through the Congress is all about. We need to make these critical investments to jump-start our economy.
On top of this urgent task, though, we have an important long-term task as well. Once this economy starts growing again, we need to make sure the benefits of that growth reach the people responsible for it. We can't stand by and watch as that narrow sliver of the top of the income scale wins a bigger piece of the pie — while everyone else gets a smaller and smaller slice.
One of the things that makes this task force distinctive is it brings together — in one place — those agencies that have the most impact on the well-being of the middle class in our country. We'll be looking at everything from access to college and training with the Department of Education, to business development with the Department of Commerce, to child care reform with Health and Human Services, to labor law with the Department of Labor. With this task force, we'll have a single, high-visibility group with one goal: to raise the living standards of middle-class families.
Over the upcoming months, we will focus on answering those concerns that matter most to families. What can we do to make retirement more secure? How can we make child and elder care more affordable? How do we improve workplace safety? How are we going to get the cost of college within reach? What can we do to help weary parents juggle work and family? And, above all else, what are the jobs of the future? Here, we'll be looking at green jobs, better-paying jobs, better-quality jobs.
Open to the public
At the end of the day, it will be our responsibility to offer clear, specific steps we can take to meet these concerns and others.
Unlike some previous government task forces, our task force will operate in a fully transparent manner. We will consult openly and publicly with outside groups that have thought long and hard about these issues and can help us bring the most far-reaching and imaginative solutions to these problems. All the materials from our meetings, and any report we produce, will be up on our public website. None of this will happen behind closed doors.
In government, as in life, you need clear goals to succeed. In the Obama/Biden administration, we have set a very clear goal: Our administration will have succeeded if the middle class once again starts to share in the economic success of this nation.
Joe Biden is vice president of the United States.

Regardless of where you believe the middle class begins in financial terms, we live in a class base society. You can not have a wealthy class if you do not have the lower classes below it. You can not have any of the lower classes if you do not allow them the ability to thrive. So, I would suggest to all who have the wealthy ability. If you want to keep the wealth you have, the best way to safeguard it is to make sure you keep your greed in check. Show some empathy to the lower classes so that hope will thrive. If you do not, your wealth will be fleeting and you will find yourselves struggling just to survive instead of living a life of privilege.

That’s How I See It.

Websites of reference;
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/03/medical-premiums-burden-middle-class/
http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1051
http://www.whitehouse.gov/strongmiddleclass/
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/middleclassoverview.html
http://themiddleclass.org/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6398137/Cutting-middle-class-benefits-would-save-billions-reform-says.html
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/11/what_is_the_middle_class/
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/793/inside-the-middle-class
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1882147,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204313604574328552267381152.html
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/john_stossels_tall_tales_about_middle_class_income.php
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/money/2009/02/what-does-it-mean-to-be-middle-class-in-america-today.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272238/
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/01/time-to-put-mid.html

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Regrettable Allies

Did The Mainstream Media Defend Fox News

All this past week, Fox News has been reporting how they are being ostracized and excluded by the White House, when it comes to interviews and receiving information for their news casts. In researching for this article I found many conflicting reports and observations. I have found that this is the norm for anything I write about when, it comes to Fox News and the world of the twenty first century Joseph Goebbals, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News.


I have found the ratings for Fox News is extremely high. Personally, I find this disturbing since any news from this network is always distorted to the point of outright lying. This network is nothing more than a propagandized mouthpiece of the Neo Conservative side of the Republican Party. The Male and Female Anchors are no better than Pimps and Prostitutes of disinformation, distortion of the truth and outright brainwashing by lying about the facts they report. I can only believe that the shock factor of degenerates like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity must provide an outlet of entertainment in the hectic lives of the people who listen to them. Only truly ignorant, uneducated and racist people will believe the filth they spew. If I am wrong, then our country is in far deeper trouble than any poor economy can bring. Being Patriotic means actually reading and understanding our Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Supporting our Armed Forces in time of conflict and knowing when it is time to come home. Not just flag waving, yelling at the top of your lungs about taking your Country back. I believe many of those people, not only have no understanding about what they are shouting about but, could be lead to foolish and irresponsible actions promoted by the brainwashing lunatic Pied Pipers of Hannitty and Beck.

The following is an article describing what I believe to be truth, to what really was going on, with the Media support of Fox News: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/networks_refuse_interview_after_white_house_denies_fox_141065.asp
Networks Refuse Interview After White House Denies Fox
By Kevin Allocca on Oct 23, 2009 03:55 PM
The White House dispute with Fox News took a new turn yesterday regarding an interview with an administration official and the White House press pool.
The administration offered up "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg for one-on-one network interviews to be shot by the pool, but tried to block Fox News. FoxNews.com
reports:
But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.
While this could be seen as a display of solidarity from the other networks, a D.C. network insider tells TVNewser the news divisions were not necessarily taking a stand and siding with Fox when they refused the interviews, but that it was more of a financial decision.
The pool is paid for by and rotates between ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC, allowing each network to do quick interviews using the same camera crew. If the White House were to exclude one of the members, the other networks would have to provide their own crew for the interview.
There are financial and contractual arrangements and obligations between the networks when the pool is involved that would override any opinion the networks and bureau chiefs might have with the White House's position on Fox. Under that official arrangement, everyone has to be treated equally.
Of course, there are plenty of newsers and critics who have expressed discomfort with the White House getting involved in media criticism and singling out one organization.

The following article is from the New York Times giving an overall take on the White House, Fox News and the relationship in general between the Obama Administration and the News Media: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html
Behind the War Between White House and Fox
By
JIM RUTENBERG
Published: October 22, 2009
WASHINGTON — Late last month, the senior White House adviser David Axelrod and Roger Ailes, chairman and chief executive of Fox News, met in an empty Palm steakhouse before it opened for the day, neutral ground secured for a secret tête-à-tête.Skip to next paragraph
Mr. Ailes, who had reached out to Mr. Axelrod to address rising tensions between the network and the White House, told him that Fox’s reporters were fair, if tough, and should be considered separate from the Fox commentators who were skewering
President Obama nightly, according to people briefed on the meeting. Mr. Axelrod said it was the view of the White House that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy.
What both men took to be the start of a frank but productive dialogue proved, in retrospect, more akin to the round of pre-Pearl Harbor peace talks between the United States and Japan.
By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration’s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall — namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group
Acorn.
At the same time, Fox News had continued a stream of reports rankling White House officials and liberal groups that monitor its programming for bias.
Those reports included a critical segment on the schools safety official Kevin Jennings, with the on-screen headline “School Czar’s Past May Be Too Radical”; urgent news coverage of a video showing schoolchildren “singing the praises, quite literally, of the president,” which the Fox News contributor
Tucker Carlson later called “pure Khmer Rouge stuff”; and the daily anti-Obama salvos from Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.
There followed, beginning in earnest more than two weeks ago, an intensified volley of White House comments describing Fox as “not a news network.”
“It was an amalgam of stories covered, and our assessment of how others were dealing with those stories, that caused us to comment,” Mr. Axelrod said in describing the administration’s thinking.
The heated back-and-forth between the White House and Fox News has brought equal delight to Fox’s conservative commentators, who revel in the fight, and liberal Democrats, who have long characterized the network as a purveyor of right-wing propaganda rather than fact-based journalism.
Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of mostly liberal columnists and commentators, including
Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times, Mr. Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the network, according to people briefed on the conversation.
Then, in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday, the president went public. “What our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” he said. “And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another.”
In a sign of discomfort with the White House stance, Fox’s television news competitors refused to go along with a
Treasury Department effort on Tuesday to exclude Fox from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg that was to be conducted with a “pool” camera crew shared by all the networks. That followed a pointed question at a White House briefing this week by Jake Tapper, an ABC News correspondent, about the administration’s treatment of “one of our sister organizations.”
White House officials continue to interact with Fox News correspondents whom they have complimented as professional, including Major Garrett and Wendell Goler.
But Michael Clemente, senior vice president for news and editorial programming at Fox, said the White House was conflating the network’s commentary with its news coverage. That, Mr. Clemente said, “would be like Fox News blaming the White House senior staff for the Washington Redskins’ losing record.”
“I think we’re doing the job we’re supposed to be doing,” he said, “and we do it as well as anyone.”
Mr. Clemente suggested that the fight was part of a larger White House strategy to marginalize critics. He cited a report in Politico about a strategy session in August at which officials discussed plans to move more aggressively against opponents.
White House officials acknowledged that Fox News did come up at that meeting, although not, they said, as a central topic. A number of issues had been added to the White House’s list of grievances by then, including the network’s heavy coverage of some of the more intensely anti-administration activity at town-hall-style meetings on health care and Mr. Beck’s remark that Mr. Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people.”
The first real shot from the White House, however, came when aides excluded “Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace” — which they had previously treated as distinct from the network — from a round of presidential interviews with Sunday morning news programs in mid-September.
“We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,” said
Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director. Later that week, White House officials said, they noticed a column by Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The Times, in which Jill Abramson, one of the paper’s two managing editors, described her newsroom’s “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” The Washington Post’s executive editor, Marcus Brauchli, had already expressed similar concerns about his newsroom.
White House officials said comments like those had focused them on a need to make their case that Fox had an ideological bent undercutting its legitimacy as a news organization.
Fox News Channel certainly seems to be enjoying a row it considers ratings candy, having devoted hours of news coverage and commentary to the fight.
But White House officials said they were happy to have at least started a public debate about Fox.
“This is a discussion that probably had to be had about their approach to things,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Our concern is other media not follow their lead.”



I believe Fox News either over embellished on this situation or is outright using it to prop up their ratings and continue their propaganda machine. For Fox News to say they are a fair and balanced news media is an insult to the average educated and responsible person who seeks the days news events. The best thing the Whitehouse can do is continue with business as usual. Conduct yourselves in the professional and responsible manner that you can and let Fox News be the victim of their own demise.

That’s How I See It.

Websites of reference;
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/us/politics/23fox.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/fox-should-pay-obama-for_b_332460.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331437.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Bureau_chiefs_band_together_for_Fox.html?showall
http://www.mediaite.com/online/treasury-denies-it-tried-to-exclude-fox-news-from-interviews/
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/networks_refuse_interview_after_white_house_denies_fox_141065.asp

Sunday, October 18, 2009

To Reap What You Have Sown

How Conservative Talk Deals With Their Reputation

All this past week, Conservative Talk Show Hosts, are up in arms over the National Football League’s rejection of ownership hopeful Rush Limbaugh. A contingent, including Mr. Limbaugh, was attempting to acquire the ownership of the Saint Louis Rams. However, the controversial Conservative Talk Show Host finds himself the victim of a reputation that he alone helped create. The following is an article from the Wall Street Journal, written by Mr. Limbaugh himself, explaining his side of the controversy; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477021697942920.html


The Race Card, Football and Me
My critics would have you believe no conservative meets NFL 'standards.
By RUSH LIMBAUGH
David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer. It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot. Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray.
Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . "
Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source. I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand. The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views? The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred. When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama. Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did. As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests. These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.
Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated talk radio host.

I am amazed at how eloquently this article is written. I did not realize Mr. Limbaugh was capable of such a writing, if he is truly the one who wrote it. You would never know it from the ranting that spew from his radio show day after day. There, lies the issue. Maybe if Mr. Limbaugh would conduct himself in the same manner on his radio show as he portrays in the above article, he would be more welcome in mainstream events instead of facing ostracism.

I strongly suggest reading from the following;
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2009/10/17/2009-10-17_lupica_rushed_out_of_the_club.html
This is an article by Sports writer Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News. It is too large to place here but, Mr. Lupica hits the bull’s eye on the Limbaugh issue and expresses exactly how I feel on what has happened here.



I would also add that all the Conservative Talk Show Hosts, defending Mr. Limbaugh, do so because they could find themselves categorize the same way. These individuals use the air waves, provided by corporate funding, to abuse freedom of speech, to gain fame and fortune while preying on individuals who try to seek acceptance in society. The ranting of the likes of Mark Levine and Michael Savage along with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and many more here in Boston alone, use these weak minded souls who have no better sense than to believe what is fed to them. All of this is in the true realm of nothing more than plain and simple entertainment. Any person of intelligence and dignity do not want to be associated with people who spew conversation like the Conservative Talk Hosts. Now, when reality hits these Talk Hosts, they cry discrimination and foul over the very things they, themselves have created.

In Mr. Limbaugh’s case, I believe David Checketts felt the celebrity of his fellow investor, would be an asset. Instead, it became something so toxic, that he was forced to sever a partnership before it could even get off the ground. I do not feel any sympathy to Rush Limbaugh nor any other Conservative who spews the filth, exaggerations and outright lies they do day in and day out. These individuals are beginning to see that the celebrity they seek, through the means in which they seek, could cost far more in personal reputation than any monetary value can provide.

That’s How I See It.

Websites of reference;
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2009/10/17/2009-10-17_lupica_rushed_out_of_the_club.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/hoffman/6664081.html
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4562338
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
http://www.nndb.com/people/428/000022362/
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/20/limbaugh-obama-fail/
http://newsone.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/rush-limbaugh-obamas-amer_n_288371.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2009/10/15/2009-10-15_rush_limbaugh_blames_nfl.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477021697942920.html

Saturday, October 3, 2009

The Enemy Within

How The Republican Party Is Killing Our Nation


I admit as I am writing this article, anger is the fuel. I have reached a point that I can no longer sugar coat my feelings. After witnessing the events, to kill the much needed, Healthcare Reform Bill. Then seeing the disappointment of the citizenry of Chicago, after losing their bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, being cheered and celebrated by the Right, I am convinced, more then ever, that there is a Cancer in our Country that is eating away at the very fiber of our Democracy. That cancer is in the form of the Republican Party. The City of Chicago was extremely disappointed that the Olympic Games were not awarded to them. To add insult to injury, this community was eliminated in the first round of voting. Instead of being sympathetic, supportive and patriotic to an American City, the Neo Conservative Right Wing of the Republican Party openly celebrates the defeat because of their hatred towards a President that is openly popular to the general public that has rejected their own warped set of distorted values and beliefs. For weeks the Republican Party, along with their propaganda machine of Fox News and Right Wing Talk Radio, has lied on so many statistics in an attempt to sway or brainwash public opinion, against our country and against our present government. Unfortunately, what I believe is pure ignorance, this party and their propaganda machine spew their filth and lies to scare and keep fear in as much of the populace as possible.

Corporate America is just as guilty with the continual bribes and payoffs, given to the members of this party, to benefit corporate profits and keep the economic wealth of the populace at the lowest levels possible. The Democrats may have their own problems as well but, From C-Street to K-Street dealings, the pornographic behavior of Republican Politicians, while preaching family values, has taken hypocrisy to levels never before seen in our nation’s history.



The propaganda machine, lead by the narcissistic cancerous buffoon of Rush Limbaugh and the cancerous psychotic ranting of Glenn Beck, abuses the freedom of speech we celebrate in our nation. I am at a complete loss of how any rational thinking human being could honestly believe what these two men say day after day. To wish our Government to fail and celebrate in the defeat of an American City is outright criminal if not treasonous in its self.



I can only desperately appeal to the rational and intelligent individuals of the Republican Party, if there are any, to rid yourselves of the Cancer that is spreading within your midst. The Neo Conservative Movement, in the Republican Party, is nothing more than a mirror image of the Neo Nazi Party of the 1940’s. I believe the group once known as the Project for the New American Century has infiltrated the Republican Party to the point where it stands on the precipice of its own destruction. Please cut this cancerous tumor from your parties bowels or more rational Americans may need to cut this cancerous party from our Democratic Society.

That’s How I See It.

Websites of reference;
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.chicago2016.org/?gclid=CNj_huSqoZ0CFQtN5QodPw6p1w
http://news.google.com/news?q=2016+Summer+Olympics&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ei=v4DHSsKZCYbg8Qbtz5XiCA&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts935
http://www.healthreform.gov/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,559244,00.html
http://www.triplicate.com/20091001107098/Opinion/Editorials/Coastal-Voices-Guest-Editorial-Doctors-on-health-care-refor