WINGS OF FREEDOM TOUR comes to Massachusetts

The Wings of Freedom tour recently came through Massachusetts area and it is quite a pleasure to see these historic aircraft still flying.....

The Collings Foundation maintains these magnificent aircraft for regular summer airshows & fly-ins, allowing many to see what a piece of flying history looks like.

http://www.collingsfoundation.org/menu.htm

Check out their schedule and get out to see them when you can....you will not be disappointed.

NEW REASONS FOR HOPE IN AFGHANISTAN....FROM THE EFFORTS OF OUR MILITARY

Can AFGHANISTAN be following Iraq to a better future??? We all saw POTUS & his cronies were calling it " A Lost Cause" and spouting other defeatist diatribes while most who were "boots on the ground" knew better.

Obama [delivered] early speeches against the war in Iraq. The looming invasion, he said in 2002, was an ill-conceived venture that would “require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” Obama’s speeches lifted him to statewide prominence and paved the way for his march to the Senate.

Once again, POTUS used the efforts of our fine military for his political gain...

Now we see hope in AFGHANISTAN......how much of this was due to General McCrystal's efforts, and the efforts of others before POTUS agreed to a SURGE?? We'll see as the future unfolds.....right now, there are glimmers of hope.....

As one who saw it first hand, I can tell you IF there is hope for AFGHANISTAN, it comes from the efforts of individual Army, Navy, Maine & Air Force Men & Women on the ground, doing the tough work 24/7, not from efforts that " Barry from Chicago did....as previously noted, he leaves " the heavy lifting" to others....big surprise.

----------------------------------------------

New reasons for hope in Afghanistan
By: Michael O'Hanlon - POLITICO
September 28, 2010 04:37 AM EDT

The outcome of the Afghanistan conflict is still up for grabs.

But after meetings there with NATO officers, Afghan officials and U.S. Embassy officials on a recent trip, I saw more basis for hope than recent perceptions in the United States would allow.

There was at least some positive news on the election. Four million in turnout is not bad for a midterm election in a troubled, war-torn country.

To be sure, there was a fair amount of violence during the Sept. 18 parliamentary elections. Turnout was mediocre overall, even poor in places. But as I saw there with the International Republican Institute’s election observation — IRI was ecumenical enough to include a Democrat like me — these problems were at least partly balanced by the remarkable resolve of many Afghans, including election workers and security forces.

Insurgents had months to prepare for attacks on Election Day. While any loss of life is regrettable, the 20 to 25 deaths that day were far fewer than anticipated. Yes, there were irregularities, as the U.S. media have been reporting. But these stories often lack perspective on realistic expectations for a young democracy. Moreover, Afghan agencies have already been charged with investigating the election — a hopeful sign.

Major challenges remain in Afghanistan that, if not addressed, may still cause the U.S. to fail there. It is far too early to give up on the current strategy and fall back on a Plan B. But it is not too soon to consider some dramatic new efforts — starting with a bold proposal to Pakistan.

First, though, here’s a review of the situation as it looked to me over my 10-day trip.

The problems in Afghanistan are legion and serious — and well-known. But a few points merit emphasis. The estimated size of the insurgency, particularly the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani networks, continues to grow. Despite a major increase in lethal attacks by U.S. Special Forces and other coalition assets, the resistance remains resilient.

Violence in Afghanistan has grown even faster than the uptick in coalition forces, suggesting that it is not just our increased tempo of operations that drives the fighting. Though the number of roadside bomb attacks has stabilized relative to last year (and declined in the east), we are still losing too many coalition and Afghan troops and police to these horrible weapons. And direct-fire attacks from small-arms fire are way up.

Needless to say, failures to address corruption — much of it in President Hamid Karzai’s inner circle, some of it a result of traditional Afghan social customs, lots of it exacerbated by the U.S. way of doing business there — create a sense of anger and disenfranchisement among many Afghan citizens.

This should be no surprise. History shows that strong presidencies in weak states that benefit from easy sources of cash (in this case, foreign aid and the foreign military presence) are prone to corruption problems. But these are no less serious because they are expected.


Balancing these huge challenges, the United States and its partners in Afghanistan have major assets working in their favor.

First are the Afghan population’s hardiness, optimism and generally pro-Western views.

Whatever Karzai’s limitations, there are a number of impressive reformers within his Cabinet and an improving slate of provincial governors; 18 of 34 were replaced over the past year, and most look like improvements.

Westerners were upset by Karzai’s firing of reform-minded Interior Minister Hanif Atmar last spring. But his successor, Bismillah Mohammadi, seems every bit as good. He reportedly takes taxis to visit his police forces on duty without warning — both to keep them on their toes and to gauge what training and equipment they require. He recently replaced 27 police chiefs, appointing successors who, on balance, seem stronger choices.

In addition, Karzai finally approved an Afghan local police program that could organize some community defense forces under NATO instruction and Interior Ministry supervision. This is to provide intermediate, if stopgap, security in some secondary areas.

The goal is to organize 10,000 Afghans, with the potential for substantially more later if the Afghan government approves. This effort may be complemented with stronger local reconciliation efforts — not a grand bargain with the Taliban, most probably, but community-based peace plans that Gen. David Petraeus is promoting. Some in the International Security Assistance Force believe this could quickly reduce the size of the insurgency by 10 percent to 20 percent.

The best news may be about the Afghan security forces. About half of all Afghan army units are now assessed at 3 or better on a 5-point scale of effectiveness. The evaluation system has been toughened up and measures quality of leadership as well as troops’ dependability and loyalty.

Sectarian tensions within units are now generally not severe. In addition, new efforts are under way to recruit more southern Pashtuns, who have been severely underrepresented, though Pashtuns from the center and north are present in good numbers.

Most important, nearly all Afghan army units are now partnered with NATO/ISAF forces, meaning they collaborate frequently and often patrol together. This intensive apprenticeship is helping reform and improve not only the army but also the police.

The Afghan government’s civilian departments remain weak. But efforts like the National Solidarity Program, which disburses modest cash grants to communities that form informal development councils under government and ISAF supervision, help compensate.


In addition, H.R. McMaster, acknowledged as one of the U.S. Army’s leading one-star generals, is now running a new task force to reform ISAF contracting practices — which enrich some Afghans while enraging others. McMaster probably can’t solve this problem, but if he mitigates it and allows financial benefits to reach a wider array of tribes and communities, the insurgency is likely to have fewer Afghan recruits.

Where does this leave us? One can hope that the positive trends outweigh the negative. But it is a close call and too soon to be optimistic. We need further improvements in our strategy, beyond McMaster’s task force and other new efforts.

The biggest opportunity may lie in Pakistan. Earlier this year, Pakistani forces moved into tribal regions to go after their own Taliban and arrested some of the Afghan Taliban as well. But progress has slowed or even reversed. The terrible floods diverted the army’s attention, and Pakistan now appears to be tolerating, if not actively supporting, greater activities by Afghan insurgents on its territory.

It is time for reinvigorated high-level diplomacy with Pakistan and perhaps a new bargain with Islamabad. Even if Pakistan cannot yet be persuaded to eliminate its terrorist sanctuaries, viewing them as a hedge against a rapid U.S. departure, Pakistani leaders might be induced to insist that these insurgent networks cool their activities.

This would give us a chance to build a stable Afghanistan, which would surely serve Pakistan’s long-term interests more than a lawless western frontier. In addition to increased aid, Washington might even propose a new bilateral alliance, formalized once the war in Afghanistan turns the corner.

This would be a conditional offer — contingent on improved assistance from Pakistan. It could be tied to a nuclear energy deal similar to that recently approved with India. Then Pakistan would have solid relations with both China and the United States, perhaps reducing its leaders’ desires to seek a sphere of influence or of “strategic depth” within Afghanistan.

Afghanistan remains a tough fight, but at least three-quarters of the country — starting with bustling Kabul, extending into most of the north and west and including parts of the east — is either in reasonably promising shape or improving.

So we should remain hopeful for now. The current strategy could well produce significant and convincing progress within a few months.

Michael O’Hanlon is co-author, with Hassina Sherjan, of “Toughing It Out in Afghanistan” and co-author of the Afghanistan Index.


© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

TED WILLIAMS - Remembering the " Splendid Splinter" on the 50th Anniversary of his last " At-Bat" in Fenway Park

It has been 50 Years since Teddy Ballgame had his last "at bat" in Fenway Park.....Teddy, we miss you.

Great words enclosed about this anniversary, greater than I could hope to write in tribute to a legendary ballplayer, US Naval Aviator and true Patriot.

----------------------------------------------

Tribute to a Hero in Twilight
By CHARLES McGRATH
Published: September 25, 2010 - NY TIMES

Tuesday is the 50th anniversary of Ted Williams’s last game, in which, with an impeccable sense of occasion, he hit a home run, a miraculous line drive to deep right center, in his final at-bat.

There was no Red Sox Nation back then. The club was a bottom-dweller in the old eight-team American League, and its following amounted to a village of lonely die-hards. The weather was dank that afternoon and so overcast that in the sixth inning, the lights at Fenway Park were turned on.

Only 10,455 fans turned up to say goodbye to Williams, who was 42, hobbled by aches and pains. Among them, sitting behind third base, was 28-year-old John Updike, who had actually scheduled an adulterous assignation that day. But when he reached the woman’s apartment, on Beacon Hill, he found that he had been stood up: no one was home. “So I went, as promised, to the game,” he wrote years later, “and my virtue was rewarded.”

So were generations of readers, for a few days later, Updike sat down and wrote “Hub Fans Bid Kid Adieu,” probably the most celebrated baseball essay ever. Originally published in the Oct. 22, 1960, issue of The New Yorker, and reprinted in countless anthologies, “Hub Fans” has recently been reissued in an elegant little 64-page edition by the Library of America, with an introduction by Updike that was among the last things he worked on before his death in January 2009.

The essay is in its way the reverse of Williams’s valedictory feat. Updike, who was beginning to realize the extent of his powers, had never written about baseball before, and never did again except for a couple of footnotes about Williams. He knocked it out of the park on his very first swing, then retired on the spot.

It’s not too much to say that “Hub Fans” changed sportswriting. Affectionately mocking the tradition of sports clichés (as in the title, which didn’t actually appear in any of Boston’s seven dailies at the time, but easily could have), the essay demonstrated that you could write about baseball, of all things, in a way that was personal, intelligent, even lyrical. Updike compares Williams to Achilles, to a Calder mobile, to Donatello’s David, standing on third base as if the bag were the head of Goliath.

A groundskeeper reminds Updike of Wordsworth’s mushroom gatherers. In a couple of memorable phrases, calling Fenway Park a “lyric little bandbox” that looks “like the inside of an old-fashioned, peeping-type Easter egg,” Updike gave the place a freshly painted sheen, so that if you grew up in Boston, as I did, you could never look at the old ball yard the same way again.

Yet the essay is never precious or self-consciously literary, the way a lot of subsequent Fenway prose became, penned by earnest, heavy-breathing scribes clustered in Updike’s shadow. Roger Angell, who began writing about baseball for The New Yorker two years after Updike, and whose career has had an astonishing longevity — he’s the Ripken or Gehrig to Updike’s blazing youthful phenom — has said that “Hub Fans” most of all supplied him with a tone: colloquial, attentive, unashamed of feeling or of striving for an elegant turn of phrase. It seems obvious now, but Updike was one of the first to show that you don’t have to write down about sports or empurple them, either.

“Hub Fans” is a paean not so much to baseball itself, as Angell’s pieces tend to be, as to a single player. Updike’s connection to Williams went back to his childhood in small-town Pennsylvania, where he was unable, he later wrote, to bond with the Phillies and the A’s, which seemed unworthy of his ambitions both for them and for his fannish self.

What beckoned was the heroic example of Williams. He wrote: “For me, Williams is the classic ballplayer of the game on a hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill.” And reading “Hub Fans,” you even sense at times a hint of self-identification. Williams and Updike were physically alike. They were tall and slender, with exceptional eyesight. (This was literally so for Williams, and metaphorically true for Updike, who, as the essay demonstrates, was an uncanny observer.)

In Updike’s description of Williams’s relationship with the Boston fans — “a marriage, composed of spats, mutual disappointments, and, toward the end, a mellowing hoard of shared memories” — there is maybe even a hint of whatever romantic disappointments had sent him to Beacon Hill that day.

Most of all, Updike identified with the artist in Williams: his focus and perfectionism, his single-mindedness in mastering the difficult craft of hitting, the way that, proud and a little aloof, he would not kowtow to the Boston press or court the fans’ affection, refusing to the very end to tip his cap in acknowledgment of their applause. He embraced and understood Williams’s isolation, writing: “It is an essentially lonely game. No other player visible to my generation has concentrated within himself so much of the sport’s poignance, has so assiduously refined his natural skills, has so constantly brought to the plate that intensity of competence that crowds the throat with joy.”

When Updike revised the essay for inclusion in a book-length collection in 1965, he ended it with a Yeatsian intimation of mortality: “On the car radio as I drove home, I heard that Williams, his own man to the end, had decided not to accompany the team to New York. He had met the little death that awaits all athletes. He had quit.”

What he originally wrote was: “On the car radio as I drove home, I heard that Williams was not going to accompany the team to New York. So he knew how to do even that, the hardest thing. Quit.”

In the tiny differences between the two versions, the refinements of phrasing, the crucial addition of that “little death,” there is something very like the “tissue-thin difference” Updike so admired in Williams’s career: the difference in this case not between a thing done well and a thing done ill, but between a thing done well and a thing done even better. Like Williams, Updike never coasted. He knew that over the long season, as he writes earlier in the essay, what holds our interest is not occasional heroics but “players who always care; who care, that is to say, about themselves and their art.”

" Apparently yes men and women, unwilling to challenge Obama’s basic assumptions or deliver inconvenient truths, are in high demand...”

TRAINWRECK.....the kinda situation where it is soooo horrific you literally can't take your eyes off it....I understand that the casual reader might feel I have been a little harsh with POTUS but OMG...The people in the Administration have taken " clueless" to an all-time new high level....

Read the commentary below from the NY TIMES and understand the sheer magnitude of how bad the outcome of this will be for those who bought into the malarkey sold to them by the Chicago Huckster and his cronies....we have allowed this feckless (i.e. meaning generally incompetent and ineffectual ) idiot and his minions to squander the blood & treasure of our nation for the past 21 months, all to see that those who called him out before the election were right.....it is to weep.

Then add in his brainless Aunt who has been on the public dole since she arrived in this country, stayed illegally and bragged about it on WBZ-TV this week...I'm sorry, trying to defend the Empty-Suit-in-residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would be like trying to stop the tide from coming into Boston Harbor.....Good luck with that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 24, 2010, 10:20 pm
Of Punching Hippies and Jumping Ship
By TOBIN HARSHAW

Larry Summers? Outta here. David Axelrod? Him, too. Rahm Emanuel? Give it a minute.

It’s not unusual for a new administration to see an exodus of exhausted senior staff members as it nears the two-year mark; a friend who went to work in the Bill Clinton White House at around that point recalls that the outgoing crew had the look of the first wave to have stormed the beaches at Normandy. But this was still a watershed week: Summers, who, according to insiders, was the dominant voice in the administration’s economic policies, announced on Tuesday that he’s returning in January to Harvard (a place that, for him, may not be any less stressful than the White House); Axelrod, the man at the nexus of the Obama campaign in 2008, will leave Washington to start planning the president’s re-election campaign of 2012; and Emanuel, the hard-driving chief of staff, is playing it coy but is widely expected to depart and run for mayor of Chicago following the surprise announcement that Richard M. Daley will not seek another term.

According to The Wall Street Journal’s Jonathan Weisman and Elizabeth Williamson, the president has two paths to choose from when it comes to naming successors:

The president could stack his administration with fighters prepared to deal with government shut-downs, veto threats and gridlock. Many Republicans running under the banner of the tea party have pledged an uncompromising stand on spending and efforts to roll back Mr. Obama’s health-care law.

Or, as senior White House officials have said, the president could concentrate on finding common ground on deficit reduction, education and immigration, while guarding his achievements, from health care to student lending to financial re-regulation.

Anne E. Kornblut and Scott Wilson of the Washington Post dug up an interesting quote:

“They miscalculated where people were out in the country on jobs, on spending, on the deficit, on debt,” said a longtime Democratic strategist who works with the White House on a variety of issues. “They have not been able to get ahead of any of it. And it’s all about the insularity. Otherwise how do you explain how a group who came in with more goodwill in decades squandered it?” The strategist asked not to be identified in order to speak freely about the president and his staff.

“Insularity is a fancy word for losing touch with the electorate,” adds Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. “And that much has been obvious since the big push for ObamaCare started in 2009. Emanuel reportedly warned against getting stuck in an almost interminable debate, but the rest of the White House apparently didn’t see the dangers.”

As for the next inner circle, Morrissey thinks we’ll see more of the same, which isn’t good news:

Obama’s choices of replacements have a common thread: they’re Obama insiders. Elizabeth Warren and Austan Goolsbee, two of the most recent appointments, are both inner-circle Obamaites. More importantly, they are almost certain to reinforce the decisions already made by this administration rather than offer heterodox points of view and proposals …

Democratic strategist Peter Fenn says that “this is the way Kennedy worked,” sticking with a small circle of close advisers, but that strategy only works when the advice given succeeds. Kennedy didn’t squander an immense level of popularity in less than two years, though, nor did he extend a recession and a post-recession malaise with bad economic policies as Obama has done. Democrats should worry about insularity. This administration is desperately in need of a reset button.

“Apparently yes men and women, unwilling to challenge Obama’s basic assumptions or deliver inconvenient truths, are in high demand,” adds Jennifer Rubin at Commentary. “This peek at the White House’s circle-the-wagons mentality suggests that Obama is not one to reassess, clean house, and chart a new course after the midterms. It might take him out of his comfort zone. That’s bad news for the country, but music to the ears of the 2012 GOP presidential contenders.”

IF IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, AND WALKS LIKE A DUCK....IT MUST BE A DUCK - SOON TO BE LAME DUCK AT THAT.....

Just shocked I am....The DEMS actually catch a clue.....wow.

OPINION - SEPTEMBER 22, 2010.

The Carter-Obama Comparisons Grow
Walter Mondale himself sees a parallel
By JOHN FUND

Comparisons between the Obama White House and the failed presidency of Jimmy Carter are increasingly being made—and by Democrats.

Walter Mondale, Mr. Carter's vice president, told The New Yorker this week that anxious and angry voters in the late 1970s "just turned against us—same as with Obama." As the polls turned against his administration, Mr. Mondale recalled that Mr. Carter "began to lose confidence in his ability to move the public." Democrats on Capitol Hill are now saying this is happening to Mr. Obama.


Mr. Mondale says it's time for the president "to get rid of those teleprompters and connect" with voters. Another of Mr. Obama's clear errors has been to turn over the drafting of key legislation to the Democratic Congress: "That doesn't work even when you own Congress," he said. "You have to ride 'em."

Mr. Carter himself is heightening comparisons with his own presidency by publishing his White House diaries this week. "I overburdened Congress with an array of controversial and politically costly requests," he said on Monday. The parallels to Mr. Obama's experience are clear.

Comparisons between the two men were made frequently during the 2008 campaign, but in a favorable way. Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, for instance, told Fox News in August 2008 that Mr. Obama's "rhetoric is more like Jimmy Carter's than any other Democratic president in recent memory." Syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg noted more recently that Mr. Obama, like Mr. Carter in his 1976 campaign, "promised a transformational presidency, a new accommodation with religion, a new centrism, a changed tone."

But within a few months, liberals were already finding fault with his rhetoric. "He's the great earnest bore at the dinner party," wrote Michael Wolff, a contributor to Vanity Fair. "He's cold; he's prickly; he's uncomfortable; he's not funny; and he's getting awfully tedious. He thinks it's all about him." That sounds like a critique of Mr. Carter.

Foreign policy experts are also picking up on similarities. Walter Russell Mead, then a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Economist magazine earlier this year that Mr. Obama is "avoiding the worst mistakes that plagued Carter." But he warns that presidents like Mr. Obama who emphasize "human rights" can fall prey to the temptation of picking on weak countries while ignoring more dire human rights issues in powerful countries (Russia, China, Iran). Over time that can "hollow out an administration's credibility and make a president look weak." Mr. Mead warned that Mr. Obama's foreign policy "to some degree makes him dependent on people who wish neither him nor America well. This doesn't have to end badly and I hope that it doesn't—but it's not an ideal position after one's first year in power."

Liberals increasingly can't avoid making connections between Mr. Carter's political troubles and those of Mr. Obama. In July, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked his guests if Democrats up for re-election will "run away from President O'Carter." After much laughter, John Heileman of New York Magazine quipped "Calling Dr. Freud." To which Mr. Matthews, a former Carter speechwriter, sighed "I know."

Pat Caddell, who was Mr. Carter's pollster while he was in the White House, thinks some comparisons between the two men are overblown. But he notes that any White House that is sinking in the polls takes on a "bunker mentality" that leads the president to become isolated and consult with fewer and fewer people from the outside. Mr. Caddell told me that his Democratic friends think that's happening to Mr. Obama—and that the president's ability to pull himself out of a political tailspin is hampered by his resistance to seek out fresh thinking.

The Obama White House is clearly cognizant of the comparisons being made between the two presidents. This month, environmental activist Bill McKibben met with White House aides to convince them to reinstall a set of solar panels that Mr. Carter had placed on the White House roof. They were taken down in 1986 following roof repairs. Mr. McKibben said it was time to bring them back to demonstrate Mr. Obama's support for alternative energy.

But Mr. McKibben told reporters that the White House "refused to take the Carter-era panel that we brought with us" and only said that they would continue to ponder "what is appropriate" for the White House's energy needs. Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that the Obama aides were "twitchy perhaps about inviting any comparison (to Mr. Carter) in the run-up to the very difficult mid-term elections."

Democrats need no reminding that Mr. Carter wound up costing them dearly in 1978 and 1980 as Republicans made major gains in Congress.

Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com.

TIME TO GO JANET (The Sequel)

So let's get this straight - we have a verbal sparring macth between US Senator John McCain vs. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

While both are politicians, only Sen. McCain has credibility (IMHO). Janet has been a bumbling fool who lost all credibility back when she declared " the system worked" in response to the failed Christmas Day pants bomber....The system worked? NO, Madam Secretary, IT DID NOT. The bomber was an incompetant idiot who was able to get the device that failed on to the plane. You have been dead wrong all along including calling recently separarated Veterans a "risk" to National Security.

It was time to go for Janet 9 months ago, and that hasn't changed - Senator John McCain is still one of the few voices of reason left in Washington, DC. If the American people had been smart enough to elect him, instead of POTUS, we would be better off and Janet wouldn't be trying to continue to lie to the American public.

-----------------------------

McCain, Napolitano spar over border
Josh Gerstein - Politico.com 9/21/10


Sparks flew between two of Arizona's most prominent political figures in Washington, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, during a Senate hearing Wednesday.

At a Homeland Security Committee session on counterterrorism efforts, McCain accused Napolitano of having reversed her stand on immigration-related issues when compared with the positions she took as Arizona's governor just a couple of years ago.

"There’s an old saying….on policy, it’s not where you stand it’s where you sit,"said McCain, who is up for re-election in November.

McCain quoted from a 2008 letter Napolitano wrote to her predecessor at Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, criticizing the federal government for not securing the border. The senator contrasted that with comments Napolitano made recently dismissing Texas Gov. Rick Perry's request for national guard troops, her agency's policy proposals to limit immigration arrests in connection with traffic stops, and the Obama Administration's lawsuit against Arizona over that state's controversial immigration control law.

"What in the world is going on here?" McCain asked as the prickly exchange began.

"Where I sit has not changed my position," Napolitano insisted.

"Clearly, you have," McCain shot back.

"No. I disagree, Mister--Senator," Napolitano maintained. She said some of the reported ICE policy changes were not true and she said border conditions had improved under the Obama Administration.

McCain said his constituents living along the border disagreed. "They don't see this dramatic improvement, Madam Secretary. In fact, they're more worried than they’ve ever been," he said. "They don't have the same security that people do in other parts of our country."

"I measure what we are doing by the results and by the numbers and what should be going up is going up and what should be going down is going down," Napolitano declared.

When McCain suggested that the committee invite Sheriff Larry Dever and others to testify about the failures along the border.

"They're down there on the front line and they'll tell you they have not seen improvement," McCain said.

Napolitano quickly responded with a list of local lawmen she suggested were pleased with the federal government's efforts.

"Well then, we'll have Sheriff Estrada, and Sheriff Ogden and some of the other sheriffs as well....Let's get them all up here," Napolitano said, talking over McCain.

Committee chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) eventually stepped in to break it up. "All right. Thank you both," he said

UNIONS representing State & Municipal HACKS will spend $1.3 Million to defeat repeal of the Sales Tax in Massachusetts from 6.25 % to 3 %

In Massachusetts, there are Union employees:

476,000 workers - 16.6 % of the Workforce -

That means 2.9 MILLION non-union employees ( 83.4%) do not have the same pull on the Politicians and/or have the influence that the Unions do over the Govenor and the Legislature.

Figures were taken from the AFL/CIO weblink (http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/why/uniondifference/uniondiff16.cfm)

While I feel that Unions were an important force in bringing improvements to workplaces over the last 100 years, they are presently more of an impediment to progress as the sole reason they exist today is to perpetuate the UNION.....they do very little for anyone BUT their own members. At the same time, Public Employee Unions have no issue with how their demands effect the citizens of the towns or State of Massachusetts, as all they care about is getting $$$ and benefits for their members. Their only concern is keep membership high and their coffers full.

While I agree we should have decent wages & benefits, the fact that the Massachusetts Public Employee Unions will spend $ 1.3 Million dollars to attempt to defeat a repeal of the sales tax shows they only care about making sure $$$ rolls into the State to preserve their membership, not services and not jobs for regular non-union employees.

“If this referendum passes, there is no doubt it will have a devastating impact on local services that have already been cut to the bone,’’ said Stephen G. Crawford, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition for Our Communities, which includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and the Service Employees International Union. " -

Let me translate that for you - If it passes, it means we'll have to see Public Union Employees lose their cushy life-time jobs where they have been insulated from the effects of the economy, effects that the tax-payers have been dealing with for the past 3-4 years......

GEE, I really don't have much sympathy for keeping the HACKS well off when the majority of the citizens have had to make major cut backs on how we live - I think it is HIGH TIME the HACKS feel a little pain too.

Seeing as the Legislature doesn't have the will or intestinal-fortitude to do what's right by the taxpayer, I'm all for taking out the long piece of lumber and whacking the democratic donkey in the Arse to get the State back to a reality based view of what we should be doing with the money we provide them. I hope & pray the Voters see it that way too.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Unions raise $1.3m to fight ballot drive to cut sales tax
Warn of deep drop in local services
By Alan Wirzbicki, Boston Globe Staff September 21, 2010

Determined not to be caught off-guard in a volatile election year, labor unions are pouring money into an effort to fight a deep cut in the state sales tax, campaign finance reports show.

A group of unions — fearing mass layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and other state and municipal workers — has raised $1.3 million so far this year to defeat Question 3, one of two antitax measures on the November ballot. Supporters have raised $76,000.

Similar ballot measures failed in 2002 and 2008, but the money flowing into the campaign to defeat the measure shows that opponents of the ballot question are taking nothing for granted in a year that has already produced political surprises across the country.

Opponents say passage of the question, which would cut the sales tax rate from 6.25 percent to 3 percent, would open up a hole in the fragile state budget of more than $2 billion and lead to Draconian cuts at the state and local levels.

Draconian enough that all three major gubernatorial candidates — Governor Deval Patrick, a Democrat; Charles D. Baker, a Republican; and independent Timothy P. Cahill — oppose Question 3.

“If this referendum passes, there is no doubt it will have a devastating impact on local services that have already been cut to the bone,’’ said Stephen G. Crawford, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Coalition for Our Communities, which includes the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and the Service Employees International Union. “Teachers, firefighters, local health care service, police officers — those services will bear the brunt of this referendum question.’’

Supporters of the tax rollback, led by longtime libertarian activist Carla Howell, gathered about 19,000 signatures this year to put the question on the ballot and are hoping to capitalize on the restive mood of the electorate.

“They will have big money; we have a grass-roots campaign,’’ Howell said.

Over a quarter of the money the antitax camp has raised this year, $22,000 in all, came from Chris and Melodie Rufer of Sacramento, who have given to other libertarian causes around the country. Chris Rufer said in a statement last night, “We believe in an open and voluntary market for all people.’’

Howell’s camp, according to campaign finance reports filed yesterday, had just $17,422 on hand on Sept. 15. Opponents of the ballot measure, who have spent money on public relations and polling firms, had $861,576. Crawford declined to share more details about the coalition’s strategy.

Another tax question on the ballot, Question 1, would restore a sales tax exemption for alcoholic beverages. Backers reported raising $396,236, mostly from package stores and alcohol distributors who say they have been hurt by the new tax, which took effect last year. They had $234,283 by last week.

Restoring the exemption, which Baker and Cahill support but Patrick opposes, would cost the state about $100 million in annual revenue, which now goes to support addiction treatment programs....

Alan Wirzbicki can be reached at awirzbicki@globe.com.

I'M NOT A PARTY GUY..I BELIEVE IN VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATE, NOT THE PARTY...

JUST SAYING.......

"GUARD THE CHANGE??" - I feel we need to guard the American way of life and many others agree....

I am a firm believer in calling it straight - say it like it is, and you will never worry about being grounded in reality.

The president stated the following in a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus, " It's not surprising that a lot of people may not be feeling that energized or that engaged right now," - REALLY? No - say it isn't so Mr. President.

"The last election was a changing of the guard -- now we need to guard the change" - Which change were you talking about, Mr. President ??? The 95000 people that lost their homes to foreclosure in August 2010 (on top of hundreds of thousands of others who preceded them) - The millions who have slipped into poverty over the last year?? The BILLIONS of $$$ you handed off to Public Employee Unions instead of the majority of job-less workers in America (just for the record, only 7 % of Americans are Union workers) - The change of DOUBLING the National Debt in the short span of your term in office??? IS THAT the "change" you were talking about???

The FACT that more Americans find this man to be wholly unqualified, taking the country in the wrong direction and as partisan as any other President we have ever had, shows that he is just another empty suit who fed the voters a bunch of Bull and asks us to follow him blindly. No way, sir - YOU & your cohorts (Pelosi, Biden, Politano, etc.) make the previous administration look like Brainiacs (no small feat).

We need to guard the American way of life from YOU & your minions....get a grip, Mr. President because you are going to be re-grounded in reality when the American Voters tell you " ENOUGH " by voting down your party in November along with its misguided views of what our country should be.

CHANGE is coming, Sir - that much is certain. Changing your ability to inflict your idiocy upon the American people while still thinking we will believe what you say or blindly follow you down the wrong road.

Obama urges blacks to vote and "guard the change"
By Alister Bull -Reuters– Sun Sep 19, 7:15 am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama, seeking to fire up an important part of his support base ahead of November's elections, told black leaders on Saturday he wanted their support to "guard the change" he was delivering.

"I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, and your workplaces, to your churches, and barbershops, and beauty shops. Tell them we have more work to do. Tell them we can't wait to organize. Tell them that the time for action is now," he told the Congressional Black Caucus.

The words of America's first black president showed a deliberate effort to recapture the enthusiasm that had helped him win the White House in 2008, after polls showed African- Americans much less likely to vote than whites this year.

"It's not surprising that a lot of people may not be feeling that energized or that engaged right now," he told an annual awards ceremony hosted by the organization representing black members of the U.S. Congress.

"A lot of folks may be feeling like politics is something they get involved in every four years when there's a presidential election, but they don't see why they should bother the rest of the time," he said.

Republicans could make big gains in November as high unemployment and slowing growth turns voters away from Obama's Democrats, potentially costing them control of Congress.

A Gallup survey in early September found only 25 percent of blacks had given 'quite a lot' or 'some' thought to the November 2 congressional ballot, compared to 42 percent of whites.

This represents a much larger gap than during the presidential election in 2008, when the two groups were about equal in their intention to cast a ballot.

High turnout in the African-American community, together with the enthusiastic support of young voters, was a striking feature of the 2008 election and an important part of Obama's strategy in securing the White House.

Success in repeating at least part of that performance in the upcoming midterm poll, when voter turnout is traditionally low, could make a big difference to congressional Democrats running in close races. All 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and 37 of 100 Senate seats are up for grabs.

"The last election was a changing of the guard -- now we need to guard the change," Obama said.

The "non-denial denial" is alive and well at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington Post editor Benjamin C. Bradlee with the creation of the phrase " non-denial denial" to describe the evasive Oval Office answers given to the press in response to questions posed to the Nixon White House.

The phrase became more popular when featured by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their 1974 book "All the President's Men" describing evasive statements by then-Attorney General John N. Mitchell.

Now we are seeing history repeat itself, in much the same way based on what was released to the press today. According to Carla Bruni, wife of French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, a new book written in collaboration with Bruni claims that when she asked Michelle Obama how living in the White House was, she replied "Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!"

This statement supposedly took place this March during the Sarkozy visit to Washington. So the immediate response from the White House is the "non-denial denial" from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. 'The words attributed to the First Lady of the United States were never said,' " Gibbs tweeted, linking to a news report saying Michelle Obama denied making the remark.

The whole issue here is that the remark sounds like the conversation that would occur between Michelle and Carla, with FLOTUS never believing that Carla would repeat the remark to anyone. If we take that in connection to her husband's recent remark of " They talk about me like a dog", the remark by FLOTUS sounds like something we would anticipate her saying. There is also no reason for Ms. Bruni to lie about the remark.

Life in the "Goldfish Bowl" that is the White House is likely not fun, and I am sure it must be a terrible burden to bear, always having to be "ON" all the time. BUT how about thinking about how life is more "hellish" for the 95000 families that lost their homes to foreclosure in August 2010?? Or how much life is hell for the families who are living on unemployment and trying to keep from going under ?? or maybe life is more hellish for more than 43 million people that are living in poverty and almost 51 million who have no health insurance coverage. The level of poverty is the highest since 1994 and "the number of people in poverty in 2009 is the largest number in the 51 years for which poverty estimates are available."??? I believe their life is a little more hellish than that of our First Lady.

It is often in unscripted moments when people have let their guard down that you will truly find out who they really are. This seems to be one of those moments and it does state a lot about a FLOTUS - She has a history of this kind of "hoof-in-mouth-disease" stating that when her hubby got the nomination that "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.".

Many might state that there is too much scrutiny of the reported off-the-cuff remark made by FLOTUS but it seems like the White House has paid homage to President Nixon and made him proud by how quick they are to refute any remark or story that could give the public insight into what the OBOT White House really thinks & says. The "non-denial denial " is alive & well in Washington.

Maybe the change that we could use is people who take responsibility for what they say & do, unlike the White House which perpetuates the mistakes of the past by denying what they said when it becomes public.

"HOW DID IT COME TO THIS ??"

The news reported lately has become very discouraging....Not that we didn't face tough times in the past, but the recent issues seem more daunting than the one we faced in our past.

The recent issues ofnote are the economy, recession, unemployment, housing prices, healthcare, the deficit, Mexico, illegal immigration, protests of burring of the Quran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, etc. etc. The pace at which new issues arise is also staggering....each day we have a new issue presented to rival all others.

Our parents lived under the threat of Nuclear War and had the Cold War as a constant companion. An energy crisis and inflation presented great challenges to our country but we were able to work out the issues. Was it easy for them?? No, but they had better leadership and men who took their position seriously and had been raised in simpler times.

The President complained the other day about the issues he has had with his political rivals.

CBS NEWS reported it this way, [ " Rebuilding the middle class, (The President) said, has "meant taking on some powerful interests -- some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time."

"And they're not always happy with me," Mr. Obama added. "They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, it's just -- but it's true."

It was not entirely clear what the president meant by "like a dog." ]

I have written at length about the fact, an indisputable fact, that we have an embarrassing lack of LEADERSHIP in Washington, DC. To compare the political leaders of our past with POTUS, Biden, Pelosi, Reed, and the rest of the Administration & Congress in Washington is frankly embarrassing. I feel that Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR would all be shocked at hearing the President whine about ""They talk about me like a dog." They all took criticism from rivals, even within their own White Houses as part & parcel with the job- They were made of tougher stock and were true leaders - POTUS acts like a petulant 7-year old whining to his parents after not getting picked first for sandlot baseball.

As I was writing this post, the movie " LOTR -The Two Towers " was on in my bedroom. JRR Tolkien's epic story features the Kings of Middle Earth facing an insurmountable evil that threatens to destroy their world and enslave all free men.

Of the three movies, I am drawn to this chapter as it presents the maturing of the characters as they struggle to fight Saruman the White Wizard and his Orc army.

The leader of Rohan is King Theoden. He is a wise and brave leader, who is beset on all sides by the destruction of his kingdom, the loss of his men in battle and the loss of his own son. Theoden displays the LEADERSHIP that we could use today. He is confident but not arrogant - He is wise and not afraid to share the wisdom of his years - He values the lives of the citizens of his kingdom and will do whatever is required. His character is that of a true leader, one who has been tested in battle, listens to the advice of others and places his own needs below the needs of his people.

A pivotal scene occurs just before the battle for Helm's Deep. Theoden is trying to understand what has occurred to bring him & his kingdom to Helm's Deep, to fight this key battle.

He speaks with Gamling, the leader of his Army:

Inside the Great Hall Gamling is helping Theoden to put on his armour

GAMLING: Every villager able to wield a sword has been sent to the armoury. My lord?

THEODEN: Who am l, Gamling?

GAMLING: You are our king, sire.

THEODEN: And do you trust your king?

GAMLING: (places his breast plates on him) Your men, my lord......will follow you to whatever end.

Gamling puts more armour on Theoden. The Uruk-hai are shown marching towards Helms Deep.


THEODEN To whatever end. Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?

The men are seen sharpening swords. The villagers are handed staffs. A boy has a over-sized helmet put on, and another handed a huge axe, which he looks at in disbelief.

THEODEN: They have passed like rain on the mountains. Like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West... ...behind the hills......into Shadow.

THEODEN: How did it come to this?

That is the key question we all are facing - How did it come to this? How did we allow ourselves to be in a position of having an obviously unskilled, incompetent President setting a course for our country, a course that the majority of citizen feel is wrong? How have we allowed him to tell us that while the rest of the world burns our flag, we are in need of another lecture from him? Why is our position in the world seen as WORSE now than when we had GW Bush in office?? All of POTUS' supporters said it was Bush's fault that we were seen poorly, but POTUS' World Apology tour made it only worse for us....the world sees us as weak and unwilling to defend ourselves. The President condemns his critics quickly but fails to condemn out-of-control idiots that riot, kill and burn our flag.

Theoden asked the key question. He understood the nature of the peril he faced. Our President worries more about his own popularity & standing than the fate of millions of Americans who need jobs.

I echo Theoden's words by also asking, " How did it come to this???" - We need to answer the question along with putting in place good leadership and a plan to allow us to beat back the peril marshaling outside the wall's of our own Helm's Deep.

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE??? Thugs overseas burn our flag - Where is the condemnation for their actions from our President????

Nine Years ago today, we were all in shock. The nation & the world watched as the Barbarians stabbed at our heart. They thought we would be mortally wounded, but they were wrong. A Japanese Admiral figured it out right after Japan struck us at Pearl Harbor:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." — Japanese Naval Marshal General Isoroku 12/07/41

Al Qada accomplished the same thing, as they filled us with a "terrible resolve" to rid the world of their filthy existence. We are now 9 years into the struggle to stop these thugs who are trying to use the Muslim Religion as justification for their criminal acts.

On this day, we saw ceremonies and many recall the day. We also saw the media act as Enabler, as a Florida Preacher acted out and stirred up Muslims with the threat (threat) to burn the Quran.

In response, Muslims went out and burnt (as in actually did it, not just threaten to) American Flags. There were many burnt in countries like Pakistan (who we send billions of aid $$$), Afghanistan (where our sons & daughters die in defense of Afghanistan) and England (where the good British citizens had to watch idiots act out on their streets).

MY question is " WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?". A Florida preacher "threatened" to burn the QURAN.....he didn't do it - just threatened to. The idiots overseas in multiple countries mentioned BURNED our flag.....they didn't threaten to, they DID IT! So, I ask again, WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?? Why are our Allies silent??? Why is the Governments of the countries where the flag-burning happened quiet??? WHY isn't the burning of our flag as offensive as a threat to burn their holy book???

Americans and many others should treat this as a greater outrage than a threat to burn the Quran. There should be as much condemnation from our President (a.k.a. Mr. Empty Suit) for the burning of our flag. Instead, he acts like a substitute school teacher who cannot control his classroom and scolds the American people to be patient. MR. PRESIDENT, you SHOULD condemn those idiots overseas burning OUR FLAG as quickly as you are willing to lecture us about tolerance. It is your JOB to defend our symbols, ya know???

WE (America) stand by while we get slapped in the face by idiots who do not represent Muslims, only stupidity. We allow the thugs with guns to act out and we do not punish their actions.

As one who has defended the flag at the risk of my life while in uniform, I AM OUTRAGED. I feel that the actions of these idiots should be reprimanded, and we should show that a "threat" to defile the Quran cannot be a "free-pass" to burn our flag, act out or not be accountable for their actions.

I say hit them where it hurts, take back the aid until the Governments of the Muslim Nations stop these idiots from acting like burning our flag is not as offensive to us as it would be to them if the Preacher in Florida actually burned the Quran.

I'll ask the question again - WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

When every problem looks like a nail...

YUP - President HAMMERHEAD takes on America like we are all a bunch of nails...........and his toolbox is full of nothing but hammers. Let's hope the Voters take away his toolbox in November.

It's all the fault of the American Voters, because you're stupid, uneducated, bigoted, greedy racists....

THIS is the message that the Democrats are sending the voters, if not directly, through their proxies in the media.....columnists and Op-ed writers who support the agenda of the DEMS have been sending this message to us for months....." You just don't get it - you're not sophisticated enough - you're bigoted, etc., etc.

WELL let me clue them in - WE, the American Voters GET IT alright - and from what I have seen of the polls for the upcoming November Elections, the DEMS are really going to get it - In Spades.

I for one, am tired for being lectured by POTUS, FLOTUS, BIDEN, PELOSI, REED, GEITNER, POLITANO, HOLDER and the whole group of pin-heads who think they are the smartest people in the world when I wouldn't put them in charge of a bake sale. They are not only NOT the smartest, they have underestimated the intelligence of the voters along with not being in tune with American Voters values.

Get over yourself Mr. President & Madam Speaker - You aren't doing what the American people want and all the name-calling in the world will not change our opinion of your lame agendas...you'll get the message when the voters make the President a "lame-duck" for the last two years of his term and send Ms. Pelosi out of her lofty perch.....and none too soon.

Colonel Allen West - Let's send a warrior to Congress to teach the Politicians about REAL LEADERSHIP

Florida Politics has never been something that anyone would use for a "role model". After the Debacle that was the 2000 election that showed the world that FLA didn't know what the heck they were doing, I have been skeptical of anything political coming from Florida.

In this case, I will make an exception.

Colonel Allen West is running for Congress and I am fully in support of sending some sharp military men & women to take on the establishment in WASH DC. The past has shown us that those who have been tested in Battle make better leaders than those who only watched from the sidelines.

Case in point being the "empty suit" that occupies the Oval Office. I give you an interview with Colonel Allen West. As the Author so succinctly puts it, GODSPEED Colonel West.

---------------------------------------------------

September 07, 2010

A Candid Talk with Allen West
By James Simpson

Freelance writing doesn't pay much, but a compensating benefit is the opportunity one finds to meet and speak with really interesting people. Congressional candidate Lt. Col. Allen West (USA, Ret.) is one such person, and I interviewed him for this article recently.


Col. West is one of the most promising candidates on the GOP horizon for this election. He is a genuine conservative, unafraid to speak his mind and, more importantly, take action to demonstrate his commitment.


His candidacy has gone national on the strength of his inspiring speeches like this one, this one, this great Tea Party speech here, and his challenge to Democrats here. But many forget, or are not aware of, the controversy that first put him in the national spotlight.


Sent to Iraq in 2003, West's battalion settled in a town north of Baghdad named Taji. West received a tip about a forthcoming ambush. At the behest of interrogators, he questioned an Iraqi detainee, a policeman who had been covertly assisting the enemy. Finding the man uncooperative, West took him outside and discharged his Beretta 9mm service pistol close to the man's head.


The man became very talkative. The ambush was averted, and two insurgents were arrested.


West reported the incident to his superiors immediately. You can hear the story in West's own words here. Of course, the Army denizens of political correctness launched an Article 32 investigation, charged West with assault, and fined him $5,000. I wrote a protest article in support of West. You can read it here.


The Colonel was ultimately able to retire with full benefits, but his career with the Army was essentially finished. At the Article 32 hearing, West was asked whether he would do the same thing again. He responded, "If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."


The Colonel has a way with words.


Wonder if his liberal Democrat opponent, Ron Klein, would have had the stomach to cross that Rubicon? Hmmm...somehow I doubt it. Watch this hilariously transparent speech announcing -- are you ready? -- an April 2010 "welcome home" event in the contested district to honor Vietnam Veterans. Klein says, "Better late than never." Indeed, but one would ask why he waited until 2010! He was elected in 2006. Could it have anything to do with those plummeting poll numbers? In any event, it is pathetic watching a leftist Democrat trying to pretend he's patriotic. Memo to Klein: Don't bother.

According to West, there were no further ambushes in Taji until he was relieved of command in October. Despite the Army's witch hunt, West's actions were enthusiastically supported all across America, but as with the subsequent trials of Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano, the outrageous Haditha trials spurred by the now gratefully deceased Congressman John Murtha (Corrupt D-PA), and the absurd trials of three U.S. Navy SEALs accused of beating up a terrorist, the ordeal revealed how the U.S. military has become an over-lawyered PC swamp. Ultimately, 94 congressmen signed a letter supporting West to the Secretary of the Army.


Anyway, West challenged Klein in 2008 and held him to 55 percent, an amazing feat given that West had little money and little support from the GOP establishment. This time, he is loaded for bear. With $4.3 million in the bank, $1.5 million more than Klein, the Colonel is ready to deliver the "Southern-fried butt-whipping" he has so colorfully promised to Nancy Pelosi and Co.


Simpson: Colonel West, you did not sign Americans for Tax Reform's Taxpayer Protection Pledge. How do you answer people who may be concerned that you are unwilling to commit to no new taxes?


West: As I told Grover Norquist [President of ATR], on July 31, 1982, I took a pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and have put my life on the line since then to demonstrate that commitment. Many politicians sign pledges, then go to Washington and do whatever they want anyway. The American people need to elect candidates they can trust -- people who keep their word. I have been keeping my word to the American people for over 28 years.


I am in favor of lowering taxes and reforming the tax code, preferably to a flat tax. I might also support moving to a national sales tax (the "Fair Tax"), but only if the 16th Amendment were repealed first. Otherwise, the Fair Tax will just become another new tax.


Simpson: I agree. In fact, I wrote an article against the Fair Tax back in 2006, when the idea was getting a lot of play. Many politicians would find the added revenues of a national sales tax too tempting if it were not first preceded by a repeal of the 16th. We would simply get more taxes. Do you believe our current tax system is unconstitutional?


West: I oppose the current "progressive" tax scheme. It contradicts the spirit if not the letter of the Constitution by seeking equality of results rather than equality of opportunity. It accomplishes neither. Instead, it creates destructive class warfare, with an ever-growing dependent class feeding off an increasingly overburdened productive class. This is wrong. Everyone needs to have skin in the game.


Simpson: Can't argue with that. Why do you believe the Democrats persist in promoting this class warfare?


West: As long as people have no skin in the game, they will keep voting themselves raises, and the Democrats are all too willing to demonize the productive class to deliver those raises for votes. However, if the Democrats achieve their ultimate goal, they will not benefit the welfare class, despite all their rhetoric about saving the poor and oppressed. Their real strategy is to throw the country into Socialism, and that will be the downfall of this country.


Simpson: You have enthusiastic support from Tea Partiers. After that answer, it is not hard to see why. What is your opinion of the Tea Party movement?


West: The American people are smart. They get it. The Democrat agenda will turn this country upside-down, and they know it. I know it, too. I have read Alinsky, the Communist Manifesto, I know about the Cloward-Piven strategy.


Simpson: Wow. You may well be the only GOP politician out there who knows about these things -- at least this is the first time I have heard a Republican politician mention them.


West: I don't consider myself a "politician." People are sick of politicians. I think we are called to be statesmen, leaders, and that is what I am. As a leader, I have always believed it is important to understand history, tactics, etc. Sun Tzu said "... if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a thousand battles ... "


Simpson: Amen. You received 76.6 percent of the primary vote against your challenger, David Brady. Congratulations. I hold nothing against anyone who decides they want to seek public office, but it seemed to me he was tilting at windmills, given your significant momentum in the race and national recognition. What was his story?


West: Brady didn't qualify to get his name on the ballot until April of 2010. Despite no name recognition, he was able to collect 4,742 signatures in March [Ed. note: 4,647 were required for Brady to have his name on the ballot]. He spent no money, never filed an FEC report, and no one had ever heard of him. We think that perhaps the opposition was trying to distract us, but we handled it.


Simpson: You had a debate with Brady before the primary on the Joyce Kaufman Show. It drew some clear distinctions between yourself and your opponent, especially with regard to illegal immigration and the Arizona law. Can you talk some about your views on illegal immigration and Arizona's SB 1070?


West: As I said then, I fully support the Arizona law and hope we can get a similar law passed here in Florida. Illegal immigration is about the rule of law. If we don't have the rule of law, then we don't have a republic. Article 1, Section 8 and Article 4, Section 4 both talk about the federal government's responsibility in repelling invasion, and that is what we have. We have to secure our borders. It is a national security issue. The number-one language being learned by terrorists right now is Spanish, and we are finding prayer rugs and translation books all along the border. It is also an economic issue, a health care issue, an education issue, and a criminality issue. But Obama and the Democrats think it is more important to get 12 to 15 million new voters than protect our borders, so it is up to us to take care of matters ourselves. The 10th Amendment provides for this, and I strongly support the Arizona law.


Simpson: I believe you also support making English the official language of the U.S., correct?


West: I do. Making American culture subservient to others is a dangerous consequence of political correctness. Multiculturalism is stripping us of our culture and American exceptionalism. When tolerance becomes a one-way street, it leads to cultural suicide. English should be the official language of the U.S.


Simpson: How do you feel about Obama's health care bill? Are you on board for repeal?


West: Yes. And if we don't have the support necessary to repeal it, then we simply shouldn't fund it. I would support real reform, such as health savings accounts, more competition, and liability reform.


Simpson: I believe this administration is engaged in a war with the American people, or more accurately, our Constitutional republican form of government. I believe all of their legislation is directed to that effort -- in other words, there is nothing worthwhile in the legislation passed since President Obama was elected. Would you support repeal of other legislation -- for example, the financial "reform" passed this July?


West: I would absolutely support repealing all of Obama-passed legislation.


Simpson: Now, if we can only find 289 more Congressmen and 67 Senators of similar mind and backbone, we might be able to save the Republic. I won't be holding my breath... What about criminal investigations? This administration has engaged in many activities that are questionable at best.


West: There is so much. We have seen stimulus monies earmarked for blue states, TARP monies showing up in foreign bank accounts, the administration providing taxpayer dollars to support a Soros-owned oil exploration company drilling off the Brazilian coast while he shuts down drilling in the Gulf...it boggles the mind.


I would support investigations into the many unconstitutional czars this administration has appointed aimed at revealing the kinds of activities they have engaged in. I would support investigations into this administration's interactions with Wall Street cronies, unions, ACORN, and the SEIU.


Simpson: What do you think of Eric Holder?


West: Ever since he called America a "nation of cowards," I have had no regard and no respect for the man. He is pursuing a nefarious "social justice" agenda, and, especially with regard to the Black Panther voter intimidation case, it is unconscionable what he has been doing.


Simpson: What do you think of this administration?


West: This administration, Reid, and Pelosi are all about making people wedded to the federal government.


Simpson: What do you think of President Obama?


West: A community organizer is nothing more than a low-level Socialist agitator, and that is what we have sitting in the White House.


Simpson: Couldn't have said it better myself.


Unfortunately, time ran out before I could discuss Iraq, Afghanistan, and other issues with Col. West. But his message is pretty straightforward. It resonates because he speaks the truth -- powerfully, articulately and unapologetically. This is the kind of leadership America has been dying for, the same need that has inspired the spontaneous explosion of the Tea Party movement. As Col. West said, he is not interested in being a politician, but a statesman, a leader.

Godspeed, Col. West.

For those interested, his website is www.allenwestforcongress.com.

BIG SURPRISE - Oval Office rug gets history wrong...and why this isn't so surprising

“Never neglect details. When everyone's mind is dulled or distracted the leader must be doubly vigilant.” - Colin Powell

It seems as POTUS likely never heard that quote or paid much attention to the details...The hap-hazard way he manages our Country demonstrates that all too clearly.

NOW, we see that even extends to the decor of the Oval Office....The new Oval Office Rug contains 4 quotations around the edge, three from former Presidents, and one attributed to Martin Luther King. And there in lies the problem. The quote in question IS NOT from Martin Luther King BUT RATHER from King quoting a famous Bostonian. Some will blame this on a staffer BUT I find it highly, highly, highly unlikely that the decision of using these specific quotes was left up to a staffer. Not only is this POTUS' fault BUT a biographer who worked with him made the same error.

POTUS was too busy focusing on being in perpetual campaign-mode, taking off on another world apology tour or his next vacation to pay attention to the " details " of how the most important office in the world is decorated - He handled this issue with the same care & attention to detail as all other issues he handles.

This is what I have called a " self-identifier " - It is when someone you observe does something, or acts out in away that tells you all you need to know about who they really are, or what they are really all about. It is something they do that cannot be separated from their true self because it is who they really are.

Way to go POTUS - in this one case, you didn't let us down. You "self-identified" exactly like we expected you to....marvelous.

-------------------------------

Washington Post

Oval Office rug gets history wrong

By Jamie Stiehm
Saturday, September 4, 2010; A17

A mistake has been made in the Oval Office makeover that goes beyond the beige.

President Obama's new presidential rug seemed beyond reproach, with quotations from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. woven along its curved edge.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." According media reports, this quote keeping Obama company on his wheat-colored carpet is from King.

Except it's not a King quote. The words belong to a long-gone Bostonian champion of social progress. His roots in the republic ran so deep that his grandfather commanded the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington.

For the record, Theodore Parker is your man, President Obama. Unless you're fascinated by antebellum American reformers, you may not know of the lyrically gifted Parker, an abolitionist, Unitarian minister and Transcendentalist thinker who foresaw the end of slavery, though he did not live to see emancipation. He died at age 49 in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War.

A century later, during the civil rights movement, King, an admirer of Parker, quoted the Bostonian's lofty prophecy during marches and speeches. Often he'd ask in a refrain, "How long? Not long." He would finish in a flourish: "Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

King made no secret of the author of this idea. As a Baptist preacher on the front lines of racial justice, he regarded Parker, a religious leader, as a kindred spirit.

Yet somehow a mistake was made and magnified in our culture to the point that a New England antebellum abolitionist's words have been enshrined in the Oval Office while attributed to a major 20th-century figure. That is a shame, because the slain civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize laureate was so eloquent in his own right. Obama, who is known for his rhetorical skills, is likely to feel the slight to King -- and Parker.

My investigation into this error led me to David Remnick's biography of Obama, "The Bridge," published this year. Early in the narrative, Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker, presents this as "Barack Obama's favorite quotation." It appears that neither Remnick nor Obama has traced the language to its true source.

Parker said in 1853: "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one. . . . But from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice."

The president is at minimum well-served by Parker's presence in the room. Parker embodied the early 19th-century reformer's passionate zeal for taking on several social causes at once. Many of these reformers were Unitarians or Quakers; some were Transcendentalists. Most courageously, as early as the 1830s, they opposed the laws on slavery and eventually harbored fugitives in the Underground Railroad network of safe houses. Without 30 years of a movement agitating and petitioning for slave emancipation, Lincoln could not have ended slavery with the stroke of a pen in the midst of war. Parker was in the vanguard that laid the social and intellectual groundwork.

The familiar quote from Lincoln woven into Obama's rug is "government of the people, by the people and for the people," the well-known utterance from the close of his Gettysburg Address in 1863.

Funny that in 1850, Parker wrote, "A democracy -- that is a government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people."

Theodore Parker, Oval Office wordmeister for the ages.

Jamie Stiehm, a journalist, is writing a book on the life of Lucretia Mott, a 19th-century abolitionist and women's rights leader.

Taliban paid bounties for kills by Iranian sources - The Sunday Times of London

The knowledge detailed in this news report from The Sunday London Times that Iran is funding the Taliban in such an open and obvious manner is unsettling. Either our present Leadership (Military & White House) are planning an over arching strike on Afghanistan based Iranian Spy networks, hopefully also hastening the downfall of the present Iranian government, thereby ending this funding of the Taliban OR they are so hapless they have not a G-D clue as to what to do, which means we have placed our defense in the hands of a White House that couldn't fight it's way out of a bar-fight, let alone a serious global conflict. If the latter is the issue, it amounts to dereliction of duty by those who are charged with our defense. If the former is being planned, then let it begin sooner rather than later and end the lives of these soulless bastards killing innocents & our soldiers.

The inference here is not regarding our military fighting men & women, who are both valiant & excellent at their chosen profession, but rather the Leadership at the top in the 5-sided Wind Tunnel across the Potomac and the Doofus Empty Suit-in-Charge who is on perpetual campaign-mode or vacation.....I can't remember which.

I am all for taking the fight to the enemy, to hit them where they stand and make them regret the day they decided to take up arms against us. Once again, I must defer to Sir Winston Churchill, who had more knowledge of what to do in these situations in his weakest moments than the whole of all the idiots in WASH DC have combined. His words are important as the Bastards we are fighting mean us no less harm than Hitler & Tojo did in the 40's...They wish to see us & the rest of the free world subjugated to their will.....

" You ask, What is our policy? I will say; “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.”

You ask, What is our aim? I can answer with one word: Victory—victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival. "

Sir Winston Churchill

----------------------------------------------

Taliban paid bounties for kills
Sunday London Times

IRANIAN companies in Kabul are using their offices to covertly finance Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

They are paying bounties of $US1000 ($1090) for killing a US soldier and $US6000 for destroying a military vehicle, a treasurer for the insurgents says.

Afghan intelligence and Taliban sources said at least five front companies, set up in the past six months, provide cash for a network of district Taliban treasurers to pay battlefield expenses and bonuses for killing foreign troops and destroying their vehicles.

The Iranian companies win contracts to supply materials and logistics to Afghans involved in reconstruction. The money often comes in the form of aid from foreign donors.

The profits are transferred through poorly regulated Afghan banks - including the Kabul Bank, which is partly owned by President Hamid Karzai's brother, Mahmood - to Tehran and Dubai.

From these countries, the money returns to Afghanistan through the informal Islamic banking system known as hawala to be dispersed to the Taliban fighters.

"This means the companies involved in funding the insurgency can cover their tracks easily. It makes it harder for us to trace the cashflow," a senior Afghan intelligence officer said.

He said the Iranian companies had been formed with the intention of winning contracts funded by foreign aid so the donors' cash could be channelled into the insurgency.

Western officials believe the network may have been set up by the al-Quds force, an elite branch of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard.

The Iranian embassy in Kabul refused to respond to the claims. But one Taliban treasurer confirmed that Iran was paying bonuses of $US1000 for killing a US soldier and $US6000 for destroying a US military vehicle.

Nobody would have noticed the Taliban treasurer's arrival at an office in Kabul with his assistant in tow: he had dressed in Western clothes and clipped his beard to avoid attracting attention. Directed to a small room furnished with a single table and chair, he was told to wait.

Ten minutes later, he was joined by a smartly suited Iranian businessman carrying a briefcase full of cash.

The treasurer lifted one bundle of notes after another from the case, counting $US18,000 in all. Then he wrapped the money carefully in old clothes and stuffed the bundles into a large sack of flour.

He left the office of the Iranian construction company as unobtrusively as he had come and jumped into a taxi.

After 20 minutes, his assistant emerged into the early August sunshine with the sack, hailing a cab of his own.

The two men met on the outskirts of the capital for their journey home to the neighbouring province of Wardak. There, they handed out the cash to Taliban commanders.

It was the commanders' eagerly awaited reward for killing several Afghan and foreign soldiers when they blew up two local army pick-up trucks and an US armoured vehicle on July 12.

According to the treasurer, he has picked up almost $86,000 in bonuses from the Iranian company in the past six months.

Even larger sums have been collected to pay the wages and expenses of the 200 Taliban fighters in his area: they earn about $245 a month, more than an Afghan police officer or soldier.

The Sunday Times arranged to meet the treasurer through an intermediary with links to the militants. The treasurer, a poor farmer, said he joined the Taliban as a foot soldier four years ago after "seeing the destruction America was bringing to my country". He was taught to read and write last northern winter at a camp near the Iranian city of Isfahan, where he was also trained in basic accountancy.

"It's important for documenting the money," he said. "I have to sign off on all the receipts, and I have to add up how much each fighter deserves after each operation. I also have to communicate in the Iranian language."

The $245 a month paid to each fighter supports their families and covers their living costs and expenses, such as motorcycle fuel and phone cards.

The treasurer moves between his district and Kabul on the orders of the Taliban's provincial governor in Wardak, a shadow of the official post. The shadow governor calls the Iranian company in Kabul and uses code to arrange a time for the money to be picked up.

"I come to Kabul wearing smart clothes. I don't have a beard, I don't wear a turban. I keep a low profile. I have never faced any problems collecting the money," he said.

He parks on the outskirts of the city, takes a taxi to the company offices, where he gives a false name at the gates, and is escorted to the first floor.

"There are lots of computers in the office. It is some kind of construction company. There are about 50 people working at their desks there. Some are Afghans and some are Iranians," he said.

US and British military intelligence have received numerous reports Iran is secretly backing the Taliban fighters. Its support includes supplying components for improvised explosive devices responsible for most of the deaths of NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

A compendium of military intelligence documents sent to WikiLeaks, the whistleblowers' website, and released in July, contains a good deal of raw intelligence about Iranian support for the insurgents, including claims Taliban delegations have visited Iran to procure weapons, that wounded Taliban fighters are treated at hospitals in Tehran, and that fighters are trained at bases in the eastern Iranian city of Birjand.

In May, The Sunday Times revealed how Taliban militants received military training at camps inside Iran. "Iran's support for the Taliban is incredibly discreet and clandestine," one Western official said last week.

"Their purpose is to bleed America on Afghan soil, to act as a thorn in their side. They are playing a very clever double game."

Iran also supports the Karzai government, funding Islamic schools, television stations and candidates in parliamentary elections due next week.

"Iran is basically hedging its bets to ensure political leverage in Afghanistan once the American forces leave," the official said. "It is supporting both sides while trying to do as much damage to America as possible before NATO leaves."

The relationship is particularly striking because the Sunni-dominated Taliban view Iran's Shia population as heretics.

"We don't care who we get money from," said the Taliban treasurer, who agreed it was a marriage of convenience for both sides. "Iran will never stop funding us, because the Americans are dangerous for them as well. I think the hatred is the same from both us and Iran. The money we get is not dirty. It is for jihad."

The Sunday Times