By HOPE YEN - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman on Sunday dismissed criticism a resolution opposing a troop buildup in Iraq would embolden the enemy and estimated perhaps only 20 senators believe President Bush "is headed in the right direction."
"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president _ going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."
COMMENT:
I read this article today and it makes me ask the question: "Why won't President Bush heed the advice of others?" Those generals in the field who spoke up and told the President they disagreed with him were replaced by those that would agree with him. Under immense pressure after this past election, he replaced Rumsfeld "the warmonger" after stating prior to the election that Rumsfeld was there to stay. It seems President Bush is "lost" himself.
I had a spot for people to post comments and as you can see that has been removed for the time being due to a very abusive posting by someone, who admittedly has a stake in this issue as he has a son who just deployed to Iraq, yet he accused me of being Anti-American when I am only exercising my constitutional right to express my opinion on all topics that would be pertinent to this blog. He accused me of supporting a candidate, Senator Obama who would cut off funds for the troops. I would like to correct the gentleman who commented, because Senator Obama has NEVER suggested denying funding for the troops already on the ground in Iraq, as to do so would put them in peril. The commentor needs to do more homework and read exactly what Senator Obama's position is on Iraq before condemning me of being Anti-American. The commentor also discussed, WITHOUT DOING HIS HOMEWORK, the FALSE story planted by a Hillary Clinton backed magazine about Senator Obama's schooling at the AGE OF 6 YEARS OLD in a supposed "terrorist" elementary school. (To show I DO do my homework, here is only one article CORRECTING what is falsly being reported on some anti-Obama blogs - OBMA SCHOOL
CNN instead did their reporting correctly, and sent reporters directly to the school Senator Obama attended and spoke directly to the headmaster who had been there when Senator Obama attended. Senator Obama attended that school for a total of 2 years, kindergarten and 1st grade, and at the time, the school was secular in nature and never ever taught extremist views and does not to this day.
People need to do their homework instead of believing "hate Obama" blogs on the internet who take the easy way by copying false reports and not investigating any further before posting this type of slander against Senator Obama.
Hate, in any form is a cancer that spreads, as in the hate between the religioius sects in Iraq. Senator Obama offers a NEW kind of politics, one where one can discuss various issues, whether you agree with them or not, in a civilized manner. The commentor who posted here would rather HATE than discuss, would rather BASH and repeat false reports than discuss anything in a civilized manner.
For this reason I will hold off allowing comments as I would rather follow the lead of an insightful candidate, and respond to civilized comments, instead of receiving hate filled statements without fact.
Now, I will in fact, stand corrected where I stated in a previous posting that 7 soldiers of the 82Airborne died on their first day in Iraq. I was writing my post while reading an article about the deaths of 7, which has since been corrected to 8 troops who died when their helicopter was shot down in Iraq on one day, 3 days prior to the death of the first casualty from the 82Airbord Division. I stand corrected sir and apologize for this error, but it is to be expected when so many of our wonderful fine soldiers, both men AND women are dying in a war that should never have begun due to the lies told by the Administration. I stand behind my statement of those lies. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Rumsfeld made the case that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and put out those false reports to instill fear in the citizens of the United States so their effort to invade Iraq would not receive critisizm. Now if you call that Anti-American, you are the one who is crazy. I support our troops and want them home but while they are in Iraq I pray for them every single day. I have volunteered countless hours on many many projects for our troops, including, Operation Phone Home, Operation Care Package, and am currently involved in a New York based group who are gathering supplies for Care packages for our troops. So don't attack me as Anti-American sir.
No, I contend it is your racial bias against Senator Obama which brings out the hate in you and you had to sling it at someone, so why not this blog? I pray your son stays safe and comes home before our President escalates it to another war in Iran.
Now if you wish to see the ACTUAL Casulty List here you go! I suggest people read blogs that actually do research and find out the FACTS insteead of those bloggers who pick up "snippits" of information and write about it without the true facts.
I attempt in each post to us FACTS that I have researched but no one can be perfect all the time. I made one error in my post regarding the 82 Airborne and you attack me for making a mistake. So be it.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
OBAMA GAINS KERRY FUNDRAISER
Barack Obama has just landed one of John Kerry’s most important fundraisers: Mark Gorenberg, a California-based venture capitalist who’s a top fundraiser for the Democratic Party, a source has confirmed to Election Central.
Gorenberg is a heavyweight in fundraising circles who’s helped turn San Francisco into a major fundraising source for Democrats. He was a leading fundraiser for Kerry in 2004 as his California finance chair, and also raised more than $1 million for 27 Dem House candidates in 2006, according to the Connecticut Post.
The battle for donors is on, and Obama’s off to a good start.
Gorenberg is a heavyweight in fundraising circles who’s helped turn San Francisco into a major fundraising source for Democrats. He was a leading fundraiser for Kerry in 2004 as his California finance chair, and also raised more than $1 million for 27 Dem House candidates in 2006, according to the Connecticut Post.
The battle for donors is on, and Obama’s off to a good start.
Friday, January 26, 2007
BUSH: "I'M THE DECISION MAKER"
President Bush, on a collision course with Congress over Iraq, said Friday "I'm the decision-maker" about sending more troops to the war. He challenged skeptical lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup.
I gather, President Bush didn't get the memo? The citizens of the United States made a decision in this past election. WE DON'T LIKE WHERE YOU ARE GOING MR. PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO IRAQ! Is this President so deluded that he refuses to listen to the American people, or does he believe we just don't count. That our opinions, our wishes, our votes, have no bearing on his actions? I am tired of this President IGNORING the citizens of the United States and doing as he so pleases.
It will certainly be interesting when some "truth" comes out in the Scooter Libby trial when Vice-President Cheney is forced to testify about the now known, LIES, told by the President and Vice-President in order to obtain a congressional vote to invade Iraq in the first place, making the case that Iraq had WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION, when in fact, they did NOT. Though Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, there are other brutal dictators in this world, are we to attack them all?
No my friends, the word of the day is OIL. I could make the case that the President's true motive was to gain control of the vast oil reserves that Iraq has. Instead of attacking the source of the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept 11 in Aphganistan, where Bin Ladin who has been proven to be behind the attack hides, and shoring up the troop force there and now, due to the complete lack of logistics by our President, the fertile ground in areas of Iraq that are now being used as training grounds for terrorists, he prefers to concentrate the "surge" of troops in Baghdad where he will never ever be able to understand the underlying religious conflict in that city, laying our troops open to further fatalities and injury. On the very first day the first contingent of the 82nd Airborne arrived in Iraq, 7 of the soldiers were killed on the VERY FIRST DAY they were there.
Trying to fix a problem that has existed for thousands of years can not be done and what it DOES do is present a poor reflection on the United States with other countries, emboldens those countries who have posed no threat to us at all to step up their challenge of the US, for instance Iran.
I have always believed, no matter what country, friend or foe, that talking about what we HAVE IN COMMON and building on that interaction to further talks is the better way rather than using troops. President Bush seems to think our American soldiers are his to play around with. Well Mr. President, our soldiers are not a bunch of "beans" you can sit and count and play around with. You have put us in a position of appearing "weak" by withdrawing, and by staying furthering the deaths of our troops.
I appeal to Congress to investigate what was behind the justification of sending in troops to Iraq and if found that the President lied to Congress, he should be held accountable for it.
You took on Impeachment when President Clinton lied about a "sexual dalliance" , yet you allow our current President to lie to the American people and Congress about something much more grave and of greater consequence to our country. It is time to hold him accountable for his actions.
I gather, President Bush didn't get the memo? The citizens of the United States made a decision in this past election. WE DON'T LIKE WHERE YOU ARE GOING MR. PRESIDENT WHEN IT COMES TO IRAQ! Is this President so deluded that he refuses to listen to the American people, or does he believe we just don't count. That our opinions, our wishes, our votes, have no bearing on his actions? I am tired of this President IGNORING the citizens of the United States and doing as he so pleases.
It will certainly be interesting when some "truth" comes out in the Scooter Libby trial when Vice-President Cheney is forced to testify about the now known, LIES, told by the President and Vice-President in order to obtain a congressional vote to invade Iraq in the first place, making the case that Iraq had WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION, when in fact, they did NOT. Though Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, there are other brutal dictators in this world, are we to attack them all?
No my friends, the word of the day is OIL. I could make the case that the President's true motive was to gain control of the vast oil reserves that Iraq has. Instead of attacking the source of the terrorists who attacked the US on Sept 11 in Aphganistan, where Bin Ladin who has been proven to be behind the attack hides, and shoring up the troop force there and now, due to the complete lack of logistics by our President, the fertile ground in areas of Iraq that are now being used as training grounds for terrorists, he prefers to concentrate the "surge" of troops in Baghdad where he will never ever be able to understand the underlying religious conflict in that city, laying our troops open to further fatalities and injury. On the very first day the first contingent of the 82nd Airborne arrived in Iraq, 7 of the soldiers were killed on the VERY FIRST DAY they were there.
Trying to fix a problem that has existed for thousands of years can not be done and what it DOES do is present a poor reflection on the United States with other countries, emboldens those countries who have posed no threat to us at all to step up their challenge of the US, for instance Iran.
I have always believed, no matter what country, friend or foe, that talking about what we HAVE IN COMMON and building on that interaction to further talks is the better way rather than using troops. President Bush seems to think our American soldiers are his to play around with. Well Mr. President, our soldiers are not a bunch of "beans" you can sit and count and play around with. You have put us in a position of appearing "weak" by withdrawing, and by staying furthering the deaths of our troops.
I appeal to Congress to investigate what was behind the justification of sending in troops to Iraq and if found that the President lied to Congress, he should be held accountable for it.
You took on Impeachment when President Clinton lied about a "sexual dalliance" , yet you allow our current President to lie to the American people and Congress about something much more grave and of greater consequence to our country. It is time to hold him accountable for his actions.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON 'MASTER OF DISASTER'
Recently the Fox News with John Gibson discussed the "bomb" dropped on Senator Obama by the Hillary Clinton "machine" regarding his days spent in a school at the AGE OF 6 stating it was a Madrassa (which is a radical Islamic form of the Muslim religion). Here is a quote from that show:
"You know, the Clinton team and the machine, make no mistake, it's still in place. They used to call themselves the masters of disaster. And if Barack Obama gets into the race against Clinton, I think that he can count on no small amount of disaster being forced upon him by running against one of the most effective and one of the most negative political machines ever assembled in this country."
Now, through Investigation, the Washington Post has revealed that this in fact is NOT TRUE regarding Senator Obama's schooling.
Their story today in the Washington Post says the exact opposite directly from the Headmaster of the school. Now remember, this is a Clinton attempt to muddy the waters was 40 YEARS ago when Senator Obama was 6 years old. Senator Clinton's operatives are stopping at nothing to discredit Senator Obama and they are striking early. This to me shows she is truly worried about the threat Senator Obama poses in her STRONG ARMED METHODS to get the White House. She is using OLD TIME DIRTY POLITICS in a day when we would hope that civility and honest discussion would be the way to campaign, allowing the citizens to decide for themselves after hearing where each candidate stands on issues.
We could get down and dirty with Mrs. Clinton, if that is what she so chooses. She has so many skeletons in her closet she couldn't begin to explain them all. What is interesting about Senator Obama is the gentlemanly way he responded to her announcement of her bid for the Presidency, the class he showed in his response should be a guideline for the way Senator Clinton should present herself. The way her MACHINE is working now, she comes across as a demanding, shrill, nasty woman, and not one for any woman to emulate. She I believe needs to rethink her approach because it is not going to gain her any friends from the voters.
And she certainly is keeping hubby Bill hidden right now isn't she. If she can't stand the heat the way to handle it is not to attack another candidate but rather answer some questions about HER that the citizens have. Hillary, your hands are not clean on this one, painting Senator Obama as a "terrorist" by hinting at it by putting out a story that he attended a school when he was 6 YEARS OLD that was radical and it wasn't true. Do your homework next time on who Senator Obama REALLY is.
"You know, the Clinton team and the machine, make no mistake, it's still in place. They used to call themselves the masters of disaster. And if Barack Obama gets into the race against Clinton, I think that he can count on no small amount of disaster being forced upon him by running against one of the most effective and one of the most negative political machines ever assembled in this country."
Now, through Investigation, the Washington Post has revealed that this in fact is NOT TRUE regarding Senator Obama's schooling.
Their story today in the Washington Post says the exact opposite directly from the Headmaster of the school. Now remember, this is a Clinton attempt to muddy the waters was 40 YEARS ago when Senator Obama was 6 years old. Senator Clinton's operatives are stopping at nothing to discredit Senator Obama and they are striking early. This to me shows she is truly worried about the threat Senator Obama poses in her STRONG ARMED METHODS to get the White House. She is using OLD TIME DIRTY POLITICS in a day when we would hope that civility and honest discussion would be the way to campaign, allowing the citizens to decide for themselves after hearing where each candidate stands on issues.
We could get down and dirty with Mrs. Clinton, if that is what she so chooses. She has so many skeletons in her closet she couldn't begin to explain them all. What is interesting about Senator Obama is the gentlemanly way he responded to her announcement of her bid for the Presidency, the class he showed in his response should be a guideline for the way Senator Clinton should present herself. The way her MACHINE is working now, she comes across as a demanding, shrill, nasty woman, and not one for any woman to emulate. She I believe needs to rethink her approach because it is not going to gain her any friends from the voters.
And she certainly is keeping hubby Bill hidden right now isn't she. If she can't stand the heat the way to handle it is not to attack another candidate but rather answer some questions about HER that the citizens have. Hillary, your hands are not clean on this one, painting Senator Obama as a "terrorist" by hinting at it by putting out a story that he attended a school when he was 6 YEARS OLD that was radical and it wasn't true. Do your homework next time on who Senator Obama REALLY is.
Monday, January 22, 2007
TAKING THE 'REAL' PULSE OF NEW YORK VOTERS
I read a couple polling numbers today in the New York papers as I am located just outside NYC and I sure would like to know where they are getting their figures. They "claim" that Senator Clinton leads Senator Obama 53% to his 41%. But then again, this was published in a pro-Clinton newspaper so you figure it out. I don't think I need to spell it out for you.
Now I have spoken with doctors, teachers, the garbage man, secretaries, financial analysts, well people in all walks of life, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and while Senator Clinton is discussed, the interest is in Senator Obama. Although they do express a desire to get to know more about him, Senator Obama if you read this, heed their request? Come visit New York, they are eager to hear from you. I have found most citizens are NOT READY to throw their support behind Senator Clinton, but would like to take a look at Senator Obama.
There are many reasons given as to why they hesitate to support Senator Clinton, chief among them is the fact they do not trust her. This is a result of her WASTING $50 million dollars to ensure her seat, that there would be no doubt she would keep it, AND she had to show big numbers, thereby giving her a secure launching pad for her Presidential bid. Now the citizens of New York I have personally spoken with do not appreciate her WASTE of donations, and yes folks it was a WASTE as she could have won re-election spending a 10th of that amount due to the fact there really wasn't any interesting candidate running for the job that gained much interest of the citizens of the state.
They also express suspicion on the entire progression of events and the calculated move on the part of the Clintons to move to NY to set a base for Senator Clinton. Allow me to explain. First their choice of where to buy a house nestled among the 'rich elite' who are invested in NYC but live in a wealthy little town, a rich enclave amongst themselves. Then their came President Clinton's positioning himself with an office in New York City and his unending appearances at events where the powerful and elitist also attend. Setting a stage you might say for entree for Senator Clinton to gain initial support among the 'monied elite'. Then her first run for Senate with President Clinton using his contacts in the black communities of NYC to shore up her vote in those areas. There was no mistake my friends that President Clinton would have an office in Harlem, therefore allowing Hillary to claim roots in that community therefore gaining the black voter there.
Due to the power of the black vote, and folks, believe me, Senator Clinton does not care one bit about the needs of the inner city. I have witnessed for myself her visits, and believe me, they are just that, visits, photo-ops for her future use so she can show how she 'cares" about the underpriviledged. She could not get out of there fast enough, spending only enough time to get her video and photos, then getting out of Harlem as fast as she could. With Bill stablizing the black vote, it allowed her to concentrate on upper New York thereby winning her election for first term Senator. This has all been calculated since President Clinton left the White House.
She certainly expected some payback for standing by her man while he played with his ladies at the White House. As a matter of fact, Hilary knew all about it, and I have heard reports she herself strong armed a couple ladies. Yes, she has much to hide, but it will all come out.
Senator Clinton, the one behind Whitewater herself. It was HER demand they purchase that land from her friend, yet she stood back denying any knowledge of that fiasco, keeping her hands clean and allowing the President, her husband to take all the heat.
She has been cold and calculating from day one when they arrived in New York State and the citizens of this state since this past election are realizing it. It was not her likability that re-elected her, rather the desire of the citizens to make sure the Democrats gained control of Congress that ensured her re-election. Many are unhappy with the fact of her waste of $50million dollars and then not fulfilling her promise to do a job the citizens of this state hired her to do, be their Senator for 6 more years. She knew before the election she would not want to stay in that job, and used the citizens to her advantage.
This is only part of what I have been hearing. They are unhappy with the way her opinions flipflop according to public outcry. She voted FOR THE WAR, and now puts out a half-hearted demand for withdrawal. She does not take chances, and every single word she utters is "scripted" by her handlers. Her Internet chats should be interesting as I can picture her staff, sitting behind the cameras furiously scribbling replies for her to question posed.
Senator Clinton is OLD POLITICS and do we really want President Clinton sitting in the White House with nothing to do? Hmmmmm should be interesting with a husband you don't know what to do with, with time on his hands to roam around looking for the pretty ladies.
This I DO know. The citizens of New York State are not ready to give her wholehearted support and the state is RIPE for Senator Obama to take away her little prize. I for one will be right there to campaign for him, among thousands of others already signed up to take Senator Clinton's so-called "locked up state" away from her.
Now I have spoken with doctors, teachers, the garbage man, secretaries, financial analysts, well people in all walks of life, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and while Senator Clinton is discussed, the interest is in Senator Obama. Although they do express a desire to get to know more about him, Senator Obama if you read this, heed their request? Come visit New York, they are eager to hear from you. I have found most citizens are NOT READY to throw their support behind Senator Clinton, but would like to take a look at Senator Obama.
There are many reasons given as to why they hesitate to support Senator Clinton, chief among them is the fact they do not trust her. This is a result of her WASTING $50 million dollars to ensure her seat, that there would be no doubt she would keep it, AND she had to show big numbers, thereby giving her a secure launching pad for her Presidential bid. Now the citizens of New York I have personally spoken with do not appreciate her WASTE of donations, and yes folks it was a WASTE as she could have won re-election spending a 10th of that amount due to the fact there really wasn't any interesting candidate running for the job that gained much interest of the citizens of the state.
They also express suspicion on the entire progression of events and the calculated move on the part of the Clintons to move to NY to set a base for Senator Clinton. Allow me to explain. First their choice of where to buy a house nestled among the 'rich elite' who are invested in NYC but live in a wealthy little town, a rich enclave amongst themselves. Then their came President Clinton's positioning himself with an office in New York City and his unending appearances at events where the powerful and elitist also attend. Setting a stage you might say for entree for Senator Clinton to gain initial support among the 'monied elite'. Then her first run for Senate with President Clinton using his contacts in the black communities of NYC to shore up her vote in those areas. There was no mistake my friends that President Clinton would have an office in Harlem, therefore allowing Hillary to claim roots in that community therefore gaining the black voter there.
Due to the power of the black vote, and folks, believe me, Senator Clinton does not care one bit about the needs of the inner city. I have witnessed for myself her visits, and believe me, they are just that, visits, photo-ops for her future use so she can show how she 'cares" about the underpriviledged. She could not get out of there fast enough, spending only enough time to get her video and photos, then getting out of Harlem as fast as she could. With Bill stablizing the black vote, it allowed her to concentrate on upper New York thereby winning her election for first term Senator. This has all been calculated since President Clinton left the White House.
She certainly expected some payback for standing by her man while he played with his ladies at the White House. As a matter of fact, Hilary knew all about it, and I have heard reports she herself strong armed a couple ladies. Yes, she has much to hide, but it will all come out.
Senator Clinton, the one behind Whitewater herself. It was HER demand they purchase that land from her friend, yet she stood back denying any knowledge of that fiasco, keeping her hands clean and allowing the President, her husband to take all the heat.
She has been cold and calculating from day one when they arrived in New York State and the citizens of this state since this past election are realizing it. It was not her likability that re-elected her, rather the desire of the citizens to make sure the Democrats gained control of Congress that ensured her re-election. Many are unhappy with the fact of her waste of $50million dollars and then not fulfilling her promise to do a job the citizens of this state hired her to do, be their Senator for 6 more years. She knew before the election she would not want to stay in that job, and used the citizens to her advantage.
This is only part of what I have been hearing. They are unhappy with the way her opinions flipflop according to public outcry. She voted FOR THE WAR, and now puts out a half-hearted demand for withdrawal. She does not take chances, and every single word she utters is "scripted" by her handlers. Her Internet chats should be interesting as I can picture her staff, sitting behind the cameras furiously scribbling replies for her to question posed.
Senator Clinton is OLD POLITICS and do we really want President Clinton sitting in the White House with nothing to do? Hmmmmm should be interesting with a husband you don't know what to do with, with time on his hands to roam around looking for the pretty ladies.
This I DO know. The citizens of New York State are not ready to give her wholehearted support and the state is RIPE for Senator Obama to take away her little prize. I for one will be right there to campaign for him, among thousands of others already signed up to take Senator Clinton's so-called "locked up state" away from her.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
BUSH'S 'FOLLY' - MORE TROOPS KILLED
US Reinforcements Arrive in Baghdad, Bomb Blasts Kill Seven
By VOA News 21 January 2007
The U.S. military says 3,200 American troops from the 82nd Airborne Division have arrived in Baghdad as the first part of a military buildup to help Iraqi security forces fight sectarian violence.
The troops are to be fully operational by February first. They are the first of about 17,000 reinforcements to be sent to Baghdad as part of President Bush's controversial strategy to stabilize the city.
Violence is continuing in the capital. Police say two bomb blasts in Baghdad have killed at least seven people and wounded about 20.
The U.S. military says four more American soldiers and a Marine were killed on Saturday in Anbar province, west of the capital.
Saturday was one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since 2003.
Twelve American troops died when their helicopter crashed northeast of Baghdad.
Five American soldiers were killed in the Shi'ite holy city Karbala as militia fighters attacked a government building.
Iraqi officials said Sunday that the attackers were dressed in U.S. and Iraqi military uniforms and drove up to the building in black sports utility vehicles like those used by the Americans.
A U.S. spokesman (Brigadier General Vincent Brooks) says the attack occurred as American and Iraqi military officials were meeting to discuss security arrangements for pilgrims arriving in Karbala for a Shi'ite festival Ashura.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters
COMMENTS:
President Bush was warned by generals and many in Congress that a step-up in troops would only lead to more deaths of our military personnel. Yesterday a total of 24 American soldiers were killed in one day. The first group of soldiers sent by President Bush to SECURE BAGHDAD has only served to step UP the violence and kill more of our soldiers. The first attachment of the 82nd Airborne just arriving to beef up security suffered 7 dead on their FIRST day on arrival.
They were attacked by militants dressed up in AMERICAN uniforms and driving OFFICIAL cars. My question, where did they gain access to the American military uniform? The corruption and infiltration of militants into the ranks of both Iraqi military and the police force shows us that they can gain access to OUR military equipment and uniforms.
President Bush has absolutely no CLUE as to what is really happening and it will only serve to further increase the casualty rate of our Armed Forces. This is madness.
I also read an article today discussing the US Senate's attempt to gain full support condemning this step up of troops, yet many Republicans are hindering the process. It would be a disaster if this resolution is not approved, further giving the President the nerve to further his agenda.
Can we hold on until the Presidential Election? One hopes so, but my fear that with the "buzz" words that Bush's minions are using, they want to step up action against Iran, further engolfing our soldiers in a wider war and presenting the United States as a "warmonger" amoung our allies.
Bush goes forward at his own peril for the people of the United States will not stand for his "my way or the highway" attitude. This man is NOT FIT for office.
By VOA News 21 January 2007
The U.S. military says 3,200 American troops from the 82nd Airborne Division have arrived in Baghdad as the first part of a military buildup to help Iraqi security forces fight sectarian violence.
The troops are to be fully operational by February first. They are the first of about 17,000 reinforcements to be sent to Baghdad as part of President Bush's controversial strategy to stabilize the city.
Violence is continuing in the capital. Police say two bomb blasts in Baghdad have killed at least seven people and wounded about 20.
The U.S. military says four more American soldiers and a Marine were killed on Saturday in Anbar province, west of the capital.
Saturday was one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces since 2003.
Twelve American troops died when their helicopter crashed northeast of Baghdad.
Five American soldiers were killed in the Shi'ite holy city Karbala as militia fighters attacked a government building.
Iraqi officials said Sunday that the attackers were dressed in U.S. and Iraqi military uniforms and drove up to the building in black sports utility vehicles like those used by the Americans.
A U.S. spokesman (Brigadier General Vincent Brooks) says the attack occurred as American and Iraqi military officials were meeting to discuss security arrangements for pilgrims arriving in Karbala for a Shi'ite festival Ashura.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters
COMMENTS:
President Bush was warned by generals and many in Congress that a step-up in troops would only lead to more deaths of our military personnel. Yesterday a total of 24 American soldiers were killed in one day. The first group of soldiers sent by President Bush to SECURE BAGHDAD has only served to step UP the violence and kill more of our soldiers. The first attachment of the 82nd Airborne just arriving to beef up security suffered 7 dead on their FIRST day on arrival.
They were attacked by militants dressed up in AMERICAN uniforms and driving OFFICIAL cars. My question, where did they gain access to the American military uniform? The corruption and infiltration of militants into the ranks of both Iraqi military and the police force shows us that they can gain access to OUR military equipment and uniforms.
President Bush has absolutely no CLUE as to what is really happening and it will only serve to further increase the casualty rate of our Armed Forces. This is madness.
I also read an article today discussing the US Senate's attempt to gain full support condemning this step up of troops, yet many Republicans are hindering the process. It would be a disaster if this resolution is not approved, further giving the President the nerve to further his agenda.
Can we hold on until the Presidential Election? One hopes so, but my fear that with the "buzz" words that Bush's minions are using, they want to step up action against Iran, further engolfing our soldiers in a wider war and presenting the United States as a "warmonger" amoung our allies.
Bush goes forward at his own peril for the people of the United States will not stand for his "my way or the highway" attitude. This man is NOT FIT for office.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
HILLARY'S DIRTY DEALINGS
I WAS going to write about something else today, but I am MAD, Mad as hell and I need to vent.
Allow me to explain:
I am a New Yorker, almost my entire life except for some time spent in Boston for school and a short term living in Georgia. I have always voted Democratic, at times not happily given the lack of a better alternate candidate. When I registered to vote, NOWHERE did I have to provide my email address to anyone.
I have NEVER EVER signed up for ANY of Hillary Clinton's websites, nor have I ever ever worked on any of her campaigns here in New York. I am not a fan of hers to say the least.
Now today, I begin receiving emails from her campaign staff about her announcement to run for President. What I personally would like to know is this. EXACTLY HOW DID THEY GET MY EMAIL ADDRESS? The only campaign I have ever signed up for was Senator Obama's.
HOW DID THEY GAIN ACCESS TO SENATOR OBAMA'S DATABASE OF EMAIL VOLUNTEERS? This is a very good question and speaks to the underhanded dealings already of how Hillary Clinton's staff works. I have also received phone calls and I have repeatedly questioned how they got my phone number, and that I was a Senator Obama supporter. Yet they called back again and asked me to consider realigning my support behind Senator Clinton.
I called a couple friends of mine who are helping with our website, and they too received the emails from Senator Clinton and received phone calls. In all the phone calls, they asked this question: Do you think Senator Obama is a Muslim? She may not be publicly making that accusation, but in phone calls they are quietly planting the seed in people's minds. Planting the seed of racism is the worst kind of politics, damning the Muslim community as if they were terrorists, or hinting at it. I have read blogs discussing the time Senator Obama AT THE AGE OF 7 went to a Muslim school so I decided to read up on exactly what the Muslim religion was all about, even though he is not a Muslim, the accusations are there, and being armed with fact is the best defense. Did you know a true Muslim is AGAINST VIOLENCE, that it is a sin?
I WAS going to discuss this issue in today's writing, however, I am very angry that the Clinton machine is hitting hard and dirty on day one of her announcement which shows me they are going to do more of it in the future.
I say to all Senator Obama supports, don't believe the trash talking her staff is going to be doing. If you have a question, ask Senator Obama's staff for facts, not dirty dealings. I knew this was going to happen with Hillary, as that is the way her staff works here in New York. They muscle themselves to gain ground for their candidate, keeping themselves below the radar so that Senator Clinton can say she knows nothing about it.
This is outrageous behavior and I won't tolerate it and I told them so and warned them if they continued to call or email me, I would personally notify the press of their underhanded dealings.
I would like to know this: HOW did Senator Clinton's staff gain access to my personal private information when I never ever provided it to them willingly?
SHAME ON YOU SENATOR CLINTON. This is the dirty dealing old politics at it's worst and is a shameful start to your campaign. And you pretend to be all sweetness and nice in your video you also emailed to me. I don't want to hear it. Take your dirty politics elsewhere. I realize Senator Obama is prepared for this, but his volunteers should not have to suffer the dirty tactics of an old time political machine that will resort to anything for their candidate.
Allow me to explain:
I am a New Yorker, almost my entire life except for some time spent in Boston for school and a short term living in Georgia. I have always voted Democratic, at times not happily given the lack of a better alternate candidate. When I registered to vote, NOWHERE did I have to provide my email address to anyone.
I have NEVER EVER signed up for ANY of Hillary Clinton's websites, nor have I ever ever worked on any of her campaigns here in New York. I am not a fan of hers to say the least.
Now today, I begin receiving emails from her campaign staff about her announcement to run for President. What I personally would like to know is this. EXACTLY HOW DID THEY GET MY EMAIL ADDRESS? The only campaign I have ever signed up for was Senator Obama's.
HOW DID THEY GAIN ACCESS TO SENATOR OBAMA'S DATABASE OF EMAIL VOLUNTEERS? This is a very good question and speaks to the underhanded dealings already of how Hillary Clinton's staff works. I have also received phone calls and I have repeatedly questioned how they got my phone number, and that I was a Senator Obama supporter. Yet they called back again and asked me to consider realigning my support behind Senator Clinton.
I called a couple friends of mine who are helping with our website, and they too received the emails from Senator Clinton and received phone calls. In all the phone calls, they asked this question: Do you think Senator Obama is a Muslim? She may not be publicly making that accusation, but in phone calls they are quietly planting the seed in people's minds. Planting the seed of racism is the worst kind of politics, damning the Muslim community as if they were terrorists, or hinting at it. I have read blogs discussing the time Senator Obama AT THE AGE OF 7 went to a Muslim school so I decided to read up on exactly what the Muslim religion was all about, even though he is not a Muslim, the accusations are there, and being armed with fact is the best defense. Did you know a true Muslim is AGAINST VIOLENCE, that it is a sin?
I WAS going to discuss this issue in today's writing, however, I am very angry that the Clinton machine is hitting hard and dirty on day one of her announcement which shows me they are going to do more of it in the future.
I say to all Senator Obama supports, don't believe the trash talking her staff is going to be doing. If you have a question, ask Senator Obama's staff for facts, not dirty dealings. I knew this was going to happen with Hillary, as that is the way her staff works here in New York. They muscle themselves to gain ground for their candidate, keeping themselves below the radar so that Senator Clinton can say she knows nothing about it.
This is outrageous behavior and I won't tolerate it and I told them so and warned them if they continued to call or email me, I would personally notify the press of their underhanded dealings.
I would like to know this: HOW did Senator Clinton's staff gain access to my personal private information when I never ever provided it to them willingly?
SHAME ON YOU SENATOR CLINTON. This is the dirty dealing old politics at it's worst and is a shameful start to your campaign. And you pretend to be all sweetness and nice in your video you also emailed to me. I don't want to hear it. Take your dirty politics elsewhere. I realize Senator Obama is prepared for this, but his volunteers should not have to suffer the dirty tactics of an old time political machine that will resort to anything for their candidate.
Friday, January 19, 2007
AFRICAN AMERICAN SUPPORT FOR OBAMA - A CHALLENGE
Jesse Jackson: 'All of my heart leans toward Barack'from Alexander Mooney-->
WASHINGTON (CNN) --
Rev. Jesse Jackson, a leader in the African-American community and two-time presidential candidate, told CNN Thursday he is all but certain to endorse Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Illinois, likely bid for the White House."All of my heart leans toward Barack," Jackson said. "He is a next-door neighbor literally. I think he's an extension of our struggle to make this a more perfect union.""I will talk to all of them, but my inclinations are really toward Barack," he added. Jackson also spoke highly of others seeking or likely to seek the Democratic nomination, and said Obama cannot take the African-American base of the party for granted."It will be a feisty, competitive campaign," he said. "I don't think it will be hostile, or nasty, but it will be a very competitive campaign."
COMMENT: In the process of reading many many articles on the issue of Senator Obama's ability to gain the support of the African American citizens, it has been noted that John Edwards is proclaiming that "these are my people" and many southern Black ministers DO support John Edwards but this I believe is due to the fact that Senator Obama has yet to visit and engage with the leaders of the southern communities and allow them to get to know him and where he stands. It is interesting to note, that many well to do WHITE southern voters are more interested in Senator Obama. This is a key issue that Senator Obama needs to address. There does tend to be a discrimmination factor also in play in that Senator Obama is of "mixed race" and African Americans tend to consider this a "minus" factor. Perhaps this is due to predecessors of Senator Obama of mixed race who fail to point with pride of their African heritage, witness golf pro who tells Oprah he is "claynasian", ie, white, asian descent rather than pointing out his African blood. I am speaking of Tiger Woods who fails to embrace his African heritage alienating the Black community.
Yet I feel certain, as Senator Obama visits these states and speaks about how proud he is of his Kenya roots, his journey there to discover his heritage, and his embracing of his African heritage, he can overcome this disadvantage. Southern black ministers do admit that many of their congregation would be likely to vote for Senator Obama, being proud to vote for an African American for President. It is up to Senator Obama to make his case to the African American community. He has a good headstart in that direction and should embrace and instill in the African American communities his pride of heritage, emphasizing his work in poor neighborhoods and his concerns for the working poor. This will go a long way to increasing his odds over Senator Edwards in the South. The Northern Black communities that know more about Senator Obama are more willing to embrace his campaign. The message also needs to be made clear in the South of Senator Obama's pride in Martin Luther King, Jr. and that he considers him a role model. Many in the south know little about Senator Obama and it is key that he spend time in these communities, allowing them to gain confidence in considering voting for him for President.
WASHINGTON (CNN) --
Rev. Jesse Jackson, a leader in the African-American community and two-time presidential candidate, told CNN Thursday he is all but certain to endorse Sen. Barack Obama's, D-Illinois, likely bid for the White House."All of my heart leans toward Barack," Jackson said. "He is a next-door neighbor literally. I think he's an extension of our struggle to make this a more perfect union.""I will talk to all of them, but my inclinations are really toward Barack," he added. Jackson also spoke highly of others seeking or likely to seek the Democratic nomination, and said Obama cannot take the African-American base of the party for granted."It will be a feisty, competitive campaign," he said. "I don't think it will be hostile, or nasty, but it will be a very competitive campaign."
COMMENT: In the process of reading many many articles on the issue of Senator Obama's ability to gain the support of the African American citizens, it has been noted that John Edwards is proclaiming that "these are my people" and many southern Black ministers DO support John Edwards but this I believe is due to the fact that Senator Obama has yet to visit and engage with the leaders of the southern communities and allow them to get to know him and where he stands. It is interesting to note, that many well to do WHITE southern voters are more interested in Senator Obama. This is a key issue that Senator Obama needs to address. There does tend to be a discrimmination factor also in play in that Senator Obama is of "mixed race" and African Americans tend to consider this a "minus" factor. Perhaps this is due to predecessors of Senator Obama of mixed race who fail to point with pride of their African heritage, witness golf pro who tells Oprah he is "claynasian", ie, white, asian descent rather than pointing out his African blood. I am speaking of Tiger Woods who fails to embrace his African heritage alienating the Black community.
Yet I feel certain, as Senator Obama visits these states and speaks about how proud he is of his Kenya roots, his journey there to discover his heritage, and his embracing of his African heritage, he can overcome this disadvantage. Southern black ministers do admit that many of their congregation would be likely to vote for Senator Obama, being proud to vote for an African American for President. It is up to Senator Obama to make his case to the African American community. He has a good headstart in that direction and should embrace and instill in the African American communities his pride of heritage, emphasizing his work in poor neighborhoods and his concerns for the working poor. This will go a long way to increasing his odds over Senator Edwards in the South. The Northern Black communities that know more about Senator Obama are more willing to embrace his campaign. The message also needs to be made clear in the South of Senator Obama's pride in Martin Luther King, Jr. and that he considers him a role model. Many in the south know little about Senator Obama and it is key that he spend time in these communities, allowing them to gain confidence in considering voting for him for President.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
TEN THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT BARACK OBAMA
By Monica Ekman
Posted 1/16/07
Related Links
More from Inside Washington
Compiled by the U.S. News library staff.
1. Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. His first name, Barack, means "blessed" in Swahili and was also his Kenyan father's name.
2. He says he hasn't liked ice cream since working at Baskin-Robbins as a teenager.
3. His childhood nickname was Barry.
4. Obama is the third African-American senator since Reconstruction.
5. He married Michelle Robinson, also a Harvard Law School graduate, who supervised him while he was working as a summer associate in a Chicago law firm. They have two daughters, Malia and Sasha.
6. As an Illinois state senator, he sponsored a bill to require the police to videotape interrogations in capital crime cases. Illinois was the first state to do this.
7. A school in his father's hometown near Lake Victoria in Kenya has been renamed the Senator Barack Obama Secondary School.
8. He loves playing Scrabble.
9. Obama and his wife bought a house on Chicago's South Side in June 2005 for $1.65 million. It has four fireplaces.
10. His heroes are Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Pablo Picasso, and John Coltrane.
Sources:
Current Biography
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Associated Press
Politics in America 2006
COMMENT: I thought this would be an interesting set of new facts about Senator Obama. He doesn't like ICECREAM? Who knew.
BUZZ WORDS FOR BUSH'S AGENDA?
I read this article today and it further enforces my fears over President Bush's agenda regarding Iran. Lately, I have been hearing references by not only the President but also his Press Secretary and others in the Bush "cadre" which should worry all of us. Not only does Bush seek to further engulf us in Iraq's civil war, he is now making threatening gestures towards Iran. Just when will the President stop his push to further blemish the reputation of the United States with his "folly"?
Here is part of the AP article:
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI - Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran(AP) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed back over the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf, saying Thursday that Iran is ready for any possibility in its standoff with the West over its nuclear program.
The president made clear he was not backing down in his tough rhetoric toward the United States, despite criticism at home. At the same time, his top national security official, Ali Larijani, sharply denounced U.S. policy in Iraq, accusing Washington of fueling Shiite-Sunni hatreds.
Washington has accused Iran of backing militants fueling Iraq's violence and has tried to rally its Arab allies in isolating Tehran. The Iraq crisis has increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran amid the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington says aims to produce nuclear weapons.
The United States sent an aircraft carrier, the USS Stennis, to the Gulf this week _ the second to deploy in the region _ a buildup that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.
In an apparent reaction to the deployment, Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy.
Comment: I am truly beginning to worry over this buildup of forces in the Gulf which is antagonizing Iran and pushing them to harden their stance. Instead of using diplomacy, yes, we can talk with our enemies to find "some" common interests which would build on itself to enhance relations with other countries, yet this President seems to feel that "military force" is the only answer to any problem. He refuses to engage in talks to help diffuse the Iran influence in Iraq, refuses to discuss anything at all with Iran. When a country feels threatened, you can bet they will fight back and it appears our President is fully aware of this and is hoping for just that. Congress should get into action and prevent President Bush from further destruction and unrest in the region. Preventing President Bush from escalating things in the region should be at the forefront of Congress's agenda.
Here is part of the AP article:
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI - Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran(AP) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashed back over the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf, saying Thursday that Iran is ready for any possibility in its standoff with the West over its nuclear program.
The president made clear he was not backing down in his tough rhetoric toward the United States, despite criticism at home. At the same time, his top national security official, Ali Larijani, sharply denounced U.S. policy in Iraq, accusing Washington of fueling Shiite-Sunni hatreds.
Washington has accused Iran of backing militants fueling Iraq's violence and has tried to rally its Arab allies in isolating Tehran. The Iraq crisis has increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran amid the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington says aims to produce nuclear weapons.
The United States sent an aircraft carrier, the USS Stennis, to the Gulf this week _ the second to deploy in the region _ a buildup that Defense Secretary Robert Gates said was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.
In an apparent reaction to the deployment, Ahmadinejad vowed Thursday that Iran would not back down over its nuclear program, which Tehran says is being developed only to produce energy.
Comment: I am truly beginning to worry over this buildup of forces in the Gulf which is antagonizing Iran and pushing them to harden their stance. Instead of using diplomacy, yes, we can talk with our enemies to find "some" common interests which would build on itself to enhance relations with other countries, yet this President seems to feel that "military force" is the only answer to any problem. He refuses to engage in talks to help diffuse the Iran influence in Iraq, refuses to discuss anything at all with Iran. When a country feels threatened, you can bet they will fight back and it appears our President is fully aware of this and is hoping for just that. Congress should get into action and prevent President Bush from further destruction and unrest in the region. Preventing President Bush from escalating things in the region should be at the forefront of Congress's agenda.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON- STANCE ON IRAQ SWINGS THE WAY VOTERS ARE FEELING
In doing some research on voting records of potential candidates for the Presidency, I came across Senator Clinton's record on the Iraq war compared to her statements today on CBS News. I will post both for you and YOU decide if Senator Clinton is now backtracking on her original vote. Interesting to note also, I found a ton of NO votes on Energy saving votes which I will go into at another time which Senator Obama states is key to our independence on foreign oil in the future.
Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Bill Number: H J Res 114Issue: Military IssuesDate: 10/11/2002
Sponsor:Rep Hastert, Dennis [IL-14]
Roll Call Number: 237Joint Resolution Adopted (Senate)How members voted
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted YES.
Read statements Senator Clinton made in this general time period. (note: could find no comment made at the time of the vote by Senator Clinton)
Official Title of Legislation:H J Res 114: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:Vote to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Highlights: - Authorizes President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq- Requires President to report to Congress no later than 48 hours after military action has started with his determination that diplomatic efforts alone could not protect U.S. national security nor enforce United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq- Requires President to submit a progress report to Congress every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution House Passage Vote: 10/10/2002: Passed: 296-133 (Roll No. 455)Senate Passage Vote: 10/11/2002: Passed: 77-23. Record Vote Number: 237Presidential Action: 10/16/2002: Signed by President. Became public law #107-243.
COMPARE THE ABOVE TO SENATOR CLINTON'S STATEMENTS TODAY:
By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, fresh from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, said today that she opposes sending more troops to Iraq and supports instead the phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Baghdad.
Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, appeared on morning television programs in making her first comments since President Bush announced plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
"I am for redeploying our troops out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq so that we can make sure that they're not in the midst of a civil war," she said on CBS' Early Show.
The senator said that Bush, in his call for U.S. troops to support Iraqi troops in stemming sectarian violence, "failed to put any leverage" on the Iraqi government.
"I don't think begging a government that has shown no willingness to make tough decisions is a strategy," she said on NBC's Today. She said Washington should threaten to cut off funds for Iraqi troops and for the protection of Iraqi leaders if they do not do make political compromises to win broad support.
She said the United States should make it clear to the Iraqi government that "we're not going to fund an army that doesn't show up half the time, that is more aligned with their sectarian position than with the national identity."
She said the Iraqi government is "waiting us out."
"They intend to do everything they can to impose a particular brand of dominance over the Sunnis, and there's no reason for the Sunni insurgency, therefore, to stop," Clinton said.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Senator Clinton belatedly makes a 2 day trip to Iraq, which Senator Obama did long ago, and now is "a seasoned World Affairs expert? Note to Senator Clinton, you didn't need to make a trip to Iraq, except for your photo "ops", to know the Iraq situation is a mess. I look at this opportunistic trip as just that. You needed photos of you in Iraq because you were sadly lacking in understanding and knowledge of what is REALLY happening over there.
One hopes you will give more in depth consideration before saying YES to the President.
YOU voted FOR the invasion, remember? An invasion that cost us in lives of our soldiers, and cost the Iraqi people, common citizens, to be engulfed in a civil war that shows no sign of abating no matter how many troops President Bush sends over there to die.
Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Bill Number: H J Res 114Issue: Military IssuesDate: 10/11/2002
Sponsor:Rep Hastert, Dennis [IL-14]
Roll Call Number: 237Joint Resolution Adopted (Senate)How members voted
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted YES.
Read statements Senator Clinton made in this general time period. (note: could find no comment made at the time of the vote by Senator Clinton)
Official Title of Legislation:H J Res 114: To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:Vote to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. Highlights: - Authorizes President to use United States Armed Forces against Iraq- Requires President to report to Congress no later than 48 hours after military action has started with his determination that diplomatic efforts alone could not protect U.S. national security nor enforce United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq- Requires President to submit a progress report to Congress every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution House Passage Vote: 10/10/2002: Passed: 296-133 (Roll No. 455)Senate Passage Vote: 10/11/2002: Passed: 77-23. Record Vote Number: 237Presidential Action: 10/16/2002: Signed by President. Became public law #107-243.
COMPARE THE ABOVE TO SENATOR CLINTON'S STATEMENTS TODAY:
By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, fresh from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, said today that she opposes sending more troops to Iraq and supports instead the phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Baghdad.
Clinton, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, appeared on morning television programs in making her first comments since President Bush announced plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
"I am for redeploying our troops out of Baghdad and eventually out of Iraq so that we can make sure that they're not in the midst of a civil war," she said on CBS' Early Show.
The senator said that Bush, in his call for U.S. troops to support Iraqi troops in stemming sectarian violence, "failed to put any leverage" on the Iraqi government.
"I don't think begging a government that has shown no willingness to make tough decisions is a strategy," she said on NBC's Today. She said Washington should threaten to cut off funds for Iraqi troops and for the protection of Iraqi leaders if they do not do make political compromises to win broad support.
She said the United States should make it clear to the Iraqi government that "we're not going to fund an army that doesn't show up half the time, that is more aligned with their sectarian position than with the national identity."
She said the Iraqi government is "waiting us out."
"They intend to do everything they can to impose a particular brand of dominance over the Sunnis, and there's no reason for the Sunni insurgency, therefore, to stop," Clinton said.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Senator Clinton belatedly makes a 2 day trip to Iraq, which Senator Obama did long ago, and now is "a seasoned World Affairs expert? Note to Senator Clinton, you didn't need to make a trip to Iraq, except for your photo "ops", to know the Iraq situation is a mess. I look at this opportunistic trip as just that. You needed photos of you in Iraq because you were sadly lacking in understanding and knowledge of what is REALLY happening over there.
One hopes you will give more in depth consideration before saying YES to the President.
YOU voted FOR the invasion, remember? An invasion that cost us in lives of our soldiers, and cost the Iraqi people, common citizens, to be engulfed in a civil war that shows no sign of abating no matter how many troops President Bush sends over there to die.
DEBUNKING THE MYTH - LIEBERMAN 'NOT' MENTOR
I happened upon comments on the "Huffington Post" where people were stating that Senator Joe Lieberman was a "MENTOR' of Barack Obama, receiving damning comments because of it. This inaccurate information is being spread on the internet by BLOGGERS and is in fact not a factual statement at all. Perhaps they were mislead due to the fact that Senator Obama appeared in Connecticut at a fundraiser for Joe Lieberman's run for the Senate this past election. To understand Senator Obama's appearance, you first need to understand the dynamics occurring in this past election, and the importance Democrats put on winning majority in the House and Senate.
It is common practice for Senators and Representatives alike in BOTH parties, not up for re-election to make appearances in support of the campaigns of those affiliated with their party as they would ask the same when they are running for re-election. In this past election all Representatives were up for re-election, however, the Senate was KEY for the Democrats to win a majority in order to gain control of Congress. There were many key states where funding from the Democratic National Committee was focused, and Senators not up for re-election hit the campaign trail to bolster the campaigns of those they deemed were important Senate races and in need of support.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama was in HIGH demand as a speaker at many fundraisers (which incidentally I feel was important for him to garner support for his Presidential bid). Most Democrats running for Senate lobbied to have Senator Obama come to a fundraising event in their states. Why was he in demand? His popularity and ability to gather larger crowds, thereby raising more money than another speaker would. Connecticut was an important state, one where the Democrat on the ticket was not considered by the majority of Democrats to be their choice, so they elected to help shore up the campaign of Senator Lieberman, as his voice would be an important one in key Senate votes on issues important to us. Senator Lieberman's campaign manager lobbied Senator Obama to appear in Connecticut at a fundraiser. Therefore Senator Obama, on the camaign circuit, did appear and speak at an event in support of Senator Lieberman.
Now I ask you, does a campaign speech therefore conclude that Senator Lieberman is a MENTOR to Senator Obama? Senator Obama has repeatedly stated his willingness to work WITH ALL SIDES on any issue up for discussion in the Senate.
If you research, and read who REALLY is close to Senator Obama (his inner circle), nowhere will you find Joe Lieberman's name. Senator Obama IS cooperating with 2 Republicans and 2 Democrates, Joe Lieberman an Independent is one of them, on the committtee for ethics reform in Congress. This only shows Senator Obama's ability to work within Congress with both parties. He may disagree with them on many issues, but his willingness to hear all sides is a POSITIVE when you look at it and read the facts. But some bloggers seem to take short snippets out of news reports and insert them into their blogs and use it against Senator Obama, as if a campaign stop for a candidate THEY don't like is such a black mark on the reputation of Senator Obama.
As good a tool the Internet is in these days to communicate, witness Senator Obama's announcement being done on the internet, it can at times spread false information which some that read it would believe without doing one second of research in to the facts.
Senator Obama appeared in many states to help campaign and raise funds for Senators running for office this past campaign. You may not like the politics of a Senator who was elected, even though a democrat, but the agreement under the National Democratic Election Committee for sitting Senators to assist the campaigns of others running for office in a KEY election is part of the game and failure to help support a crucial election by failing to help others in your party running for office will leave you adrift next time you are up for re-election, or in this case your campaign for the Presidency.
I suggest that those that would make hasty conclusions based on a bloggers comments, should in fact do their research and find out for themselves more about Senator Obama before believing what is posted by uninformed bloggers.
Editorial note: I have yet in ALL of my research or that of our website team to find a single comment by Senator Obama that he considers Joe Lieberman a "mentor". IF he ever was a mentor, perhaps it was when Senator Obama arrived in Washington as a brand new Senator and wanted to find the bathroom?
It is common practice for Senators and Representatives alike in BOTH parties, not up for re-election to make appearances in support of the campaigns of those affiliated with their party as they would ask the same when they are running for re-election. In this past election all Representatives were up for re-election, however, the Senate was KEY for the Democrats to win a majority in order to gain control of Congress. There were many key states where funding from the Democratic National Committee was focused, and Senators not up for re-election hit the campaign trail to bolster the campaigns of those they deemed were important Senate races and in need of support.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama was in HIGH demand as a speaker at many fundraisers (which incidentally I feel was important for him to garner support for his Presidential bid). Most Democrats running for Senate lobbied to have Senator Obama come to a fundraising event in their states. Why was he in demand? His popularity and ability to gather larger crowds, thereby raising more money than another speaker would. Connecticut was an important state, one where the Democrat on the ticket was not considered by the majority of Democrats to be their choice, so they elected to help shore up the campaign of Senator Lieberman, as his voice would be an important one in key Senate votes on issues important to us. Senator Lieberman's campaign manager lobbied Senator Obama to appear in Connecticut at a fundraiser. Therefore Senator Obama, on the camaign circuit, did appear and speak at an event in support of Senator Lieberman.
Now I ask you, does a campaign speech therefore conclude that Senator Lieberman is a MENTOR to Senator Obama? Senator Obama has repeatedly stated his willingness to work WITH ALL SIDES on any issue up for discussion in the Senate.
If you research, and read who REALLY is close to Senator Obama (his inner circle), nowhere will you find Joe Lieberman's name. Senator Obama IS cooperating with 2 Republicans and 2 Democrates, Joe Lieberman an Independent is one of them, on the committtee for ethics reform in Congress. This only shows Senator Obama's ability to work within Congress with both parties. He may disagree with them on many issues, but his willingness to hear all sides is a POSITIVE when you look at it and read the facts. But some bloggers seem to take short snippets out of news reports and insert them into their blogs and use it against Senator Obama, as if a campaign stop for a candidate THEY don't like is such a black mark on the reputation of Senator Obama.
As good a tool the Internet is in these days to communicate, witness Senator Obama's announcement being done on the internet, it can at times spread false information which some that read it would believe without doing one second of research in to the facts.
Senator Obama appeared in many states to help campaign and raise funds for Senators running for office this past campaign. You may not like the politics of a Senator who was elected, even though a democrat, but the agreement under the National Democratic Election Committee for sitting Senators to assist the campaigns of others running for office in a KEY election is part of the game and failure to help support a crucial election by failing to help others in your party running for office will leave you adrift next time you are up for re-election, or in this case your campaign for the Presidency.
I suggest that those that would make hasty conclusions based on a bloggers comments, should in fact do their research and find out for themselves more about Senator Obama before believing what is posted by uninformed bloggers.
Editorial note: I have yet in ALL of my research or that of our website team to find a single comment by Senator Obama that he considers Joe Lieberman a "mentor". IF he ever was a mentor, perhaps it was when Senator Obama arrived in Washington as a brand new Senator and wanted to find the bathroom?
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
FEB 10 ANNOUNCEMENT TO TAKE PLACE IN SPRINGFIELD, ILLNOIS WHERE LINCOLN LIVED AND WORKED
SPRINGFIELD, Ill.(AP) Barack Obama plans to formally launch his campaign for president in Springfield, the city where Abraham Lincoln lived and worked before being elected the nation's 16th president.
The announcement would come around Lincoln's birthday and help underscore Obama's hope of positioning himself as a uniter who can rise above partisan bickering. Obama, like Lincoln, served in the Illinois General Assembly in Springfield.
Obama said Tuesday that he has formed an exploratory committee to study a presidential bid and will announce his final decision on Feb. 10.
Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, an early advocate of Obama's candidacy, said he has been told the formal announcement is planned for the capital city.
"There's a clear, very significant symbolism there," Hynes said.
Obama, a Democrat, lives in Chicago but may want to avoid reminding voters of that city and its long history of corrupt, insider politics.
An announcement in Springfield would emphasize his legislative experience there and the parallels to Lincoln, who turned a slim political record into a successful presidential campaign and then led the nation through the Civil War.
The city offers several potential backdrops to a presidential announcement: Lincoln's home, his presidential library and the former state capitol where he delivered the famed "house divided" speech.
Obama served eight years in the Illinois Senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
The announcement would come around Lincoln's birthday and help underscore Obama's hope of positioning himself as a uniter who can rise above partisan bickering. Obama, like Lincoln, served in the Illinois General Assembly in Springfield.
Obama said Tuesday that he has formed an exploratory committee to study a presidential bid and will announce his final decision on Feb. 10.
Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, an early advocate of Obama's candidacy, said he has been told the formal announcement is planned for the capital city.
"There's a clear, very significant symbolism there," Hynes said.
Obama, a Democrat, lives in Chicago but may want to avoid reminding voters of that city and its long history of corrupt, insider politics.
An announcement in Springfield would emphasize his legislative experience there and the parallels to Lincoln, who turned a slim political record into a successful presidential campaign and then led the nation through the Civil War.
The city offers several potential backdrops to a presidential announcement: Lincoln's home, his presidential library and the former state capitol where he delivered the famed "house divided" speech.
Obama served eight years in the Illinois Senate before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
OBAMA ANNOUNCES PRESIDENTIAL BID
By NEDRA PICKLER - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday he is taking the initial step in a presidential bid that could make him the nation's first black to occupy the White House.
Obama announced on his Web site, http://www.barackobama.com/, that he was filing a presidential exploratory committee. He said he would announce more about his plans in his home state of Illinois on Feb. 10.
"I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago," Obama said in a video posting. "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics. So I've spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need."
Obama, a little more than two years into his Senate term, is the most inexperienced candidate considering a run for the Democratic nomination, but nonetheless ranks as a top contender. His appeal on the stump, his unique background, his opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that he is a fresh face set him apart in a competitive race that also is expected to include front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Other Democrats who have announced a campaign or exploratory committee are 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Obama tried to turn his biggest weakness _ his lack of experience in national politics _ into an asset.
"The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place," he said.
"America's faced big problems before," he said. "But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions."
WASHINGTON(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday he is taking the initial step in a presidential bid that could make him the nation's first black to occupy the White House.
Obama announced on his Web site, http://www.barackobama.com/, that he was filing a presidential exploratory committee. He said he would announce more about his plans in his home state of Illinois on Feb. 10.
"I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago," Obama said in a video posting. "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics. So I've spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need."
Obama, a little more than two years into his Senate term, is the most inexperienced candidate considering a run for the Democratic nomination, but nonetheless ranks as a top contender. His appeal on the stump, his unique background, his opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that he is a fresh face set him apart in a competitive race that also is expected to include front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Other Democrats who have announced a campaign or exploratory committee are 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Obama tried to turn his biggest weakness _ his lack of experience in national politics _ into an asset.
"The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place," he said.
"America's faced big problems before," he said. "But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions."
OBAMA ANNOUNCES PRESIDENTIAL BID
By NEDRA PICKLER - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday he is taking the initial step in a presidential bid that could make him the nation's first black to occupy the White House.
Obama announced on his Web site, http://www.barackobama.com/, that he was filing a presidential exploratory committee. He said he would announce more about his plans in his home state of Illinois on Feb. 10.
"I certainly didn't expect to find myself in this position a year ago," Obama said in a video posting. "I've been struck by how hungry we all are for a different kind of politics. So I've spent some time thinking about how I could best advance the cause of change and progress that we so desperately need."
Obama, a little more than two years into his Senate term, is the most inexperienced candidate considering a run for the Democratic nomination, but nonetheless ranks as a top contender. His appeal on the stump, his unique background, his opposition to the Iraq war and the fact that he is a fresh face set him apart in a competitive race that also is expected to include front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Other Democrats who have announced a campaign or exploratory committee are 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Obama tried to turn his biggest weakness _ his lack of experience in national politics _ into an asset.
"The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place," he said.
"America's faced big problems before," he said. "But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, commonsense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions."
OBAMA - WITH A MOVIE CREDIT? IT'S TRUE
Wow, it is an interesting experience learning about Senator Obama. Did you know he actually has a movie credit? I didn't. Yep, he appeared in a documentary called "Tanner on Tanner". The following is a list of other well known names who also were in the documentary in 2004. You can find the DVD here . Listed are the names of those who appeared and the parts they played.
Tanner on Tanner (5-Oct-2004)
Director: Robert Altman
Writer: Garry Trudeau
Keywords: Comedy, Mockumentary
Madeleine Albright
Government
15-May-1937
Bill Clinton's Secretary of State
Harry Belafonte
Singer/Songwriter
1-Mar-1927
Calypso singer
Carl Bernstein
Journalist
14-Feb-1944
Broke the Watergate story
Joseph Biden
Politician
20-Nov-1942
US Senator from Delaware
Tom Brokaw
Journalist
6-Feb-1940
Former anchor, NBC Nightly News
Steve Buscemi
Actor
13-Dec-1957
Reservoir Dogs
Jimmy Carter
Head of State
1-Oct-1924
39th US President, 1977-81
Max Cleland
Politician
24-Aug-1942
US Senator from Georgia, 1997-2003
Bill Clinton
Head of State
19-Aug-1946
42nd US President, 1993-2001
Mario Cuomo
Politician
15-Jun-1932
Governor of New York, 1983-95
Gray Davis
Politician
26-Dec-1942
Governor of California, 1999-2003
Howard Dean
Politician
17-Nov-1948
Chairman of the Democratic Party
Michael Dukakis
Politician
3-Nov-1933
Former governor of Massachusetts
Al Franken
Comic
21-May-1951
Bow-tied pundit and ex-SNL player
Janeane Garofalo
Comic
28-Sep-1964
Actor, Comedian, Author, Activist
Dick Gephardt
Politician
31-Jan-1941
Congressman from Missouri, 1977-2005
Al Gore
Politician
31-Mar-1948
US Vice President under Clinton
Ed Helms
Comic
24-Jan-1974
Senior correspondent, The Daily Show
Jesse Jackson
Activist
8-Oct-1941
Rainbow Coalition
John Kerry
Politician
11-Dec-1943
US Senator from Massachusetts
Joseph Lieberman
Politician
24-Feb-1942
US Senator from Connecticut
Chris Matthews
Talk Show Host
17-Dec-1945
Hardball with Chris Matthews
John Cougar Mellencamp
Singer/Songwriter
7-Oct-1951
Jack and Diane
Dina Merrill
Actor
9-Dec-1925
EF Hutton heiress and actress
Michael Moore
Film Director
23-Apr-1954
Fahrenheit 9/11
Michael Murphy
Actor
05-May-1938
An Unmarried Woman
Dee Dee Myers
Government
1-Sep-1961
Bill Clinton's press secretary
Cynthia Nixon
Actor
9-Apr-1966
Miranda (the redhead) on Sex and the City
Barack Obama
Politician
4-Aug-1961
US Senator from Illinois
John Podesta
Government
?
Ex-Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff
Ron Reagan
Relative
28-May-1958
Son of Ronald Reagan
Robert Redford
Actor
18-Aug-1936
The Sundance Kid
Charlie Rose
Talk Show Host
5-Jan-1942
60 Minutes, Charlie Rose Show
Martin Scorsese
Film Director
17-Nov-1942
Taxi Driver
Al Sharpton
Activist
3-Oct-1954
Reverend, Presidential hopeful
Tanner on Tanner (5-Oct-2004)
Director: Robert Altman
Writer: Garry Trudeau
Keywords: Comedy, Mockumentary
Madeleine Albright
Government
15-May-1937
Bill Clinton's Secretary of State
Harry Belafonte
Singer/Songwriter
1-Mar-1927
Calypso singer
Carl Bernstein
Journalist
14-Feb-1944
Broke the Watergate story
Joseph Biden
Politician
20-Nov-1942
US Senator from Delaware
Tom Brokaw
Journalist
6-Feb-1940
Former anchor, NBC Nightly News
Steve Buscemi
Actor
13-Dec-1957
Reservoir Dogs
Jimmy Carter
Head of State
1-Oct-1924
39th US President, 1977-81
Max Cleland
Politician
24-Aug-1942
US Senator from Georgia, 1997-2003
Bill Clinton
Head of State
19-Aug-1946
42nd US President, 1993-2001
Mario Cuomo
Politician
15-Jun-1932
Governor of New York, 1983-95
Gray Davis
Politician
26-Dec-1942
Governor of California, 1999-2003
Howard Dean
Politician
17-Nov-1948
Chairman of the Democratic Party
Michael Dukakis
Politician
3-Nov-1933
Former governor of Massachusetts
Al Franken
Comic
21-May-1951
Bow-tied pundit and ex-SNL player
Janeane Garofalo
Comic
28-Sep-1964
Actor, Comedian, Author, Activist
Dick Gephardt
Politician
31-Jan-1941
Congressman from Missouri, 1977-2005
Al Gore
Politician
31-Mar-1948
US Vice President under Clinton
Ed Helms
Comic
24-Jan-1974
Senior correspondent, The Daily Show
Jesse Jackson
Activist
8-Oct-1941
Rainbow Coalition
John Kerry
Politician
11-Dec-1943
US Senator from Massachusetts
Joseph Lieberman
Politician
24-Feb-1942
US Senator from Connecticut
Chris Matthews
Talk Show Host
17-Dec-1945
Hardball with Chris Matthews
John Cougar Mellencamp
Singer/Songwriter
7-Oct-1951
Jack and Diane
Dina Merrill
Actor
9-Dec-1925
EF Hutton heiress and actress
Michael Moore
Film Director
23-Apr-1954
Fahrenheit 9/11
Michael Murphy
Actor
05-May-1938
An Unmarried Woman
Dee Dee Myers
Government
1-Sep-1961
Bill Clinton's press secretary
Cynthia Nixon
Actor
9-Apr-1966
Miranda (the redhead) on Sex and the City
Barack Obama
Politician
4-Aug-1961
US Senator from Illinois
John Podesta
Government
?
Ex-Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff
Ron Reagan
Relative
28-May-1958
Son of Ronald Reagan
Robert Redford
Actor
18-Aug-1936
The Sundance Kid
Charlie Rose
Talk Show Host
5-Jan-1942
60 Minutes, Charlie Rose Show
Martin Scorsese
Film Director
17-Nov-1942
Taxi Driver
Al Sharpton
Activist
3-Oct-1954
Reverend, Presidential hopeful
OBAMA 'GOSSIP'
List this under "gossip"
Inside sources say Senator Obama is expected to announce this week, maybe as soon as tomorrow his formation of his exploratory committee. Interesting to note, Oprah still has not posted who her guest will be on her website, (see, www.oprah.com) She has made no secret of the fact she fully supports his campaign and it would be an interesting way for Senator Obama to announce he is a candidate, and provide for some question and answers from the audience. It would be a great way for him to show his ability to communicate with an audience and "hit the trail running" as Senator Clinton's politico's here in New York are poised to attack him on all fronts.
OPINION
I have personally seen Senator Clinton in person "attempting" to be "real" and communicate with we "normal middle class" sort, and I can attest that she comes across as unapproachable and "cold". The contrast between the two is easy to see and their first debate will most certainly be an interesting one. The classy gentleman, gently trying to discuss issues, and Senator Clinton coming across as "hard" and unyielding in her views.
That is the issue I have with Senator Clinton. She is not one to want to listen to others, but rather she has her point of view on issues and sticks to scripted "talking points" while Senator Obama's style is more casual, and he doesn't like to use scripted "talking points", but rather discusses issues in sessions with his team, accepting input from all sides of an issue, forms his opinions, and talks without a script.
I listened yesterday to the news networks and focused in on a discussion on MSNBC about the differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. One "pundit" offered up that Senator Obama has yet to be "vetted". Now, exactly what does THAT mean. They did not explain themselves but showed a hint of where they will attack Senator Obama, the fact he has only been a Senator for 2 years You can be sure the "bloodletting" will begin hard, fast and furious once he makes his announcement, but I have faith in Senator Obama's ability to forthrightly handle any question and I suspect he will respond to attacks with truth and let the people decide.
The only issue I have is the fact, many voters do not read information and true fact about a candidate and pay more attention to "dirty political ads" and as they would a gossip rag, think it is the truth. That is what dirty politics does. They don't want the citizen to find the truth of any attack, they would prefer you believe "sound bites" of 30 or 60 second ads. It is already spreading on the web that Senator Obama is a Muslim, which he is NOT, but his father was who has since passed away. Senator Obama has had an interesting past which he lays out truthfully in his two books.
We in New York know a few dirty little secrets of Senator Clinton, but as Senator Obama says, it is time for a more civil and clean campaign rather than the old time politics of attack. I could post all the info I know about Mrs. Clinton on the web and get the gossip started, but I prefer to take a higher road and discuss her stance on the issues, and the fact I hate the way they have moulded her to fit what they consider a "cookie cutter" candidate. Everything down to the type of shoes she wears is carefully "vetted" to make sure it is in line with "photo op" situations.
You may ask then why did I vote for her re-election as a Senator? Well, they really didn't offer an alternative candidate I agreed with on some issues, and I have to admit, she does make a good senator, exactly because she is so hard and down and dirty. She can go head to head with any man in the Senate which is what we need to get bills passed. However, her weakness is the fact she does not come across as "real" or truly concerned about the neediest of our citizens and to this writer, this is a HUGE weakness I see so far. She does her "photo ops" but she truly does not really seem to bridge the gap between her wealthy lifestyle and a true understanding of the needs of the lower middle class and the poor and homeless.
Inside sources say Senator Obama is expected to announce this week, maybe as soon as tomorrow his formation of his exploratory committee. Interesting to note, Oprah still has not posted who her guest will be on her website, (see, www.oprah.com) She has made no secret of the fact she fully supports his campaign and it would be an interesting way for Senator Obama to announce he is a candidate, and provide for some question and answers from the audience. It would be a great way for him to show his ability to communicate with an audience and "hit the trail running" as Senator Clinton's politico's here in New York are poised to attack him on all fronts.
OPINION
I have personally seen Senator Clinton in person "attempting" to be "real" and communicate with we "normal middle class" sort, and I can attest that she comes across as unapproachable and "cold". The contrast between the two is easy to see and their first debate will most certainly be an interesting one. The classy gentleman, gently trying to discuss issues, and Senator Clinton coming across as "hard" and unyielding in her views.
That is the issue I have with Senator Clinton. She is not one to want to listen to others, but rather she has her point of view on issues and sticks to scripted "talking points" while Senator Obama's style is more casual, and he doesn't like to use scripted "talking points", but rather discusses issues in sessions with his team, accepting input from all sides of an issue, forms his opinions, and talks without a script.
I listened yesterday to the news networks and focused in on a discussion on MSNBC about the differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. One "pundit" offered up that Senator Obama has yet to be "vetted". Now, exactly what does THAT mean. They did not explain themselves but showed a hint of where they will attack Senator Obama, the fact he has only been a Senator for 2 years You can be sure the "bloodletting" will begin hard, fast and furious once he makes his announcement, but I have faith in Senator Obama's ability to forthrightly handle any question and I suspect he will respond to attacks with truth and let the people decide.
The only issue I have is the fact, many voters do not read information and true fact about a candidate and pay more attention to "dirty political ads" and as they would a gossip rag, think it is the truth. That is what dirty politics does. They don't want the citizen to find the truth of any attack, they would prefer you believe "sound bites" of 30 or 60 second ads. It is already spreading on the web that Senator Obama is a Muslim, which he is NOT, but his father was who has since passed away. Senator Obama has had an interesting past which he lays out truthfully in his two books.
We in New York know a few dirty little secrets of Senator Clinton, but as Senator Obama says, it is time for a more civil and clean campaign rather than the old time politics of attack. I could post all the info I know about Mrs. Clinton on the web and get the gossip started, but I prefer to take a higher road and discuss her stance on the issues, and the fact I hate the way they have moulded her to fit what they consider a "cookie cutter" candidate. Everything down to the type of shoes she wears is carefully "vetted" to make sure it is in line with "photo op" situations.
You may ask then why did I vote for her re-election as a Senator? Well, they really didn't offer an alternative candidate I agreed with on some issues, and I have to admit, she does make a good senator, exactly because she is so hard and down and dirty. She can go head to head with any man in the Senate which is what we need to get bills passed. However, her weakness is the fact she does not come across as "real" or truly concerned about the neediest of our citizens and to this writer, this is a HUGE weakness I see so far. She does her "photo ops" but she truly does not really seem to bridge the gap between her wealthy lifestyle and a true understanding of the needs of the lower middle class and the poor and homeless.
BARACK OBAMA: READY FOR CLOSE-UP
I found this interesting article while browsing the web. I thought it might be interesting reading. Edward Norton is reported to be a huge supporter of Senator Obama and has reportedly stated he would campaign vigorously for the candidate. Expect to see him on the campaign trail along with other high profile Hollywood types. The article was written on 12/21 but hits the mark in their speculation of a Senator Obama run for President. An interesting read.
Barack Obama: Ready for Close-Up
By Roger Friedman (Fox News)
Barack Obama is a senator, a bestselling author and a possible candidate for the presidency of the United States.
So it only makes sense that movie star is the next career he has to conquer.
Sources tell me that Obama has been filmed for months and will continue to be, all part of a project to make him the star of a documentary about himself.
The filmmaker, I’m told, is Amy Rice, a freelance cinematographer who’s been following Obama around for some time.
Barack Obama is a senator, a bestselling author and a possible candidate for the presidency of the United States.
So it only makes sense that movie star is the next career he has to conquer.
Sources tell me that Obama has been filmed for months and will continue to be, all part of a project to make him the star of a documentary about himself.
The filmmaker, I’m told, is Amy Rice, a freelance cinematographer who’s been following Obama around for some time.
The filmmaker, I’m told, is Amy Rice, a freelance cinematographer who’s been following Obama around for some time.
Rice, from Oklahoma City, lost her brother David, an investment banker, in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. Her brother Andrew Rice worked for the BBC out of Canada at the time.
But after Sept. 11, according to published reports, Andrew Rice became politicized. This year he ran as a Democratic candidate for the Oklahoma State Senate District 46 seat vacated by Sen. Bernest Cain — and won. His campaign was helped because the Rices’ father, Hugh, is a prominent Oklahoma City attorney.
Rice, from Oklahoma City, lost her brother David, an investment banker, in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. Her brother Andrew Rice worked for the BBC out of Canada at the time.
But after Sept. 11, according to published reports, Andrew Rice became politicized. This year he ran as a Democratic candidate for the Oklahoma State Senate District 46 seat vacated by Sen. Bernest Cain — and won. His campaign was helped because the Rices’ father, Hugh, is a prominent Oklahoma City attorney.
What kind of makes Amy Rice’s story even more interesting is that apparently the knockout blonde’s backer on the project is said to be actor Edward Norton, the Oscar nominee and current star of "The Painted Veil."
Norton isn’t her only actor friend. Last year, Rice was photographed at a red carpet premiere as the date of Ron Eldard, former boyfriend of Julianna Margulies.
Amy’s New York friends have also kicked in for her brother. Last March, Norton and a bunch of New York-based “next generation” actors including Paul Rudd, Janeane Garofalo and Fred Weller held a fundraiser for Andrew Rice at a Manhattan watering hole.
It’s good to have friends in the right places, since few would-be Oklahoma state senators get such treatment in either party. Or, make that none.
Norton isn’t her only actor friend. Last year, Rice was photographed at a red carpet premiere as the date of Ron Eldard, former boyfriend of Julianna Margulies.
Amy’s New York friends have also kicked in for her brother. Last March, Norton and a bunch of New York-based “next generation” actors including Paul Rudd, Janeane Garofalo and Fred Weller held a fundraiser for Andrew Rice at a Manhattan watering hole.
It’s good to have friends in the right places, since few would-be Oklahoma state senators get such treatment in either party. Or, make that none.
So stay tuned, because Barack Obama may yet get his own “Inconvenient Truth.” And thanks to his filmmaker, he may pick up a whole cadre of Hollywood types at the same time
Monday, January 15, 2007
OBAMA A HIT AS HE HONORS MLK
Obama a hit as he honors MLK; no presidential announcement
By ASHLEY M. HEHER
Associated Press Writer
Published January 15, 2007, 10:00 AM CST
CHICAGO -- Sen. Barack Obama was a hit Monday at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition breakfast honoring Martin Luther King Jr. even if he didn't deliver what much of the crowd clearly wanted: a declaration that he will run for president.
He emphasized later that he was "not making news today."
Obama received a standing ovation at the annual King scholarship breakfast when the Rev. Jesse Jackson introduced him with an approving reference to the Illinois Democrat's presidential aspirations.
"It's a long, nonstop line between the march in Selma in 1965 and the inauguration in Washington in 2009," said Jackson, the coalition's founder and a one-time presidential candidate himself.
Obama said thinking of the slain civil rights leader's life was humbling, and added: "I've gotten a little attention lately, but the fact of the matter is all I do is stand on the shoulders of others."
He noted that King was six years younger than he is now when he was assassinated in 1968 at age 39.
"Whatever challenges we face are nothing like the challenges our parents and grandparents faced," Obama said. "The torch has been passed to this generation, but we haven't always taken it up. We haven't pushed the boundaries of what is possible. We have much more work to do."
The crowd enthusiastically applauded and cheered his remarks.
Later, in an address at a King remembrance service at St. Mark's Church in suburban Harvey, Obama said: "I'm not making news today. I'm not here to make news. There will be a time for that."
The first-term senator has gained national attention since 2005 when he was sworn into office. He recently has made appearances in key primary states and according to several Democrats, he also has hired policy, research and press staff for a campaign to be run from Chicago.
On CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Obama said he'll announce a decision about whether to launch a presidential bid "fairly soon."
By ASHLEY M. HEHER
Associated Press Writer
Published January 15, 2007, 10:00 AM CST
CHICAGO -- Sen. Barack Obama was a hit Monday at a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition breakfast honoring Martin Luther King Jr. even if he didn't deliver what much of the crowd clearly wanted: a declaration that he will run for president.
He emphasized later that he was "not making news today."
Obama received a standing ovation at the annual King scholarship breakfast when the Rev. Jesse Jackson introduced him with an approving reference to the Illinois Democrat's presidential aspirations.
"It's a long, nonstop line between the march in Selma in 1965 and the inauguration in Washington in 2009," said Jackson, the coalition's founder and a one-time presidential candidate himself.
Obama said thinking of the slain civil rights leader's life was humbling, and added: "I've gotten a little attention lately, but the fact of the matter is all I do is stand on the shoulders of others."
He noted that King was six years younger than he is now when he was assassinated in 1968 at age 39.
"Whatever challenges we face are nothing like the challenges our parents and grandparents faced," Obama said. "The torch has been passed to this generation, but we haven't always taken it up. We haven't pushed the boundaries of what is possible. We have much more work to do."
The crowd enthusiastically applauded and cheered his remarks.
Later, in an address at a King remembrance service at St. Mark's Church in suburban Harvey, Obama said: "I'm not making news today. I'm not here to make news. There will be a time for that."
The first-term senator has gained national attention since 2005 when he was sworn into office. He recently has made appearances in key primary states and according to several Democrats, he also has hired policy, research and press staff for a campaign to be run from Chicago.
On CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Obama said he'll announce a decision about whether to launch a presidential bid "fairly soon."
SCOOP - OBAMA TO ANNOUNCE THIS WEEK
MSNBC is reporting that "inside" sources are stating that Senator Barack Obama will be announcing the formation of his "exploratory" committe for his run for the Presidency this week. ( Filing of these papers are a requirement so that Senator Obama may begin accepting donations for his campaign.)
With his speech today in the suburbs of Chicago at a Baptist church celebrating MLK day, this looks like a lead up to Senator Obama's announcement. Where and when the announcement will be made is still unknown. Curious to note, the Wednesday Oprah show still shows a TBA for who will be her guest on that particular show. Being that Oprah is a huge supporter of Senator Obama and has encouraged him to run it would not surprise this writer if she invites the Senator on her show this week while he is in Chicago. A more likely scenerio would be an announcement at the location of where his campaign headquarters will be located in Chicago.
This writer eagerly awaits the announcement. Stay tuned folks......
With his speech today in the suburbs of Chicago at a Baptist church celebrating MLK day, this looks like a lead up to Senator Obama's announcement. Where and when the announcement will be made is still unknown. Curious to note, the Wednesday Oprah show still shows a TBA for who will be her guest on that particular show. Being that Oprah is a huge supporter of Senator Obama and has encouraged him to run it would not surprise this writer if she invites the Senator on her show this week while he is in Chicago. A more likely scenerio would be an announcement at the location of where his campaign headquarters will be located in Chicago.
This writer eagerly awaits the announcement. Stay tuned folks......
(I found this wonderful video by a great organization which I think is appropriate to showcase today)
Sunday, January 14, 2007
WHAT I SEE IN OBAMA'S EYES
WHAT I SEE IN OBAMA’S EYES
I once read an article Barack Obama wrote called “What I see in Lincoln’s eyes”. This article stayed in my thoughts and I began to think about what I saw in Barack Obama’s eyes.
His face when serious has a thoughtful look in his eyes. At times, hours of work show the tiredness etched in the lines of his face. It is an entirely different look then when he smiles. The serious Barack has a faraway look in his eyes, showing him deep in thought as he measures his words as if he was thinking about his words as he said them.
When he smiles, the twinkle springs up into his eyes, showing joy and happiness in his work. The smile is broad, crinkling up his face into a look of happiness and may I say it, fun? Is there such a thing as a serious minded man, in a position of political power who can be fun? Barack Obama can. I am beginning to think he can be anything he wants to be.
This serious minded man is one who looks to understand all sides of an argument, deeply exploring all aspects before speaking. You see it in his serious face, the one with the thoughtful eyes.
When I looked at the serious minded man, I gain a sense of trust for this is not a man to act hastily or without deep thought. It reassures and at the same time instills hope. When he speaks it is as if he is speaking directly to you and not to the multitude giving you a sense of what ever walk in life you belong, he would sit down with you and answer your questions in a direct truthful way.
I see honesty and integrity in these eyes of this man, yet in his smile I see the joy in his work and family and his life.
There is a sense about this man of future greatness. An instinct one feels when you look in those eyes that here is a man for the time.
What I see in Obama’s eyes? I see hope, hope for all of us in the future of our country. This brings excitement to my soul and a sense we are witnessing another chapter in our glorious history in this country.
The comparison between Lincoln and Obama is profound. Though Obama is a highly educated man, they both had that ability to instill in others a feeling of trust and integrity. They both faced a country in turmoil, yet thoughtfully examined each issue, hearing from all before making a decision. This is democracy in action. As I compare the two pictures of Lincoln and Obama, you can see the same lines in the face, and the same serious eyes,
I look to the future of our country and feel the promise on the horizon that awaits us with Obama as our President leading us to work together to solve our country’s problems and restoring the reputation of our country in the world community. This is the promise I see in Obama’s eyes. The promise of our future.
I once read an article Barack Obama wrote called “What I see in Lincoln’s eyes”. This article stayed in my thoughts and I began to think about what I saw in Barack Obama’s eyes.
His face when serious has a thoughtful look in his eyes. At times, hours of work show the tiredness etched in the lines of his face. It is an entirely different look then when he smiles. The serious Barack has a faraway look in his eyes, showing him deep in thought as he measures his words as if he was thinking about his words as he said them.
When he smiles, the twinkle springs up into his eyes, showing joy and happiness in his work. The smile is broad, crinkling up his face into a look of happiness and may I say it, fun? Is there such a thing as a serious minded man, in a position of political power who can be fun? Barack Obama can. I am beginning to think he can be anything he wants to be.
This serious minded man is one who looks to understand all sides of an argument, deeply exploring all aspects before speaking. You see it in his serious face, the one with the thoughtful eyes.
When I looked at the serious minded man, I gain a sense of trust for this is not a man to act hastily or without deep thought. It reassures and at the same time instills hope. When he speaks it is as if he is speaking directly to you and not to the multitude giving you a sense of what ever walk in life you belong, he would sit down with you and answer your questions in a direct truthful way.
I see honesty and integrity in these eyes of this man, yet in his smile I see the joy in his work and family and his life.
There is a sense about this man of future greatness. An instinct one feels when you look in those eyes that here is a man for the time.
What I see in Obama’s eyes? I see hope, hope for all of us in the future of our country. This brings excitement to my soul and a sense we are witnessing another chapter in our glorious history in this country.
The comparison between Lincoln and Obama is profound. Though Obama is a highly educated man, they both had that ability to instill in others a feeling of trust and integrity. They both faced a country in turmoil, yet thoughtfully examined each issue, hearing from all before making a decision. This is democracy in action. As I compare the two pictures of Lincoln and Obama, you can see the same lines in the face, and the same serious eyes,
I look to the future of our country and feel the promise on the horizon that awaits us with Obama as our President leading us to work together to solve our country’s problems and restoring the reputation of our country in the world community. This is the promise I see in Obama’s eyes. The promise of our future.
OBAMA ATTRACTS BIG-BUCKS FUNDRAISER
Obama attracts big-bucks fund-raiser
January 14, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
In star-struck, political America where Barack Obama is a supernova, other superstars can slip by unnoticed. See the guy in the picture? The one with the white hair and the Walter Matthau eyes?
Superstar.
If you want to be president of the United States, he is the one you want to call before you even talk it over with your own mother.
Louis Susman is his name. He lives in Chicago. And at this moment, he is ready to do whatever Illinois Sen. Barack Obama needs him to do to take the White House in 2008. If Obama is running (and he is), then Susman will be pivotal to raising the cash.
READ MORE......... Chicago Sun Times
January 14, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
In star-struck, political America where Barack Obama is a supernova, other superstars can slip by unnoticed. See the guy in the picture? The one with the white hair and the Walter Matthau eyes?
Superstar.
If you want to be president of the United States, he is the one you want to call before you even talk it over with your own mother.
Louis Susman is his name. He lives in Chicago. And at this moment, he is ready to do whatever Illinois Sen. Barack Obama needs him to do to take the White House in 2008. If Obama is running (and he is), then Susman will be pivotal to raising the cash.
READ MORE......... Chicago Sun Times
MEET OBAMA'S INNER CIRCLE
Meet Obama's inner circle
Ahead of likely presidential campaign, senator relies on core of trusted advisers
By Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons Tribune staff reporterJanuary 14, 2007 WASHINGTON --
Ahead of likely presidential campaign, senator relies on core of trusted advisers
By Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons Tribune staff reporterJanuary 14, 2007 WASHINGTON --
The gravitational pull around Sen. Barack Obama grows stronger day by day, as he and his advisers seek commitments from political operatives and donors in preparation for a likely run for the presidency.The existing core of advisers around the Illinois Democrat simultaneously anchors him in the pragmatic sensibility of his urban Midwestern home base and encompasses the world of ideas of his Harvard Law School classmates.The political professionals who are Obama's closest formal advisers are careful, deliberate counselors, wary of unnecessary risks and no strangers to campaign street fights. The informal coterie is a multihued collection of high achievers, men and women who are friends and intellectual peers.There's David Axelrod, the strategist at Obama's right hand, perhaps the best-known Democratic consultant working outside of Washington, D.C., equally adept at sensing the right metaphor for high-minded aspirations and at finding the vulnerable spot to savage an opponent.Then, Robert Gibbs, communications director, a campaign veteran described by one Democratic operative--approvingly--as "Northern ruthlessness and Southern charm combined."Key players also include friends of Obama's, among them a straight-talking veteran of Chicago Democratic circles, Valerie Jarrett, and a group of South Side professionals.
Perhaps most influential is his wife, Michelle, a formidable daughter of the South Side who is an alumna of the Ivy League and Chicago's rough-and-tumble City Hall. She may not be in on all the conference calls or offer her own health plan in the style of former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton but no one else in the inner circle denies that she would be a driving force in any presidential campaign.
At the center is a 45-year-old political phenomenon who close associates say is prepared both to challenge the views he hears from advisers and to be challenged by them."He really wants to know all the points of view in the room. He doesn't want to shut people down or force a consensus," said Michael Froman, an informal Obama adviser who was a Harvard Law classmate and chief of staff to former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin.Obama "pushes back" in those conversations, said Jarrett, a friend of both Obamas whose dining room table in Hyde Park has sometimes been the setting for consultations. He's intent on thinking through ideas thoroughly, she said.
The senator periodically assembles informal advisers and his senior Senate staff for freewheeling evening sessions to set strategy and appraise his performance. In November, it was a four-hour gathering with stacks of takeout pizza boxes on a conference room table to talk over the senator's future.Obama and Axelrod speak almost every day. But Obama also often reaches out directly to friends for advice, by e-mail or telephone. Sometimes, the conversations are leisurely. But lately they are mostly quick and compressed, snatched by cell phone as he moves between committee hearings or during downtime in a car traveling from event to event.Though Obama hasn't announced a run for the White House, he and his advisers are working so intently to put the pieces in place that operatives are starting to tell Obama's likely rivals they are unable to work for those candidates because they are otherwise engaged.Associates say Obama has settled on Chicago as the headquarters for a national campaign. Donors and fundraisers are being asked to make commitments, and the nascent operation is pulling in staffers and consultants from throughout the nation.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
PRESIDENT'S BUSH'S CHALLENGE
By DEB RIECHMANN - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.
Editorial comment:
Well Mr. President, prior to your announced new startegy, you had a multitude of people who had advised you and you ignored them. The generals on the ground that disagreed with your plan, you fired and you hired new generals who agreed with you. You failed to even consider the report submitted which you and congress commissioned regarding the Iraq status and NOW you demand those that critize you come up with their own plan? And if they did, would you back down and heed their recommendations and implement their plans? I doubt it sir. You have shown time and time again that you will listen to no one. Your stubborn "folly" that you know what is best to do has only brought ruin on the country of Iraq, killed sons and daughters of US citizens, and left us in the middle of a civil war in Iraq which is between RELIGIOUS SECTS and is centuries old and yet you feel YOU sir are the one to fix the problem? We are sick and tired of you forcing the citizens of the United States to follow you into a no win situation.
What a rediculous statement you made today on the radio. Before we even invaded Iraq you were warned by very experienced generals and those with knowledge of the issues, that this invasion would lock our country into a war that would have no end, yet you orchestrate your "photo op" on the carrier with you in your flight suit, over 3 years ago, stating, We Have Won!.
Sir, we have won nothing but more death and turmoil. Deterioration of a country filled with citizens who have the right to live even a poor decent life, but a right to live, yet can't even go to school without some death squad dressed up as Iraqi police officers shooting them if their papers indicate they are of a different religion then they are. It is madness over there and you dare to state that those that disagree with you should come up with a better plan. Sure, like you would say, okay, let's go with that plan. You have shown over and over and over that you will listen to no one. You call yourself the DECIDER and STAY THE COURSE and continue on sending our troops into Baghdad to be killed so you can stay there in the White House and look like you are working hard to fix the problem. WE DON'T BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY ANYMORE, Mr. President. Get It?
WASHINGTON(AP) President Bush on Saturday challenged lawmakers skeptical of his new Iraq plan to propose their own strategy for stopping the violence in Baghdad.
Editorial comment:
Well Mr. President, prior to your announced new startegy, you had a multitude of people who had advised you and you ignored them. The generals on the ground that disagreed with your plan, you fired and you hired new generals who agreed with you. You failed to even consider the report submitted which you and congress commissioned regarding the Iraq status and NOW you demand those that critize you come up with their own plan? And if they did, would you back down and heed their recommendations and implement their plans? I doubt it sir. You have shown time and time again that you will listen to no one. Your stubborn "folly" that you know what is best to do has only brought ruin on the country of Iraq, killed sons and daughters of US citizens, and left us in the middle of a civil war in Iraq which is between RELIGIOUS SECTS and is centuries old and yet you feel YOU sir are the one to fix the problem? We are sick and tired of you forcing the citizens of the United States to follow you into a no win situation.
What a rediculous statement you made today on the radio. Before we even invaded Iraq you were warned by very experienced generals and those with knowledge of the issues, that this invasion would lock our country into a war that would have no end, yet you orchestrate your "photo op" on the carrier with you in your flight suit, over 3 years ago, stating, We Have Won!.
Sir, we have won nothing but more death and turmoil. Deterioration of a country filled with citizens who have the right to live even a poor decent life, but a right to live, yet can't even go to school without some death squad dressed up as Iraqi police officers shooting them if their papers indicate they are of a different religion then they are. It is madness over there and you dare to state that those that disagree with you should come up with a better plan. Sure, like you would say, okay, let's go with that plan. You have shown over and over and over that you will listen to no one. You call yourself the DECIDER and STAY THE COURSE and continue on sending our troops into Baghdad to be killed so you can stay there in the White House and look like you are working hard to fix the problem. WE DON'T BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY ANYMORE, Mr. President. Get It?
A "little" SPECULATION
Senator Obama is making a speech in the subarbs of Chicago on MLK day, and just so happens, Oprah is holding Wednesday, the 17th open. If you check her website, it's TBA. Hmmmm, Very interesting. I don't like to speculate, but do know she is urging Senator Obama to run, and is a huge supporter of his. This "may" be the week we have been waiting for. Ahhhhh, wishful thinking maybe?
SENATOR OBAMA ON EDUCATION ISSUES
While most of our attention at this time is focused on "Bush's Folly" in the step up of troops to Iraq and the serious issues related to what is happening currently in Iraq, and rightly so, It is also extremely important for all of us in examining a candidate for serious consideration for your vote to be President of the United States to examine their record and stance on issues that affect the lives of all US citizens. I will attempt between all the other news, and discussion, to provide information on Senator Obama's record and his stated opinions on issues of concern to all of us. Education is of course a major concern not only to families across the country, but also to college students and soon to be teachers who want to know how he feels on issues of concern to them. I chose Education to begin with but you can also download a "position paper" on Iraq from our Website at CitizensforBarackObama.com. We will attempt to provide additional position papers as we work on the website for you to download and read.
IN BRIEF:
Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education. (Jun 2006)
Sponsored legislations that recruit and reward good teachers. (Sep 2004)
Provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism. (Jul 2004)
Address the growing achievement gap between students. (May 2004)
Will add 25,000 teachers in high-need areas. (May 2004)
Supports charter schools and private investment in schools. (Jul 1998)
Free public college for any student with B-average. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Barack Obama on Education
Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator
Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education We've got a story to tell that isn't just against something but is for something. We know that we're the party of opportunity. We know that in a global economy that's more connective and more competitive that we're the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, life-long, top-notch education, from early childhood to high school--from college to on-the-job training. We know that that's what we're about.
Source: Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference Jun 14, 2006
Sponsored legislations that recruit and reward good teachers Obama co-sponsored legislation to create a National Teaching Academy of Chicago that recruits, prepares and develops quality teachers for high-need urban school districts. He co-sponsored legislation that created the Future Teacher Corps Scholarships to provide financial aid for undergraduate & graduate students studying to become teachers. He was chief sponsor of a bill creating the Certified Teacher Retention Bonus Program that provides grants to reward high quality teachers in low performing schools.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.org, "On the Issues" Sep 28, 2004
Provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism I try to avoid an either/or approach to solving the problems of this country. There are questions of individual responsibility and questions of societal responsibility to be dealt with. The best example is an education. I'm going to insist that we've got decent funding, enough teachers, and computers in the classroom, but unless you turn off the television set and get over a certain anti-intellectualism that I think pervades some low-income communities, our children are not going to achieve.
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004
Address the growing achievement gap between students Our public education system is the key to opportunity for millions of children and families. It needs to be the best in the world. Of particular concern is the growing achievement gap between middle and low-income students, which has continued to expand despite some overall national achievement gains.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004
Will add 25,000 teachers in high-need areas Obama will fight for full funding for Head Start and expanded pre-school, so every child starts school ready to learn.ÿ He has proposed a national network of teaching academies to add 25,000 new teachers to high-need urban and rural schools. And, he will work to send deserving students to college through loan programs that help middle-class families instead of banks.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com, ?On The Issues? May 2, 2004
Supports charter schools and private investment in schools
Principles that Obama supports on education:
Increase state funds for professional development of public school teachers and administrators.
Encourage private or corporate investment in public school programs.
Favor charter schools where independent groups receive state authorization and funding to establish new schools.
Increase state funds for school construction and facility maintenance.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Free public college for any student with B-average
Principles that Obama supports on education funding:
Fund public school education in Illinois by increasing certain state taxes and decreasing local property taxes.
Provide state-funded tuition and fees to any Illinois student who attends a public college or university as long as they maintain a B average.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers. Voting YES would increase funding by $51.9 million for after school programs run by the 21st century community learning centers and would decrease funding by $51.9 million for salaries and expenses in the Department of Labor.
Reference: Amendment to Agencies Appropriations Act; Bill S Amdt 2287 to HR 3010 ; vote number 2005-279 on Oct 27, 2005
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. To provide an additional $5 billion for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Voting YES would provide:
$2.5 billion for targeting grants to local educational agencies
$2.5 billion for education finance incentive grants
Reference: Elementary and Secondary Education Amendment; Bill S Amdt 2275 to HR 3010 ; vote number 2005-269 on Oct 26, 2005
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution that would adjust education funding while still reducing the deficit by $5.4 billion. A YES vote would:
Restore education program cuts slated for vocational education, adult education, GEAR UP, and TRIO.
Increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $4,500 immediately.
Increases future math and science teacher student loan forgiveness to $23,000.
Pay for the education funding by closing $10.8 billion in corporate tax loopholes.
IN BRIEF:
Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education. (Jun 2006)
Sponsored legislations that recruit and reward good teachers. (Sep 2004)
Provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism. (Jul 2004)
Address the growing achievement gap between students. (May 2004)
Will add 25,000 teachers in high-need areas. (May 2004)
Supports charter schools and private investment in schools. (Jul 1998)
Free public college for any student with B-average. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Barack Obama on Education
Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State Senator
Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education We've got a story to tell that isn't just against something but is for something. We know that we're the party of opportunity. We know that in a global economy that's more connective and more competitive that we're the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, life-long, top-notch education, from early childhood to high school--from college to on-the-job training. We know that that's what we're about.
Source: Annual 2006 Take Back America Conference Jun 14, 2006
Sponsored legislations that recruit and reward good teachers Obama co-sponsored legislation to create a National Teaching Academy of Chicago that recruits, prepares and develops quality teachers for high-need urban school districts. He co-sponsored legislation that created the Future Teacher Corps Scholarships to provide financial aid for undergraduate & graduate students studying to become teachers. He was chief sponsor of a bill creating the Certified Teacher Retention Bonus Program that provides grants to reward high quality teachers in low performing schools.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.org, "On the Issues" Sep 28, 2004
Provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism I try to avoid an either/or approach to solving the problems of this country. There are questions of individual responsibility and questions of societal responsibility to be dealt with. The best example is an education. I'm going to insist that we've got decent funding, enough teachers, and computers in the classroom, but unless you turn off the television set and get over a certain anti-intellectualism that I think pervades some low-income communities, our children are not going to achieve.
Source: Meet The Press, NBC News Jul 25, 2004
Address the growing achievement gap between students Our public education system is the key to opportunity for millions of children and families. It needs to be the best in the world. Of particular concern is the growing achievement gap between middle and low-income students, which has continued to expand despite some overall national achievement gains.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com May 2, 2004
Will add 25,000 teachers in high-need areas Obama will fight for full funding for Head Start and expanded pre-school, so every child starts school ready to learn.ÿ He has proposed a national network of teaching academies to add 25,000 new teachers to high-need urban and rural schools. And, he will work to send deserving students to college through loan programs that help middle-class families instead of banks.
Source: Campaign website, ObamaForIllinois.com, ?On The Issues? May 2, 2004
Supports charter schools and private investment in schools
Principles that Obama supports on education:
Increase state funds for professional development of public school teachers and administrators.
Encourage private or corporate investment in public school programs.
Favor charter schools where independent groups receive state authorization and funding to establish new schools.
Increase state funds for school construction and facility maintenance.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Free public college for any student with B-average
Principles that Obama supports on education funding:
Fund public school education in Illinois by increasing certain state taxes and decreasing local property taxes.
Provide state-funded tuition and fees to any Illinois student who attends a public college or university as long as they maintain a B average.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers. Voting YES would increase funding by $51.9 million for after school programs run by the 21st century community learning centers and would decrease funding by $51.9 million for salaries and expenses in the Department of Labor.
Reference: Amendment to Agencies Appropriations Act; Bill S Amdt 2287 to HR 3010 ; vote number 2005-279 on Oct 27, 2005
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. To provide an additional $5 billion for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Voting YES would provide:
$2.5 billion for targeting grants to local educational agencies
$2.5 billion for education finance incentive grants
Reference: Elementary and Secondary Education Amendment; Bill S Amdt 2275 to HR 3010 ; vote number 2005-269 on Oct 26, 2005
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution that would adjust education funding while still reducing the deficit by $5.4 billion. A YES vote would:
Restore education program cuts slated for vocational education, adult education, GEAR UP, and TRIO.
Increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $4,500 immediately.
Increases future math and science teacher student loan forgiveness to $23,000.
Pay for the education funding by closing $10.8 billion in corporate tax loopholes.
HILLARY CLINTON IN IRAQ
While people on the Network news shows wondered why Hillary Clinton was not in the all important committee session in the Senate on the situation in Iraq, it was discovered that Hillary Clinton was on a plane on her way to Iraq.
I don't quarrel with Senators and Representatives going to Iraq to discover for themselves what the situation is or to ask questions while there, and certainly Mrs. Clinton, with her most obvious weakness of lack of knowledge of World affairs, should at least make one visit, I find it to be too "contrived". It allows her to then come back after spending only 2 days there and proclaim her knowledge of what is really going on there. There is absolutely no way she can truly examine the multitude of issues facing Iraq in 2 days. She will listen to those who are running the government, and as you will discover in our other blog, Letters from Iraq (see sidebar)
there is absolutely no way she can speak as even a quasi-expert on the issue. It is convenient that she would finally make a trip to Iraq after her 6 years in the Senate and voted FOR the war, and never having gone there before to see IF HER VOTE was valid. She did not bother to make the trip until the latest action by President Bush. This will give her some "talking points" in her election bid for President and her staff and she can claim she NOW has International experience. 2 days in Iraq does not an expert make, Mrs. Clinton.
The situation in Iraq was created by the invasion of American troops directed by President Bush without consideration for the thousands of years of history regarding the different religious sects and what affect the downfall of Saddam Hussein would have on the different religious sects. The disarray in Iraq at this time, well, let's call it what it is, a civil war is built on mistrust, and thousands of years of struggle by the different religious sects who now each look to gain control. An army can not control that. An army can't control the "fake" police patrols who stop people in the streets, ask for their papers, and if they are the wrong religious sect, they are shot on the spot.
The corruption that is raging in Iraq with the dollars being shoveled into the country by the US will not be brought under control by an additional 20,000 troops.
Mrs Clinton needs to come back home and do her job. We New Yorkers want her in congress working to fight this step up in troops. She missed an extremely important investigative session, therefore, we New Yorkers were not represented in a key debate.
I don't quarrel with Senators and Representatives going to Iraq to discover for themselves what the situation is or to ask questions while there, and certainly Mrs. Clinton, with her most obvious weakness of lack of knowledge of World affairs, should at least make one visit, I find it to be too "contrived". It allows her to then come back after spending only 2 days there and proclaim her knowledge of what is really going on there. There is absolutely no way she can truly examine the multitude of issues facing Iraq in 2 days. She will listen to those who are running the government, and as you will discover in our other blog, Letters from Iraq (see sidebar)
there is absolutely no way she can speak as even a quasi-expert on the issue. It is convenient that she would finally make a trip to Iraq after her 6 years in the Senate and voted FOR the war, and never having gone there before to see IF HER VOTE was valid. She did not bother to make the trip until the latest action by President Bush. This will give her some "talking points" in her election bid for President and her staff and she can claim she NOW has International experience. 2 days in Iraq does not an expert make, Mrs. Clinton.
The situation in Iraq was created by the invasion of American troops directed by President Bush without consideration for the thousands of years of history regarding the different religious sects and what affect the downfall of Saddam Hussein would have on the different religious sects. The disarray in Iraq at this time, well, let's call it what it is, a civil war is built on mistrust, and thousands of years of struggle by the different religious sects who now each look to gain control. An army can not control that. An army can't control the "fake" police patrols who stop people in the streets, ask for their papers, and if they are the wrong religious sect, they are shot on the spot.
The corruption that is raging in Iraq with the dollars being shoveled into the country by the US will not be brought under control by an additional 20,000 troops.
Mrs Clinton needs to come back home and do her job. We New Yorkers want her in congress working to fight this step up in troops. She missed an extremely important investigative session, therefore, we New Yorkers were not represented in a key debate.
OBAMA,CLINTON MAKING 2008 MOVES
NEW YORK - Democratic Sens.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), a pair of front-runners in waiting, have shown fresh signs in recent days of joining the 2008 race, hiring senior aides while they court potential supporters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other key states.
Obama has hired policy, research and press staff for a campaign to be run from Chicago, according to several Democrats. And a senior aide to the senator, Steve Hildebrand, recently told potential Iowa supporters that word of his plans could come early next week, state party spokeswoman Erin Seidler said Friday.
Obama also has held several conversations with Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., according to the congressman's spokeswoman. Clinton also has spoken to the influential South Carolina Democrat. Read More - Yahoo news AP story by BETH FOUHY
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record), a pair of front-runners in waiting, have shown fresh signs in recent days of joining the 2008 race, hiring senior aides while they court potential supporters in Iowa, New Hampshire and other key states.
Obama has hired policy, research and press staff for a campaign to be run from Chicago, according to several Democrats. And a senior aide to the senator, Steve Hildebrand, recently told potential Iowa supporters that word of his plans could come early next week, state party spokeswoman Erin Seidler said Friday.
Obama also has held several conversations with Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., according to the congressman's spokeswoman. Clinton also has spoken to the influential South Carolina Democrat. Read More - Yahoo news AP story by BETH FOUHY
BARACK OBAMA LIKELY TO RUN
Barack Obama Likely to Run for President
Special from the OpinionJournal.com's Political DiaryBy John Fund, 1/12/2007 8:29:52 AM
It looks as if Barack Obama is likely to run for president. Given the choice between backing their junior senator and Hillary Clinton, who grew up in suburban Chicago, Illinois Democratic pols are clearly lining up behind Mr. Obama -- and are even trying to change the date of the state's primary to help him. Read more: Hawaii Reporter
Special from the OpinionJournal.com's Political DiaryBy John Fund, 1/12/2007 8:29:52 AM
It looks as if Barack Obama is likely to run for president. Given the choice between backing their junior senator and Hillary Clinton, who grew up in suburban Chicago, Illinois Democratic pols are clearly lining up behind Mr. Obama -- and are even trying to change the date of the state's primary to help him. Read more: Hawaii Reporter
Friday, January 12, 2007
CORRUPTION IN IRAQ
I have spent many hours surfing the internet to educate myself on issues I am not fully able to discuss without further documented knowledge, and in this search I have been astounded to find information that to me is the true reason for the severe problems that exist in Iraq, and it begins here in the United States. Like much of what President Bush has failed at, the expenditure of billions of dollars for failed reconstruction aid to Iraq has spawned a country in disarray, lacking much of what anyone needs to have even a bare existance, yet President Bush continues to proclaim we are making progress in that country. Yet instead of attacking the issues that the Iraqi's themselves feel are in desparate need of attention, President Bush's response is to send in more troops.
I have also been lucky enough to find blogs written by Iraqi's living currently in Iraq and read their posts in shock, realizing how little I really know about the totally ineffective, and misplaced focus of the US in that country. I will shortly be bringing to you a segment on "tales from within Iraq" as an additional blog attached to this one. Being informed is I believe the most important factor for we citizens who wait hopelessly and without the power to stop President Bush in focusing on increasing troops to Iraq, rather than fixing the problems that breed unrest in the country.
What shocked me even more was the state of financial corruption which exists in US companies given millions of dollars in contracts and their failure to complete the project for which they were paid. Here is but an example of such waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Cancer Hospital Remains Unfinished
But like every so many U.S.-initiated projects, the money to build this fancy facility would disappear when things went wrong. A year after the August 2005 groundbreaking, the project became a target for attacks, according to the company. The price tag rose from $50 million to an estimated $169.5 million. Cliff Mumm, president of the Bechtel infrastructure division, predicted that the project would fail. "It is not a good use of the government's money" to try to finish the project,” Mumm told the New York Times. "And we do not think it can be finished."
In July 2006, Bechtel was asked to withdrew from the project, which is now on hold. USAID spokesman David Snider’s cheerful spin on the stall was that the contract did not actually require the company to complete the hospital. "They are under a 'term contract,' which means their job is over when their money ends ... (so) they did complete the contract."
Iraqi officials were angry. "The pretexts given by Bechtel to the Iraqi government to justify its failure in finishing the project are untrue and unacceptable, especially the ones regarding the rise in security expenses," Sheik Abu Salam al-Saedi, a member of the Basra provincial council told the New York Times.
Asked about this comment, Bechtel spokesman Jonathan Marshall told CorpWatch that it was “irresponsible.”
“Given the many tragic deaths suffered by our subcontractors on the project and the evacuation of the area by many international aid workers “ his claim stand unchallenged,” Marshall wrote in an email response.
Deputy Minister Amar Al-Saffar charges that part of the failure traces back to Bechtel’s decision to hire a Jordanian company to oversee work by local Iraqi construction companies, instead of working directly with the Iraqis. "Our counterparts should have full faith in the Iraqi companies," Saffar told the New York Times, in July, less than four months before his kidnapping.
I have also been lucky enough to find blogs written by Iraqi's living currently in Iraq and read their posts in shock, realizing how little I really know about the totally ineffective, and misplaced focus of the US in that country. I will shortly be bringing to you a segment on "tales from within Iraq" as an additional blog attached to this one. Being informed is I believe the most important factor for we citizens who wait hopelessly and without the power to stop President Bush in focusing on increasing troops to Iraq, rather than fixing the problems that breed unrest in the country.
What shocked me even more was the state of financial corruption which exists in US companies given millions of dollars in contracts and their failure to complete the project for which they were paid. Here is but an example of such waste of our taxpayer dollars.
Cancer Hospital Remains Unfinished
First prominent among the long list of failures is the Basra Children's Hospital, which was intended as crown jewel of U.S. aid to Iraq. Instead, it has become a showcase for everything that went wrong. In August 2004, USAID awarded the $50 million contract to build the Hospital to Bechtel, a San Francisco-based engineering company, one of the largest engineering companies in the world, which has become synonymous with the building of nuclear power plants, gold mines and large projects like the new Hong Kong airport.
The idea was to create a state-of-the-art facility to treat childhood cancer, a pressing need in a city where cancer rates have skyrocketed following the first Gulf War. (Contested data link the rise in cancer to extensive U.S. use of depleted uranium weaponry in the region.)
The facility, championed by the First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, looked suspiciously like a political propaganda effort. And as with much U.S. aid, it was designed with little local consultation: the city lacked clean water and already has a leukemia ward where lack of funding means that each bed is shared by two or three children.
The hospital was planned by Project Hope, a charity headed by John P. Howe III, president of the University of Texas, San Antonio, and a Bush family friend
Project Hope had built similar hospitals in Poland and in China. Howe pushed the project after Rice and Bush invited him to visit Iraq to assess the country's healthcare system.
But like every so many U.S.-initiated projects, the money to build this fancy facility would disappear when things went wrong. A year after the August 2005 groundbreaking, the project became a target for attacks, according to the company. The price tag rose from $50 million to an estimated $169.5 million. Cliff Mumm, president of the Bechtel infrastructure division, predicted that the project would fail. "It is not a good use of the government's money" to try to finish the project,” Mumm told the New York Times. "And we do not think it can be finished."
In July 2006, Bechtel was asked to withdrew from the project, which is now on hold. USAID spokesman David Snider’s cheerful spin on the stall was that the contract did not actually require the company to complete the hospital. "They are under a 'term contract,' which means their job is over when their money ends ... (so) they did complete the contract."
Iraqi officials were angry. "The pretexts given by Bechtel to the Iraqi government to justify its failure in finishing the project are untrue and unacceptable, especially the ones regarding the rise in security expenses," Sheik Abu Salam al-Saedi, a member of the Basra provincial council told the New York Times.
Asked about this comment, Bechtel spokesman Jonathan Marshall told CorpWatch that it was “irresponsible.”
“Given the many tragic deaths suffered by our subcontractors on the project and the evacuation of the area by many international aid workers “ his claim stand unchallenged,” Marshall wrote in an email response.
Deputy Minister Amar Al-Saffar charges that part of the failure traces back to Bechtel’s decision to hire a Jordanian company to oversee work by local Iraqi construction companies, instead of working directly with the Iraqis. "Our counterparts should have full faith in the Iraqi companies," Saffar told the New York Times, in July, less than four months before his kidnapping.
Marshall agreed that a Jordanian team (Mid Contracting, Universal Hospital Services, and Hospital Design and Planning) had been awarded the sub-contract, but pointed out that the workers were mostly Iraqi.
“We could not find Iraqi firms of equal caliber for this job, although Iraqi subcontractors were, of course, employed extensively,” Marshall told CorpWatch. “Bechtel’s record of hiring Iraqi firms was exemplary. We held major conferences in Baghdad and Basra to inform and recruit Iraq partners. Over the life of the project, we hired Iraqi subcontractors to perform about 75 percent of the work. At peak, our projects employed 40,000 Iraqi workers. Bechtel also trained and employed more than 600 Iraqi nationals on its professional staff.”
OBAMA TO MAKE SPEECH ON MLK DAY IN HARVEY
Obama to make MLK Day speech in Harvey
January 12, 2007
By Kim Janssen Staff writer
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has picked an interesting spot to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day: Harvey.
The troubled city claimed the minor coup Thursday when the in-demand senator's office announced he will speak to an expected audience of 2,000 at St. Mark Missionary Baptist Church. Read more here
January 12, 2007
By Kim Janssen Staff writer
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has picked an interesting spot to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day: Harvey.
The troubled city claimed the minor coup Thursday when the in-demand senator's office announced he will speak to an expected audience of 2,000 at St. Mark Missionary Baptist Church. Read more here
Thursday, January 11, 2007
IMMIGRATION - THE ISSUES
I decided to start discussing the issue of Immigration because I was thinking about the "fence" , you know, the one the President is so proud of that there are no funds for?, and because I had just finished speaking with a friend who is frustrated about the issue. Further discussion on this issue is of course to be continued, but I felt the need to begin.
There was a time in America, and many of you will probably remember those good old days, when a young boy or girl, too young for a work permit, could earn their own money by going to their neighbors getting jobs mowing lawns, shoveling snow, etc. Oh, those were the days weren't they? My mother used to call up her neighbor's son every time it snowed and he got to earn some spending money shoveling the driveway and sidewalk for her. He was young and strong, he got to make some money, and my mother was happy. She also had an arrangement with him to come weekly and mow her lawn. Gone are those days. I remember him and that was the beginning of him saving to go to college. Work ethic was taught well in those days as my mother also taught me. One wonders why young people today don't learn early the value of hard work, and working for what they want with odd jobs. Young people today are frustrated in their non-stop search for odd jobs only to find that small companies, employing immigrants, have grabbed up these services and the young people have to wait until they can get a work permit to work in a fast food place or large discount stores. And people wonder why we have kids hanging out on just about every street corner after school.
Even today, myself, have run into this. I live in an apartment complex and was looking for a young teen to clean the snow off my car for me when it snowed. It is impossible these days to find any young person in the neighborhood who is out when it snows looking to make money. Why? Well for instance, our apartment complex contracts out to a company to mow the lawns, and plow the snow and you are left to your own devices to clear off your car and move it for the plow. One day, I was out walking and the crew was here to mow the lawns, and I stopped to speak to one of them. They all spoke spanish and no english. Hmmmmm. Made me wonder if they were legal citizens or "cheap" labor for the contractor servicing our apartment complex. Yet I see long lines at the unemployment offices of CITIZENS, who would be more than happy for ANY job and I am sure would love to make money helping this company service apartment complexes' lawn care. Believe me, a man looking to feed his family is not too proud to do any work, even if it is mowing lawns and triming bushes. The same could also be said about convicted felons, out on parole, who MAY be, just MAY be looking to try and live a decent life and would be willing to begin their new lives with a simple job like working for a lawn care company. The jobs just aren't there for them and people wonder why some who could be rehabilitated revert back to their old ways because they can't be proud of themselves by finding such a simple job.
I also see this when it comes to the seasonal jobs where they need apple pickers here in New York. People I KNOW are desparate for work go and try to sign up for those jobs, but only to find that the orchards have already brought in ILLEGAL immigrants to fill these positions. These orchards should be fined for hiring illegal immigrants at cheap pay instead of paying the going minimum wage to US citizens. Many a poor family would be thrilled to be able to earn even the money from a seasonal job.
Not only are large companies taking their companies out of the US, but even the littlest job is difficult to find for the youngster who with good intentions to begin their earning ability can't find even a lawnmowing job. Now young men are turning to the usually reserved for young girls' job of babysitting to earn some spending money. Yet many families are turning to agencies to provide "nannies" for their children. Most of these nannies speak little or no english and work cheaply. I say to all American families, hire american citizens first. Young teens would be thrilled to earn money taking care of your children if given the opportunity.
Just who is saying that american citizens won't want the jobs being filled by illegal immigrants? I most certainly am one who would like someone to justify that statement. And the rich are the worst of the bunch. The saying "The rich are rich because they hold on to their money" rings true here. If you were to visit their homes, I would bet that a majority of the rich have in their employ mostly illegal immigrants. Gone are the days when a woman alone with children to feed can get a job as a housekeeper. Those jobs just aren't there in rich homes. Most of those jobs are taken, cheaply, by illegal immigrants.
I could go on and on discussing the jobs being taken over by immigrants from Mexico, at cheap wages, instead of having a wealth of opportunity for the poor in this country.
The burden on the american citizen financially for healthcare is another major issue I will discuss in another post, but I will say this. I am sick and tired of the underprivileged not being able to afford healthcare, yet billions of dollars are spent providing emergency healthcare for immigrants crossing the border of Mexico and our hospitals being forced to serve them in emergencies. I don't begrudge someone who desparately needs a doctor to save their life, but it is costing us dearly in healthcare funds that are desparately needed for our own citizens, many of whom have gone bankrupt if they have a medical emergency.
The reason this has interrupted my discussion on Barack Obama is a talk I had with a friend this morning. She and her husband are ready to retire and have been looking at many areas of the country as possible retirement locations. They really wanted to retire to the Southwest, but my friend is frustrated in the fact that she has to learn Spanish to even communicate in that area. She has checked community after community. She and her husband have travelled to the area and came back completely frustrated in trying to find a community where Spanish isn't the accepted language rather than English.
I read where a police officer is being sued because he did not speak spanish when he stopped a driver for speeding, therefore causing a language barrier. Now the speeder is suing the officer for failure to speak spanish in AMERICA! I find this outrageous! I am also sick and tired of going to my very own doctor's office and finding every single poster on the wall written in spanish and nowhere is there equal posters in English.
I have a question for you. Ever get totally frustrated when making a phone call to a company or doctor's office and get a recording in English and then all over again in Spanish before you can hit the button you need? I am tired of having to listen to a long explanation in Spanish before I can reach someone on the phone.
You may think these remarks are racist in nature. They are not meant to be. Mexicans who come to our country and make the effort to become American citizens make it a priority to learn ENGLISH first. There was a time if you look back in history, where Texas was part of Mexico. Appears it is becoming part of Mexico again and Mexico is more than happy to get rid of citizens they can't service with healthcare and jobs. I, myself, have been considering a move to the Southwest, but I am having to take a course in Spanish before doing so.
Immigration is a very complicated issue, one that needs to be addressed comprehensively by our next President. Not only are illegals looking for work crossing the border but also felons, criminals who come to this country and continue their crime spree.
And what is a rediculous act by our President is the fact he has sent troops to help patrol the border but they are not allowed to have LOADED WEAPONS while on patrol. They are shot at more frequently, stones are thrown at them and they are forced to retreat rather than cause a border incident. This I find completely rediculous. If the President is sending troops to assist in border patrol, he should not force a US soldier to RETREAT rather than stop the flow of immigrants and drug runners crossing the border. Come on Mr. President. You fail in Iraq and yet you keep hidden the fact the type of orders issued to soldiers in OUR OWN COUNTRY on how they should conduct themselves while patrolling the border between the US and Mexico.
There was a time in America, and many of you will probably remember those good old days, when a young boy or girl, too young for a work permit, could earn their own money by going to their neighbors getting jobs mowing lawns, shoveling snow, etc. Oh, those were the days weren't they? My mother used to call up her neighbor's son every time it snowed and he got to earn some spending money shoveling the driveway and sidewalk for her. He was young and strong, he got to make some money, and my mother was happy. She also had an arrangement with him to come weekly and mow her lawn. Gone are those days. I remember him and that was the beginning of him saving to go to college. Work ethic was taught well in those days as my mother also taught me. One wonders why young people today don't learn early the value of hard work, and working for what they want with odd jobs. Young people today are frustrated in their non-stop search for odd jobs only to find that small companies, employing immigrants, have grabbed up these services and the young people have to wait until they can get a work permit to work in a fast food place or large discount stores. And people wonder why we have kids hanging out on just about every street corner after school.
Even today, myself, have run into this. I live in an apartment complex and was looking for a young teen to clean the snow off my car for me when it snowed. It is impossible these days to find any young person in the neighborhood who is out when it snows looking to make money. Why? Well for instance, our apartment complex contracts out to a company to mow the lawns, and plow the snow and you are left to your own devices to clear off your car and move it for the plow. One day, I was out walking and the crew was here to mow the lawns, and I stopped to speak to one of them. They all spoke spanish and no english. Hmmmmm. Made me wonder if they were legal citizens or "cheap" labor for the contractor servicing our apartment complex. Yet I see long lines at the unemployment offices of CITIZENS, who would be more than happy for ANY job and I am sure would love to make money helping this company service apartment complexes' lawn care. Believe me, a man looking to feed his family is not too proud to do any work, even if it is mowing lawns and triming bushes. The same could also be said about convicted felons, out on parole, who MAY be, just MAY be looking to try and live a decent life and would be willing to begin their new lives with a simple job like working for a lawn care company. The jobs just aren't there for them and people wonder why some who could be rehabilitated revert back to their old ways because they can't be proud of themselves by finding such a simple job.
I also see this when it comes to the seasonal jobs where they need apple pickers here in New York. People I KNOW are desparate for work go and try to sign up for those jobs, but only to find that the orchards have already brought in ILLEGAL immigrants to fill these positions. These orchards should be fined for hiring illegal immigrants at cheap pay instead of paying the going minimum wage to US citizens. Many a poor family would be thrilled to be able to earn even the money from a seasonal job.
Not only are large companies taking their companies out of the US, but even the littlest job is difficult to find for the youngster who with good intentions to begin their earning ability can't find even a lawnmowing job. Now young men are turning to the usually reserved for young girls' job of babysitting to earn some spending money. Yet many families are turning to agencies to provide "nannies" for their children. Most of these nannies speak little or no english and work cheaply. I say to all American families, hire american citizens first. Young teens would be thrilled to earn money taking care of your children if given the opportunity.
Just who is saying that american citizens won't want the jobs being filled by illegal immigrants? I most certainly am one who would like someone to justify that statement. And the rich are the worst of the bunch. The saying "The rich are rich because they hold on to their money" rings true here. If you were to visit their homes, I would bet that a majority of the rich have in their employ mostly illegal immigrants. Gone are the days when a woman alone with children to feed can get a job as a housekeeper. Those jobs just aren't there in rich homes. Most of those jobs are taken, cheaply, by illegal immigrants.
I could go on and on discussing the jobs being taken over by immigrants from Mexico, at cheap wages, instead of having a wealth of opportunity for the poor in this country.
The burden on the american citizen financially for healthcare is another major issue I will discuss in another post, but I will say this. I am sick and tired of the underprivileged not being able to afford healthcare, yet billions of dollars are spent providing emergency healthcare for immigrants crossing the border of Mexico and our hospitals being forced to serve them in emergencies. I don't begrudge someone who desparately needs a doctor to save their life, but it is costing us dearly in healthcare funds that are desparately needed for our own citizens, many of whom have gone bankrupt if they have a medical emergency.
The reason this has interrupted my discussion on Barack Obama is a talk I had with a friend this morning. She and her husband are ready to retire and have been looking at many areas of the country as possible retirement locations. They really wanted to retire to the Southwest, but my friend is frustrated in the fact that she has to learn Spanish to even communicate in that area. She has checked community after community. She and her husband have travelled to the area and came back completely frustrated in trying to find a community where Spanish isn't the accepted language rather than English.
I read where a police officer is being sued because he did not speak spanish when he stopped a driver for speeding, therefore causing a language barrier. Now the speeder is suing the officer for failure to speak spanish in AMERICA! I find this outrageous! I am also sick and tired of going to my very own doctor's office and finding every single poster on the wall written in spanish and nowhere is there equal posters in English.
I have a question for you. Ever get totally frustrated when making a phone call to a company or doctor's office and get a recording in English and then all over again in Spanish before you can hit the button you need? I am tired of having to listen to a long explanation in Spanish before I can reach someone on the phone.
You may think these remarks are racist in nature. They are not meant to be. Mexicans who come to our country and make the effort to become American citizens make it a priority to learn ENGLISH first. There was a time if you look back in history, where Texas was part of Mexico. Appears it is becoming part of Mexico again and Mexico is more than happy to get rid of citizens they can't service with healthcare and jobs. I, myself, have been considering a move to the Southwest, but I am having to take a course in Spanish before doing so.
Immigration is a very complicated issue, one that needs to be addressed comprehensively by our next President. Not only are illegals looking for work crossing the border but also felons, criminals who come to this country and continue their crime spree.
And what is a rediculous act by our President is the fact he has sent troops to help patrol the border but they are not allowed to have LOADED WEAPONS while on patrol. They are shot at more frequently, stones are thrown at them and they are forced to retreat rather than cause a border incident. This I find completely rediculous. If the President is sending troops to assist in border patrol, he should not force a US soldier to RETREAT rather than stop the flow of immigrants and drug runners crossing the border. Come on Mr. President. You fail in Iraq and yet you keep hidden the fact the type of orders issued to soldiers in OUR OWN COUNTRY on how they should conduct themselves while patrolling the border between the US and Mexico.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO BABYSIT A CIVIL WAR STATES BARACK OBAMA
"We're not going to baby sit a civil war," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's "Today" Show. He said the Democratic-controlled Congress would not undercut troops already in Iraq but would explore ways to restrict the president from expanding the mission.
Senator Obama also appeared on Larry King after the President's speech last night and with deliberate and measured words disagreed with the President's proposal.
Interesting to note: Hillary Clinton has yet to be seen or heard on the subject. Perhaps her "handlers" don't wish for her to go on the record with any statements so she can't be questioned about them during her campaign for President, but as a sitting US Senator, she is wise to take a stand and make a statement. Failure to respond to a major issue such as Iraq, and failure to commit any words or comments regarding it is telling. Being from New York, I am truly disappointed in her inability to take a stand one way or the other on this major issue. Time will tell if she will take a stand, but her failure to take a stand makes it look like she is waiting to see which way "the wind blows" before making any statements of note.
If this is indicative of the way she would run a campaign or a Presidency, her hesitant or NON response is telling. She voted FOR the war in Iraq, which is surprising given her nature to "investigate" things before taking any action, it appears she did not investigate the President's motives for the war in Iraq before voting for it and gave in to pressure from a severely hurt and depressed state of citizens who were most affected by 9/11. She now is back peddling on her initial vote, but it is interesting to note not much has been heard from her of late.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
OBAMA SPEAKS
In my never ending search for interesting articles regarding Barack Obama, I came across this article written about Senator Obama which I found interesting that I would like to share with you.
The angry words and nasty implications that greet a novice entering politics could easily turn away even the most well-intentioned from public service. In an arena where empathy is hard to come by, a leader who embraces this desirable trait is likely to become a public favorite to the point of being treated like a celebrity.
A rising star in the Democratic Party favored by many to become the first black president of the United States, Illinois junior senator Barack Obama is the breath of fresh air needed to change the course of politics. By combining his diplomatic approach to controversial issues with a sense of unassuming panache, Obama has quickly become a popular favorite.Stepping onto the stage at the JFK Library in Boston to conduct a discussion with Bob Herbert of The New York Times on topics of national interest in addition to his political future, the first words out of Obama’s mouth were an apology for his lateness due to the terrible weather. Since apologies from politicians are few and far between, Obama’s sincerity struck a chord with many of the audience of media members and concerned citizens.
Herbert launched into a discussion of the Iraq war, eager to hear Obama’s presumably negative thoughts on the subject. Instead, Obama spoke against the war in Iraq but for the war in Afghanistan, saying, “The war was not based on fact, but rather ideology.” He pointed out that “the burden of this war has been borne by a small group, which is why we went there ... had there been a draft, we would not have launched this war.” Contemplating the truth of his words, the room fell eerily silent.It became apparent that Obama is dissatisfied with the idea of fame, admitting, “It’s a bit much ... stuff that feeds the ego is less satisfying as time goes on.” Instead, he said, he gets satisfaction from doing his job, whether his endeavors are successful or not. “People want substantive responses to the challenges we face. It’s not enough for Democrats to say, ‘We’re not Bush,’” he pointed out.
Obama spoke briefly about the need to address the issue of 46 million Americans without health insurance, the need for a better energy policy, and the importance of improving the education system in order to motivate students. He strongly believes that there is a middle ground on these topics on which people from both parties can agree, and he is interested in finding it.With the hype that follows Obama, rumors of a run for the presidency in 2008 have surfaced. When Herbert introduced the topic, Obama responded by speaking of how demanding and time-consuming the job is. As he diplomatically pointed out that a successful president must make enormous sacrifices to serve the people, it became apparent that this is a topic he refuses to take lightly; after all, “If you want to go into public service, you want to have influence.” So, Herbert asked, could he see himself making the sacrifices necessary to be president? Obama responded “Sure,” an answer that garnered thunderous applause.
Unlike the cynical attitude that greets most politicians who yearn for a presidential run, Obama has proven to have the fresh ideas necessary for bringing change to the White House. During his brief time in the Senate, Barack Obama has helped pass measures in favor of ethics reform, helped Illinois veterans collect disability pay, and worked against America’s dependency on oil. He has proven through words and actions that he is willing to do whatever is necessary for him to best serve. A politician who tries to see both sides of an argument, listens to the opinions of the public, and takes responsibility for his power - who knew? "
I gather I am not alone in my instincts when it comes to Barack Obama. Senator Obama is a thoughtful, interesting man, one who thinks about a problem, and will LISTEN to others, something our current President doesn't feel he needs to do. Despite the wishes of 80% of the country, and the disapproval of both sides in congress, President Bush continues to insist on stepping up troops in Iraq. It is frustrating to me and I would hazard a guess frustating to millions of other citizens that the President of the United States wields his power without hesitation, failing to hear the people, or doesn't care to hear them.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
MR. PRESIDENT - NO MORE TROOPS!
Here is a reminder Mr. President of the cost of your "folly"
I'll Do What I Want, When I want, Let the next guy fix it"By LOLITA C. BALDOR - Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON(AP) A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush's new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. Congressional Democrats kept up their criticism of plans to add soldiers in the unpopular conflict.
Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and be prepared to deploy under the president's plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.
Details were emerging a day before Bush was to address the nation on his broad initiative to shore up the fragile country after nearly four years of bloodshed. Bush is expected to link the troop increase to moves by the Iraqi government to ease the country's murderous sectarian tensions, and to increased U.S. economic aid.
Moving first into Iraq would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is in Kuwait and poised to move quickly into the country, the defense official said.
Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expects Bush to announce that up to 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq but not to say how long the extra forces will be there.
Levin, who spoke to reporters a day after meeting with White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, said he believes Bush will signal that the overall U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.
Bush is expected to link the troop increase to promised moves by the Iraqi government such as curbing Shiite militias that have terrorized the Sunni minority, enacting a plan to distribute oil revenue to the country's sects and easing government restrictions on members of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's Baath Party."
WASHINGTON(AP) A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush's new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. Congressional Democrats kept up their criticism of plans to add soldiers in the unpopular conflict.
Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and be prepared to deploy under the president's plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.
Details were emerging a day before Bush was to address the nation on his broad initiative to shore up the fragile country after nearly four years of bloodshed. Bush is expected to link the troop increase to moves by the Iraqi government to ease the country's murderous sectarian tensions, and to increased U.S. economic aid.
Moving first into Iraq would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is in Kuwait and poised to move quickly into the country, the defense official said.
Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expects Bush to announce that up to 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq but not to say how long the extra forces will be there.
Levin, who spoke to reporters a day after meeting with White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, said he believes Bush will signal that the overall U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.
Bush is expected to link the troop increase to promised moves by the Iraqi government such as curbing Shiite militias that have terrorized the Sunni minority, enacting a plan to distribute oil revenue to the country's sects and easing government restrictions on members of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's Baath Party."
It appears President Bush just does not get it! It is hoped that Congress puts a stop to this "folly" of the President's. Mr. President, a reminder, only 12% of the country are behind you and no speech is going to change our minds. Ignoring the citizens of this country shows your true arrogance in your astounding ability to ignore the wishes of the people. A reminder: YOU WORK FOR US!
ATTACKING THE MAN - A SIGN OF FEAR?
It appears there are those bloggers and quasi-newspaper writers who would strain to find something for which they can launch their pre-emptive attacks on Barack Obama. Though I am sure Senator Obama is well aware that his entire life will be examined by those who would fight to keep him out of the White House.
In my search on the internet for articles on Senator Obama, I find bloggers digging up nonsence and trying to make a case against Senator Obama and as I read further I find they also attack other Democrats and call them hypocrites when it comes to ethical behavior. What is behind this I ask myself? It is an attempt to discredit what they fear. Fear can bring out the worst in people and their words are hurtful and harmful, yet it is for Senator Obama to be straightforward and honest as he has been. This is his weapon. Being honest with the American people.
Now I just read two blogs discussing the issue of the purchase of some land by Senator Obama where his home is from someone who had been indicted back in 2005. It appears Senator Obama purchased a parcel of land adjacent to his home from Tony Rezko, a real estate developer who was under indictment at the time. This was back in 2005 and of course the writer of the article never mentions IF Mr. Rezko was convicted of anything, and if so, what he was convicted of.
However, that being so, when asked by the Chicago Sun-Times about the transaction, Senator Obama stated honestly that it had been an unwise decision, and that he regretted he had done any business with someone who was being investigated.
My take? If you have to go back to 2005 to try and find SOMETHING, ANYTHING, that you can shout about on your blog that would discredit a man who was not even a sitting Senator at the time, you are desparate indeed. Why not discuss Hillary Clinton's Whitewater fiasco? I am a New Yorker and believe me, there are many many people who do not want Mrs. Clinton to run for President, myself among them and I vote democratic. Why not question the 50 MILLION dollars she spent to ensure a victory as Senator in the past election, when she only needed to spend a tenth of that. I do not argue the fact that Mrs. Clinton has the skill set to be a great Senator. In fact I voted for her re-election. Why? Because she is "hard" and can get down and dirty with the Republicans and get bills passed. I don't argue the fact she is doing her job well as a Senator and that is where we want her. Don't spend 50 million dollars, or shall I say "waste" 50 million when New York residents are happy with the job you are doing. What is being missed in this equation is that the people of New York are not being asked if we would vote for Mrs. Clinton in a Presidental race. Many many people I have talked to state in fact they would NOT vote for her but would prefer Barack Obama. She is going to have a tough time convicing New Yorkers she deserves to be President.
They also point out in their blog that Senator Obama, at the time a state representative gave a SHORT TERM internship to a young man who happened to be the son of a man who was a friend of the very same Tony Rezko. Now, can someone explain to me why a young man, who having done nothing wrong, and with the right qualifications, can't ask for an internship? What did Barack Obama do wrong in this instance? He gave an internship to a young man for a short term who had absolutely nothing to do with the actions or business of the same Tony Rezko. If the bloggers feel this is indicative of a corrupt atmosphere, then they need to rethink their position on this one.
Senator Obama has never avoided answering truthfully when asked if he regretted anything or anything about his background, something other Presidential hopefuls should emulate. He has been forthright and truthful in his two books about his past, admitting to when he made mistakes, something you won't find in any writings by other politicians. I think that is what some fear the most. The concept of an honest man. Yes, the media at times calls him a "rock star" but that is not the essence of the man. What scares some is that a black man, of great intelligence, great credentials and education, would dare to succeed in a democracy and perhaps be the first Black President of the United States.
In my search on the internet for articles on Senator Obama, I find bloggers digging up nonsence and trying to make a case against Senator Obama and as I read further I find they also attack other Democrats and call them hypocrites when it comes to ethical behavior. What is behind this I ask myself? It is an attempt to discredit what they fear. Fear can bring out the worst in people and their words are hurtful and harmful, yet it is for Senator Obama to be straightforward and honest as he has been. This is his weapon. Being honest with the American people.
Now I just read two blogs discussing the issue of the purchase of some land by Senator Obama where his home is from someone who had been indicted back in 2005. It appears Senator Obama purchased a parcel of land adjacent to his home from Tony Rezko, a real estate developer who was under indictment at the time. This was back in 2005 and of course the writer of the article never mentions IF Mr. Rezko was convicted of anything, and if so, what he was convicted of.
However, that being so, when asked by the Chicago Sun-Times about the transaction, Senator Obama stated honestly that it had been an unwise decision, and that he regretted he had done any business with someone who was being investigated.
My take? If you have to go back to 2005 to try and find SOMETHING, ANYTHING, that you can shout about on your blog that would discredit a man who was not even a sitting Senator at the time, you are desparate indeed. Why not discuss Hillary Clinton's Whitewater fiasco? I am a New Yorker and believe me, there are many many people who do not want Mrs. Clinton to run for President, myself among them and I vote democratic. Why not question the 50 MILLION dollars she spent to ensure a victory as Senator in the past election, when she only needed to spend a tenth of that. I do not argue the fact that Mrs. Clinton has the skill set to be a great Senator. In fact I voted for her re-election. Why? Because she is "hard" and can get down and dirty with the Republicans and get bills passed. I don't argue the fact she is doing her job well as a Senator and that is where we want her. Don't spend 50 million dollars, or shall I say "waste" 50 million when New York residents are happy with the job you are doing. What is being missed in this equation is that the people of New York are not being asked if we would vote for Mrs. Clinton in a Presidental race. Many many people I have talked to state in fact they would NOT vote for her but would prefer Barack Obama. She is going to have a tough time convicing New Yorkers she deserves to be President.
They also point out in their blog that Senator Obama, at the time a state representative gave a SHORT TERM internship to a young man who happened to be the son of a man who was a friend of the very same Tony Rezko. Now, can someone explain to me why a young man, who having done nothing wrong, and with the right qualifications, can't ask for an internship? What did Barack Obama do wrong in this instance? He gave an internship to a young man for a short term who had absolutely nothing to do with the actions or business of the same Tony Rezko. If the bloggers feel this is indicative of a corrupt atmosphere, then they need to rethink their position on this one.
Senator Obama has never avoided answering truthfully when asked if he regretted anything or anything about his background, something other Presidential hopefuls should emulate. He has been forthright and truthful in his two books about his past, admitting to when he made mistakes, something you won't find in any writings by other politicians. I think that is what some fear the most. The concept of an honest man. Yes, the media at times calls him a "rock star" but that is not the essence of the man. What scares some is that a black man, of great intelligence, great credentials and education, would dare to succeed in a democracy and perhaps be the first Black President of the United States.
BARACK OBAMA - THE MAN
What is it about Barack Obama that brings excitement anew to those of us who have grown dissatisfied with how our country is run, and unhappy with the state of our country, yet we search to find that special "someone" who can renew us and instill in us a new hope for our future. I myself have never been active at all in stating my views or getting so intrigued with the political process. Now I find myself trying to find out everything I can about this man who has brought renewed excitement in politics, and in fact our future for this country.
I am but a humble person, living my life in New York, worrying about day to day life, upset with the way things are going for our country, yet feeling powerless to do anything. I now find myself excited about one man, who demands attention by his very presence, and his speech and his ideas have a quality that I have not seen in a long time. There is just something "special" about him. It is difficult to define, but it is there. A sense he is destined to do great things, and is on the threshold of that journey.
In my search for more information about Barack Obama, I came upon an old article he wrote for Time Magazine back in 2005. It tells me something about the man which intriques me even more.
The title of the article is: "What I see in Lincoln's eyes". Senator Obama appears to have been a young man when he wrote this article, but it gave me insight into the man who is now a US Senator. This intelligent man, with a great education, President of the Harvard Law Review, who instead of following his fellow graduates into big and income producing law firms, choose instead to go back to his community and work with the "have nots", losing his first election, but forging onward and never giving up. It tells me something of the character of the man we look at now as a possible candidate for President of the United States. For Lincoln had no formal college education, yet steered our country through a terrible civil war, with little experience, he became one of our greatest Presidents.
For those who would make the arguement that Senator Barack Obama lacks experience, I can only point to a great President and suggest that not all greatness is forged in governship or time in Congress, but rather in the make up of the man, the quality that makes him the right man at the right time. Perhaps that is what made Lincoln such a great President. He went to Washington with fresh eyes and an open mind, unblemished by the political turmoil that continually exists in Washington, open to new ideas, and working with both parties, he steered us through a great civil war. He had his faults, for who can state they have no faults, but he became an icon with a great memorial we all visit when travelling to Washington D.C.
I would suggest that one need not point at the amount of TIME spent in politics, but in the QUALITY of the person, the qualities that make up the person and the ideas they present. We are at a crossroad in our country, one that is filled with angry citizens over many issues and it is a time we need someone who is not a "cookie cutter" candidate, but one who can instill in the people of this country a new found enthusiasm, and a renewed hope for our future. Issues there will be, but to deal with these issues we need a candidate for the "moment". I feel that candidate is Senator Barack Obama.
I am but a humble person, living my life in New York, worrying about day to day life, upset with the way things are going for our country, yet feeling powerless to do anything. I now find myself excited about one man, who demands attention by his very presence, and his speech and his ideas have a quality that I have not seen in a long time. There is just something "special" about him. It is difficult to define, but it is there. A sense he is destined to do great things, and is on the threshold of that journey.
In my search for more information about Barack Obama, I came upon an old article he wrote for Time Magazine back in 2005. It tells me something about the man which intriques me even more.
The title of the article is: "What I see in Lincoln's eyes". Senator Obama appears to have been a young man when he wrote this article, but it gave me insight into the man who is now a US Senator. This intelligent man, with a great education, President of the Harvard Law Review, who instead of following his fellow graduates into big and income producing law firms, choose instead to go back to his community and work with the "have nots", losing his first election, but forging onward and never giving up. It tells me something of the character of the man we look at now as a possible candidate for President of the United States. For Lincoln had no formal college education, yet steered our country through a terrible civil war, with little experience, he became one of our greatest Presidents.
For those who would make the arguement that Senator Barack Obama lacks experience, I can only point to a great President and suggest that not all greatness is forged in governship or time in Congress, but rather in the make up of the man, the quality that makes him the right man at the right time. Perhaps that is what made Lincoln such a great President. He went to Washington with fresh eyes and an open mind, unblemished by the political turmoil that continually exists in Washington, open to new ideas, and working with both parties, he steered us through a great civil war. He had his faults, for who can state they have no faults, but he became an icon with a great memorial we all visit when travelling to Washington D.C.
I would suggest that one need not point at the amount of TIME spent in politics, but in the QUALITY of the person, the qualities that make up the person and the ideas they present. We are at a crossroad in our country, one that is filled with angry citizens over many issues and it is a time we need someone who is not a "cookie cutter" candidate, but one who can instill in the people of this country a new found enthusiasm, and a renewed hope for our future. Issues there will be, but to deal with these issues we need a candidate for the "moment". I feel that candidate is Senator Barack Obama.
Monday, January 8, 2007
MEDICARE PART D IS A MESS
THE MESS THAT IS MEDICARE PART D - PERSCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE
I really was not ready to get into some of the issues facing our country, but I had an experience with a neighbor that bothers me a lot so I might as well write down my thoughts while they are on my mind. For those that are not faced with needing the new Perscription drug plan FORCED on the elderly and the disabled, yes folks, they are not given the opportunity to choose if they want to be part of it, they are forced to be in the program and if they don't choose a plan themselves, well then, the government chooses one for them and enrolls them, without their signature or personal decision. Did you know that? Unless you are part of the unfortunate who need help with Perscription drugs, you wouldn't even know about it, but it's a fact.
My experience with trying to help my neighbor left me wondering what the heck is wrong with Medicare and what ARE they thinking when they make up these new laws and then force feed them to the least fortunate, giving them no say in the matter. My experience with my neighbor is but one of many examples. Allow me to explain:
My neighbor is not old enough to be considered elderly, she is disabled. Prior to the new Perscription drug portion of Medicare was enacted, we had set her up to pay for a perscription plan which provided between 30% and 50% deductions off the cost of her medications. Although this was a hardship for her, she was managing and never had to worry if a medication her doctor wanted her to take would be covered. They all were, she received her deduction from her plan and payed the balance.
Along came Medicare Part D, the Perscription Drug Plan which you might think would allow her to have a few extra bucks in her pocket book each month now wouldn't you? Well it isn't so. Allow me to explain. She really didn't want to sign up for Medicare Part D but received letters telling her if she didn't sign up for one of the plans, they would choose one for her, forcing her into the program. There were literally hundreds of Perscription plans to choose from and when you called the companies, the people who answered the phones were abrupt, cold, and unhelpful. I know because I helped make those calls. So we ended up calling Social Security and asked for assistance in choosing the proper plan for her. We listed the perscriptions she was taking and asked which Perscription Drug plan covered these medications. She was advised to sign up for one in particular and Social Security signed her up and she received her card. She also received a total of 4 letters explaining to her that due to her income per month she qualified for the extra $600 in help per year so she would not have any co-payments until that $600 was used up. What they failed to explain, if a drug is not on a particular Perscription Drug company's "formulary" (a list of covered drugs), then she would have to call and ask for a form be sent to her doctor so her doctor could justify the reason for perscribing a particular medication not covered.
I can personally attest to the fact we called well over 100 times requesting the form be faxed to her doctor for a medication she HAD to take that was not covered by the plan. No form was ever submitted to her doctor. We were forced to have her keep paying for the OTHER non-medicare Perscription Drug plan so she could receive at least 40% off the drug.
Now this Medicare Perscription Drug plan sends her a monthly statement of the payments they have made for perscriptions they have covered. Interesting to note, they are paying practically nothing for drugs she was paying quite a bit more for even given the reduction she received through her other Perscription plan she was paying for. An example: One drug she used to pay for cost her $20.00 per month which included a 45% deduction in price through her other Perscription plan. The monthly statement from the MEDICARE PART D company that is supposed to cover her is only paying $1.78 per month for the VERY SAME DRUG. This shows us that this particular Perscription Drug company plan is being payed BILLIONS of dollars by the Federal Government to be a part of their Medicare Part D Perscription Drug Plan. Companies are of course eager to be part of this new Perscription Drug plan so highly touted by the Federal Government. They are making billions of dollars and are also dictating to doctors what drugs they will cover and the better medications, that those with money can afford are not covered, forcing fixed income people to only benefit from generic older drugs for which there are newer and better ones available.
Medicare Part D - The Perscription Drug Plan covers only 3 of the medications my neighbor takes. The most expensive one, which happens to be a "controlled substance" is not covered, despite constant calls and pleas by those of us who care about her situation so she is forced despite being eligible for a $600 added benefit, to pay for a SEPARATE perscription plan in order to afford this medication. Her doctor wants to put her on another medication, but it also is not covered by her Perscription Part D company. Yet, I personally checked and EVERY SINGLE company that is part of the Medicare Part D program covers the full cost of medication for ILLEGAL drug withdrawal. Now, can someone explain to me, why they would cover medication for those who take ILLEGAL DRUGS yet fail to serve the truly law abiding citizen in need? The drugs they cover for those who were taking ILLEGAL DRUGS such as cocaine and heroin to help them withdraw, despite their abuse of that very same drug which is a "controlled substance" also are FULLY covered by Medicare Part D, yet a drug my neighbor needs, perscribed legally by her doctor is NOT covered. Out of all the medications she takes per month, her Perscription Medicare plan only pays the Pharmacy a total of $4.50 per month. Multiple her case a million times over and the subsidy they are receiving from the Federal Goverment to cover her medications amounts to billions of dollars, yet they control what she is allowed to take, and what drugs her doctor is allowed to perscribe for her. There is a brand new drug on the market, therefore it is a Brand name and not a generic drug, which would benefit her greatly, but it will not be covered by her Medicare Part D plan so she will have to pay for it through the other Perscription plan she pays for out of her own pocket.
This story is not unique. It can be seen in patient after patient. It forces doctors to read the "forumlary" of a particular company before perscribing needed medication to a patient, therefore dictating how a doctor treats that particular patient in care. They may WANT to perscribe a much needed NEW medication on the market, but are restrained from doing so, so as not to unduly burden the patient financially. Not only that, the "formulary" each company has changes monthly and the patient is told, well you will know if we are covering it when you go to pick it up at the Pharmacy. Well if it is not covered, the patient is then left not being able to get their medication, suffering embarassment at the pharmacy by having to say, I'm sorry, I can't afford to pay for it and go away without their new perscription. I have seen this happen over and over again.
For those that work, and have great medical coverage, little is known to them about the issues surrounding Medicare and Medicare Part D so to them it is not an issue. But to millions of Americans who are elderly or disabled this is a major issue and needs to be addressed and fixed.
Those that serve the elderly and the disabled have been lobbying Washington for quite some time to fix the issues related to the Perscription Drug plan. My take? Take the Perscription Drug Plan away from the PRIVATE companies and make it part of Medicare. As the Federal Goverment would be able to negotiate the price of the medications with the drug companies, not give subsidies to private companies and save the taxpayers billions of dollars. Dollars that could be used to address another major issue facing the poor and fixed income citizens such as lack of housing and other services. Services to the disabled have been cut back dramatically especially those serving those with Mental disabilities. The reality is folks that those with Mental Disability can function fully in society with the help of doctors and medication, but these services have received cutbacks continually over the past few years under Bush's administration. Those who service people in need and the disabled in your very own communities are struggling to provide basic service to the most needy, while President Bush spends billions per week on his "folly", the war in Iraq. Elderly who need the program "Meals on Wheels" as they are physically unable to cook their own food, are forced on waiting lists to be able to receive their daily delivery of a hot meal. These elderly built this country and are now forced into a poverty they should not have to suffer.
The wait for those on fixed income, be it Social Security or Disability, land on LONG waiting lists for subsidized housing. Why? Because no money is being put into building more subsidized housing for those in need. You ask why people are homeless? They are forced on waiting lists, somestimes some of these lists are years long until your name comes up, and you can't afford regular market rentals, so you are forced into housing for the homeless or just be on the streets. Remember next time you pass by homeless people on the streets that not ALL of them ask to be there. Because they are homeless, they don't have an address where they can receive Social Security benefits, and most don't even know how to apply for these benefits, and most certainly have no address to give to receive the benefits.
Also think about our Veterans who come home disabled. They too will be forced on long waiting lists to get into housing that is subsidized for the disabled on fixed incomes. Veterans who have served our country honorably are forced into homelessness by the very country they have served because they also have to go on a waiting list for available housing. For the Veteran, they do have access to free medications through the Veteran's Administration because they have great bargaining power with the drug companies to be able to provide free medication to Veterans. The Federal Goverment should look into how the Veteran's Administration incorporates drugs for their Veterans as a model for Medicare Part D. There is absolutely no reason to "farm out" perscription drug coverage when Medicare has just the same type of bargaining power as the Veteran's Administration and could incorporate drug coverage within the Medicare program itself.
I could go on about the disparity that exists in the waste of billions of dollars in programs that don't work and will discuss more in future posts. But since I had just finished visiting my neighbor and discussed a perscription she needed but was not covered by her Part D company, I felt the need to "vent" a little. More to come.
Can someone explain to me where the priority is here?
Much of what I have just written about brings to mind the time spent by Senator Obama serving the poor in his community after graduating from college. It gives me hope as he has seen for himself the needs of the fixed income citizen and will have an understanding of the issues they face. This can only benfit ALL citizens if he is our new President. As he has been there and seen it for himself. I am tired of those that would run for President who have absolutely no clue as to what those on fixed income and the lower middle class face on a daily basis. They are too far removed from the realities of these issues and certainly can't fully understand what they are dealing with. Senator Obama chose to serve the poor in his community. I feel this serves as one of the TRUE assets Senator Obama brings to the table. His knowledge and understanding of what the poor and lower middle class face can only enhance his understanding of the needs of the American people.
I really was not ready to get into some of the issues facing our country, but I had an experience with a neighbor that bothers me a lot so I might as well write down my thoughts while they are on my mind. For those that are not faced with needing the new Perscription drug plan FORCED on the elderly and the disabled, yes folks, they are not given the opportunity to choose if they want to be part of it, they are forced to be in the program and if they don't choose a plan themselves, well then, the government chooses one for them and enrolls them, without their signature or personal decision. Did you know that? Unless you are part of the unfortunate who need help with Perscription drugs, you wouldn't even know about it, but it's a fact.
My experience with trying to help my neighbor left me wondering what the heck is wrong with Medicare and what ARE they thinking when they make up these new laws and then force feed them to the least fortunate, giving them no say in the matter. My experience with my neighbor is but one of many examples. Allow me to explain:
My neighbor is not old enough to be considered elderly, she is disabled. Prior to the new Perscription drug portion of Medicare was enacted, we had set her up to pay for a perscription plan which provided between 30% and 50% deductions off the cost of her medications. Although this was a hardship for her, she was managing and never had to worry if a medication her doctor wanted her to take would be covered. They all were, she received her deduction from her plan and payed the balance.
Along came Medicare Part D, the Perscription Drug Plan which you might think would allow her to have a few extra bucks in her pocket book each month now wouldn't you? Well it isn't so. Allow me to explain. She really didn't want to sign up for Medicare Part D but received letters telling her if she didn't sign up for one of the plans, they would choose one for her, forcing her into the program. There were literally hundreds of Perscription plans to choose from and when you called the companies, the people who answered the phones were abrupt, cold, and unhelpful. I know because I helped make those calls. So we ended up calling Social Security and asked for assistance in choosing the proper plan for her. We listed the perscriptions she was taking and asked which Perscription Drug plan covered these medications. She was advised to sign up for one in particular and Social Security signed her up and she received her card. She also received a total of 4 letters explaining to her that due to her income per month she qualified for the extra $600 in help per year so she would not have any co-payments until that $600 was used up. What they failed to explain, if a drug is not on a particular Perscription Drug company's "formulary" (a list of covered drugs), then she would have to call and ask for a form be sent to her doctor so her doctor could justify the reason for perscribing a particular medication not covered.
I can personally attest to the fact we called well over 100 times requesting the form be faxed to her doctor for a medication she HAD to take that was not covered by the plan. No form was ever submitted to her doctor. We were forced to have her keep paying for the OTHER non-medicare Perscription Drug plan so she could receive at least 40% off the drug.
Now this Medicare Perscription Drug plan sends her a monthly statement of the payments they have made for perscriptions they have covered. Interesting to note, they are paying practically nothing for drugs she was paying quite a bit more for even given the reduction she received through her other Perscription plan she was paying for. An example: One drug she used to pay for cost her $20.00 per month which included a 45% deduction in price through her other Perscription plan. The monthly statement from the MEDICARE PART D company that is supposed to cover her is only paying $1.78 per month for the VERY SAME DRUG. This shows us that this particular Perscription Drug company plan is being payed BILLIONS of dollars by the Federal Government to be a part of their Medicare Part D Perscription Drug Plan. Companies are of course eager to be part of this new Perscription Drug plan so highly touted by the Federal Government. They are making billions of dollars and are also dictating to doctors what drugs they will cover and the better medications, that those with money can afford are not covered, forcing fixed income people to only benefit from generic older drugs for which there are newer and better ones available.
Medicare Part D - The Perscription Drug Plan covers only 3 of the medications my neighbor takes. The most expensive one, which happens to be a "controlled substance" is not covered, despite constant calls and pleas by those of us who care about her situation so she is forced despite being eligible for a $600 added benefit, to pay for a SEPARATE perscription plan in order to afford this medication. Her doctor wants to put her on another medication, but it also is not covered by her Perscription Part D company. Yet, I personally checked and EVERY SINGLE company that is part of the Medicare Part D program covers the full cost of medication for ILLEGAL drug withdrawal. Now, can someone explain to me, why they would cover medication for those who take ILLEGAL DRUGS yet fail to serve the truly law abiding citizen in need? The drugs they cover for those who were taking ILLEGAL DRUGS such as cocaine and heroin to help them withdraw, despite their abuse of that very same drug which is a "controlled substance" also are FULLY covered by Medicare Part D, yet a drug my neighbor needs, perscribed legally by her doctor is NOT covered. Out of all the medications she takes per month, her Perscription Medicare plan only pays the Pharmacy a total of $4.50 per month. Multiple her case a million times over and the subsidy they are receiving from the Federal Goverment to cover her medications amounts to billions of dollars, yet they control what she is allowed to take, and what drugs her doctor is allowed to perscribe for her. There is a brand new drug on the market, therefore it is a Brand name and not a generic drug, which would benefit her greatly, but it will not be covered by her Medicare Part D plan so she will have to pay for it through the other Perscription plan she pays for out of her own pocket.
This story is not unique. It can be seen in patient after patient. It forces doctors to read the "forumlary" of a particular company before perscribing needed medication to a patient, therefore dictating how a doctor treats that particular patient in care. They may WANT to perscribe a much needed NEW medication on the market, but are restrained from doing so, so as not to unduly burden the patient financially. Not only that, the "formulary" each company has changes monthly and the patient is told, well you will know if we are covering it when you go to pick it up at the Pharmacy. Well if it is not covered, the patient is then left not being able to get their medication, suffering embarassment at the pharmacy by having to say, I'm sorry, I can't afford to pay for it and go away without their new perscription. I have seen this happen over and over again.
For those that work, and have great medical coverage, little is known to them about the issues surrounding Medicare and Medicare Part D so to them it is not an issue. But to millions of Americans who are elderly or disabled this is a major issue and needs to be addressed and fixed.
Those that serve the elderly and the disabled have been lobbying Washington for quite some time to fix the issues related to the Perscription Drug plan. My take? Take the Perscription Drug Plan away from the PRIVATE companies and make it part of Medicare. As the Federal Goverment would be able to negotiate the price of the medications with the drug companies, not give subsidies to private companies and save the taxpayers billions of dollars. Dollars that could be used to address another major issue facing the poor and fixed income citizens such as lack of housing and other services. Services to the disabled have been cut back dramatically especially those serving those with Mental disabilities. The reality is folks that those with Mental Disability can function fully in society with the help of doctors and medication, but these services have received cutbacks continually over the past few years under Bush's administration. Those who service people in need and the disabled in your very own communities are struggling to provide basic service to the most needy, while President Bush spends billions per week on his "folly", the war in Iraq. Elderly who need the program "Meals on Wheels" as they are physically unable to cook their own food, are forced on waiting lists to be able to receive their daily delivery of a hot meal. These elderly built this country and are now forced into a poverty they should not have to suffer.
The wait for those on fixed income, be it Social Security or Disability, land on LONG waiting lists for subsidized housing. Why? Because no money is being put into building more subsidized housing for those in need. You ask why people are homeless? They are forced on waiting lists, somestimes some of these lists are years long until your name comes up, and you can't afford regular market rentals, so you are forced into housing for the homeless or just be on the streets. Remember next time you pass by homeless people on the streets that not ALL of them ask to be there. Because they are homeless, they don't have an address where they can receive Social Security benefits, and most don't even know how to apply for these benefits, and most certainly have no address to give to receive the benefits.
Also think about our Veterans who come home disabled. They too will be forced on long waiting lists to get into housing that is subsidized for the disabled on fixed incomes. Veterans who have served our country honorably are forced into homelessness by the very country they have served because they also have to go on a waiting list for available housing. For the Veteran, they do have access to free medications through the Veteran's Administration because they have great bargaining power with the drug companies to be able to provide free medication to Veterans. The Federal Goverment should look into how the Veteran's Administration incorporates drugs for their Veterans as a model for Medicare Part D. There is absolutely no reason to "farm out" perscription drug coverage when Medicare has just the same type of bargaining power as the Veteran's Administration and could incorporate drug coverage within the Medicare program itself.
I could go on about the disparity that exists in the waste of billions of dollars in programs that don't work and will discuss more in future posts. But since I had just finished visiting my neighbor and discussed a perscription she needed but was not covered by her Part D company, I felt the need to "vent" a little. More to come.
Can someone explain to me where the priority is here?
Much of what I have just written about brings to mind the time spent by Senator Obama serving the poor in his community after graduating from college. It gives me hope as he has seen for himself the needs of the fixed income citizen and will have an understanding of the issues they face. This can only benfit ALL citizens if he is our new President. As he has been there and seen it for himself. I am tired of those that would run for President who have absolutely no clue as to what those on fixed income and the lower middle class face on a daily basis. They are too far removed from the realities of these issues and certainly can't fully understand what they are dealing with. Senator Obama chose to serve the poor in his community. I feel this serves as one of the TRUE assets Senator Obama brings to the table. His knowledge and understanding of what the poor and lower middle class face can only enhance his understanding of the needs of the American people.
SENATOR OBAMA NAMED #1 OF TOP TEN COMMUNICATORS OF 2006
Acknowledging the 10 best communicators of 2006
1 hr 44 ago
The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper Jan 1, 2007 6:00 AM (7 days ago)
SAN FRANCISCO - 1 Sen. Barack Obama: Obama-mania! He burst onto the scene with one speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. He has kept up his impact in the high-risk, high-profile arena of politics — so much so that he deserves to be the top communicator of 2006. Obama is one of the few politicians whose one name captures the experience of the person, such as Oprah, Bono and Madonna. And Obama might be the real deal. He looks his interviewers and public in the eye, holds himself tall, and yet remains informal and humble in stance in posture. He’s great on talk shows. Yes, he’s a real candidate for the presidency, maybe because there’s a weak field. And to add to the exposure, he even has come out with a best-selling book. So he’s smart, as well as a great communicator.
1 hr 44 ago
The San Francisco Examiner Newspaper Jan 1, 2007 6:00 AM (7 days ago)
SAN FRANCISCO - 1 Sen. Barack Obama: Obama-mania! He burst onto the scene with one speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. He has kept up his impact in the high-risk, high-profile arena of politics — so much so that he deserves to be the top communicator of 2006. Obama is one of the few politicians whose one name captures the experience of the person, such as Oprah, Bono and Madonna. And Obama might be the real deal. He looks his interviewers and public in the eye, holds himself tall, and yet remains informal and humble in stance in posture. He’s great on talk shows. Yes, he’s a real candidate for the presidency, maybe because there’s a weak field. And to add to the exposure, he even has come out with a best-selling book. So he’s smart, as well as a great communicator.
OBAMA OPPOSES TROOP SURGE IN IRAQ
Obama opposes troop surge in Iraq01/06/2007 08:40:10
Senator Barack Obama is siding with the new Congressional leadership in opposing President Bush calls for a troop surge in Iraq. Obama says "a surge would tell Iraqi leaders they can continue to avoid reaching a political solution."
Senator Obama has remained steadfast in his opposition to President Bush's push to continue the war in Iraq, in fact, from the very beginning voted against it. As part of the group of Senators and congressmen and women invited to the White House to discuss this issue, Senator Obama made the above statement after his meeting with the President. He explains that they voiced their opposition to the President; whether President Bush takes anyone's advice at this time is a question only HE can answer.
The latest national polls show that only 12% of the country support Bush's position. Yet, President Bush persists in his "folly", ignoring the people of this country's wishes, and the recommendations of Congress. It will be an interesting examination into the "mind" of the President and why he feels he knows better than anyone else what is best for us. It is frustrating to me as a citizen, after voting, which is my only voice of discontent of his actions and that of what had been the congress, yet it appears President Bush chooses to ignore the wishes and votes of the people and do what he chooses, despite opposition. It would be interesting to examine what is behind his ill-conceived actions, and his stubborness and unwillingness to admit the Iraq war is a mess, it is killing our sons and daughters needlessly, and it is NOT WORKING. Get it Mr. President? It appears our President does not like to admit when he is wrong. He would garner much more respect from the citizens of this country by just admitting it was a big mistake and here is how we are going to get out. There is no shame in admitting when one is wrong, in fact, you gain respect, and support from the people of this country if you would do so. So Mr. President, what will it be? Stay stubborn and continue on with your "folly", or admit to the American people you were wrong and ask for the help of Congress to devise a plan to bring our soldiers out of there. It is up to the Iraqi people to now stabilize and run their own country. We have no business involving ourselves in their regligious conflicts. You have citizens here in this country who need financial assistance, veterans who have gone ignored, and parts of the world who desparately need assistance, i.e, DARFUR, where you could present to the world a good image of the United States. Yet you continue to make our country look the "aggressor" and lose credibility among the world community, not as a country who is there to help when other countries are in need, but one who "invades" and "destroys entire communities" and for what? Saddam Hussein though a brutal tyrant has not been proven to have been the enemy, yet you choose his country to go after instead of going after Bin Laden. Destablizing that area of the world, has only led to distrust by neighboring countries you need to work with to bring stability to the area, even if you consider them enemies, you still need to work with them in order to keep the peace, yet you fail, in fact even refuse to consider talks with some of the neighboring countries and further alienate them. By doing so, you lose their cooperation in stablizing the area and forcing our troops to be the targets of angry citizens of that country. You make our country look like a Bully and you do so without the consent of the people of the United States. In your mind it appears, it's "my way or the highway".
Let's bring it down to your level Mr. President so you can understand the concept.
A teacher in a grade school when dealing with two children who constantly are at odds and fighting, sits them down and gets them to talk about their differences, asking them to find something they might have in common, hoping that by TALKING, she can diffuse the fighting between the two children, and perhaps, just perhaps, gets them to cooperate with each other. They might never be the best of friends, but they do end up understanding a little about the other one.
On a grander scale, countries do this all the time. They sit down, knowing they have huge differences of opinion, yet work to find what they DO have in common and work on the common ideas, thereby, providing groundwork for better communication between the countries. It appears our President doesn't grasp that concept, or he has advisers who have yet to teach the President this concept.
Mr. President, as Senator Obama stated, civility, and discussion can bring about some common ground by which to make a beginning in understanding between countries. It in fact can bring about their cooperation in assisting in stablizing Iraq and our soldiers can come home. Why do you refuse to heed this advice? Why do you refuse to listen to the citizens of this country who oppose your actions, and your proposed sending of even more troops over there to be TARGETS of the discontented people of that country? You are breeding terrorism where there had been none, and failing to attack the terrorists where they DO exist. This is your "folly" and we the people, who hired you, oppose this ill-advised course you choose. You do this at your peril, for you will only earn more ill will of the people. Or as has been suggested on some television "talk" shows, you are trying to stretch the situation out until you are out of office, leaving the entire mess for the next President to fix? Is your suggested step up of troops, only to hold things together until you are out of office? Interesting thoughts for one to consider.
As I look back to the very beginning, when our country was attacked that terrible September morning and relive my feelings as a New York resident the weeks following that event I realized that you, Mr.President, used the sadness, dispair, and fear of the people for your own agenda. You furthered the fear of the citizens by claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when in fact, they had none as your reason for invading that country. In the aftermath of that terrible September day, you used the feelings of the people, to your advantage and your agenda. We would have and do support the actions taken in Afganistan to root out the terrorists in hopes of finding and bringing to justice Bin Laden, yet the brave soldiers who continue that fight do not get the reinforcement they need because our country's soldiers are stretched to the limit and yet you want to increase the troops in Iraq, failing to use our resources to support the brave troops fighting where the real terrorists are. You in fact have provided another "breeding ground" on the western border of Iraq for terrorists to train and gain strength, something which would not have occurred if we had not invaded that country. Where will it end Mr. President? When will it end? To this citizen, it appears we are beating our heads against a wall trying to get you to understand your actions are ill-advised and perilous.
I will go into the financial cost of your ill-advised actions in another post. We would like a financial accounting sir of the billions, yes BILLIONS of dollars already spent, yet our troops in Iraq are working with equipment in dangerous disrepair, our Reservists have had to buy their own supplies before shipping over. The citizens of this country in many communities have stepped up and helped our Reserve units to buy the armor they need to help them stay alive because our country does not buy it for them, furthering our investment in this ill-advised war you have committed us to. I doubt most citizens of this country even realize you don't provide even bullet proof vests to reservists you send in harm's way. They have to purchase them themselves, yet the citizens who do know, step up and raise funds to help these soldiers buy the equipment they need. Billions are spent on contracts with companies to help rebuild Iraq, yet we see no substantial rebuilding being completed. Where is the money going Mr. President? You have much to answer for and we the people have a right to hear the answers.
Stay tuned for the next installment.
Senator Barack Obama is siding with the new Congressional leadership in opposing President Bush calls for a troop surge in Iraq. Obama says "a surge would tell Iraqi leaders they can continue to avoid reaching a political solution."
Senator Obama has remained steadfast in his opposition to President Bush's push to continue the war in Iraq, in fact, from the very beginning voted against it. As part of the group of Senators and congressmen and women invited to the White House to discuss this issue, Senator Obama made the above statement after his meeting with the President. He explains that they voiced their opposition to the President; whether President Bush takes anyone's advice at this time is a question only HE can answer.
The latest national polls show that only 12% of the country support Bush's position. Yet, President Bush persists in his "folly", ignoring the people of this country's wishes, and the recommendations of Congress. It will be an interesting examination into the "mind" of the President and why he feels he knows better than anyone else what is best for us. It is frustrating to me as a citizen, after voting, which is my only voice of discontent of his actions and that of what had been the congress, yet it appears President Bush chooses to ignore the wishes and votes of the people and do what he chooses, despite opposition. It would be interesting to examine what is behind his ill-conceived actions, and his stubborness and unwillingness to admit the Iraq war is a mess, it is killing our sons and daughters needlessly, and it is NOT WORKING. Get it Mr. President? It appears our President does not like to admit when he is wrong. He would garner much more respect from the citizens of this country by just admitting it was a big mistake and here is how we are going to get out. There is no shame in admitting when one is wrong, in fact, you gain respect, and support from the people of this country if you would do so. So Mr. President, what will it be? Stay stubborn and continue on with your "folly", or admit to the American people you were wrong and ask for the help of Congress to devise a plan to bring our soldiers out of there. It is up to the Iraqi people to now stabilize and run their own country. We have no business involving ourselves in their regligious conflicts. You have citizens here in this country who need financial assistance, veterans who have gone ignored, and parts of the world who desparately need assistance, i.e, DARFUR, where you could present to the world a good image of the United States. Yet you continue to make our country look the "aggressor" and lose credibility among the world community, not as a country who is there to help when other countries are in need, but one who "invades" and "destroys entire communities" and for what? Saddam Hussein though a brutal tyrant has not been proven to have been the enemy, yet you choose his country to go after instead of going after Bin Laden. Destablizing that area of the world, has only led to distrust by neighboring countries you need to work with to bring stability to the area, even if you consider them enemies, you still need to work with them in order to keep the peace, yet you fail, in fact even refuse to consider talks with some of the neighboring countries and further alienate them. By doing so, you lose their cooperation in stablizing the area and forcing our troops to be the targets of angry citizens of that country. You make our country look like a Bully and you do so without the consent of the people of the United States. In your mind it appears, it's "my way or the highway".
Let's bring it down to your level Mr. President so you can understand the concept.
A teacher in a grade school when dealing with two children who constantly are at odds and fighting, sits them down and gets them to talk about their differences, asking them to find something they might have in common, hoping that by TALKING, she can diffuse the fighting between the two children, and perhaps, just perhaps, gets them to cooperate with each other. They might never be the best of friends, but they do end up understanding a little about the other one.
On a grander scale, countries do this all the time. They sit down, knowing they have huge differences of opinion, yet work to find what they DO have in common and work on the common ideas, thereby, providing groundwork for better communication between the countries. It appears our President doesn't grasp that concept, or he has advisers who have yet to teach the President this concept.
Mr. President, as Senator Obama stated, civility, and discussion can bring about some common ground by which to make a beginning in understanding between countries. It in fact can bring about their cooperation in assisting in stablizing Iraq and our soldiers can come home. Why do you refuse to heed this advice? Why do you refuse to listen to the citizens of this country who oppose your actions, and your proposed sending of even more troops over there to be TARGETS of the discontented people of that country? You are breeding terrorism where there had been none, and failing to attack the terrorists where they DO exist. This is your "folly" and we the people, who hired you, oppose this ill-advised course you choose. You do this at your peril, for you will only earn more ill will of the people. Or as has been suggested on some television "talk" shows, you are trying to stretch the situation out until you are out of office, leaving the entire mess for the next President to fix? Is your suggested step up of troops, only to hold things together until you are out of office? Interesting thoughts for one to consider.
As I look back to the very beginning, when our country was attacked that terrible September morning and relive my feelings as a New York resident the weeks following that event I realized that you, Mr.President, used the sadness, dispair, and fear of the people for your own agenda. You furthered the fear of the citizens by claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when in fact, they had none as your reason for invading that country. In the aftermath of that terrible September day, you used the feelings of the people, to your advantage and your agenda. We would have and do support the actions taken in Afganistan to root out the terrorists in hopes of finding and bringing to justice Bin Laden, yet the brave soldiers who continue that fight do not get the reinforcement they need because our country's soldiers are stretched to the limit and yet you want to increase the troops in Iraq, failing to use our resources to support the brave troops fighting where the real terrorists are. You in fact have provided another "breeding ground" on the western border of Iraq for terrorists to train and gain strength, something which would not have occurred if we had not invaded that country. Where will it end Mr. President? When will it end? To this citizen, it appears we are beating our heads against a wall trying to get you to understand your actions are ill-advised and perilous.
I will go into the financial cost of your ill-advised actions in another post. We would like a financial accounting sir of the billions, yes BILLIONS of dollars already spent, yet our troops in Iraq are working with equipment in dangerous disrepair, our Reservists have had to buy their own supplies before shipping over. The citizens of this country in many communities have stepped up and helped our Reserve units to buy the armor they need to help them stay alive because our country does not buy it for them, furthering our investment in this ill-advised war you have committed us to. I doubt most citizens of this country even realize you don't provide even bullet proof vests to reservists you send in harm's way. They have to purchase them themselves, yet the citizens who do know, step up and raise funds to help these soldiers buy the equipment they need. Billions are spent on contracts with companies to help rebuild Iraq, yet we see no substantial rebuilding being completed. Where is the money going Mr. President? You have much to answer for and we the people have a right to hear the answers.
Stay tuned for the next installment.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA IN THE NEWS
IN THE NEWS
Representative Charles Rangel (D) New York, stated yesterday he had urged Senator Obama to run for President as reported by the AP in an interview yesterday. Read article
INTRODUCTION
I have always wanted to start a blog, yet felt kind of silly writing about myself and my rather simple life. But, I find myself quite intriqued and I must admit rather excited about this new "face" on the political landscape. As I learn more and more about this man, he becomes even more interesting. As I continue with this blog, I hope to introduce you to a truly interesting and intriquing man, who I believe is worthy of being considered by all as a true candidate of the PEOPLE, one who would represent us well if he so chooses to run for President, which is my hope.
Now, my mother always told me, the best way to begin an arguement is to discuss politics or religion. I won't be writing about religion, but I, like every one of you, citizens of these United States have a great stake in current events and the future leaders of our country. Many go about their lives not realizing that every legislative bill, passed can build up to have a huge effect on every one of us.
I have never been one to be one of those that is extremely involved in politics. But as my worry over many recent concerns grew, the more I looked at exactly who is running our country. In fact, it was only this past election (I am embarrassed to admit) that I actually voted in quite a long time. But issues, most especially the Iraq war situation, brought me to the realization that the people of this country are not being served properly, and let's face it, if you look at it, Congress AND the President WORK FOR US. We hired (voted) them to do a job and if we fail to get involved in the hiring, it is then our fault if they fail to do the job we ask them to do. Failure to act by any citizen, or failure to voice dissent, can weaken our power to force those we hire to do the job we hired them to do, for it is we the people who truly should be demanding they serve US and not their own interests.
Now, I am brand new to "blogging" so am still figuring out all the aspects of what I can do with this blog, so if you find typos etc., it is my lack of knowledge of how to use the spell checker etc. I know that sounds silly, but believe it or not there are many who have always wanted to do a blog but are just now getting into it.
I hope to write about the many issues facing all of us in this country today, and my own personal opinions on the topics. I am open to discussion on these topics but let's keep it as civil as we can okay? Politics is a touchy subject with everyone and I do respect other opinions.
My next post which will be the true beginning of this blog will discuss "Bush's Folly" otherwise known as the Iraq war. Did you know Senator Barack Obama voted AGAINST going to war way back when it was first voted on in Congress, yet Hillary Clinton voted FOR the war and now voices "scripted sound bites" stating if she had known then what she knows now, she would have considered her vote more carefully. Well Senator Obama DID consider his vote carefully, and truly felt they should be attempting to get the surrounding countries diplomatically to get involved to resolve the issues and concentrate our military objectives where they WERE needed and that was in Afganistan where Bin Ladin was hiding. But Bush's "My way or the highway" attitude has put us in the middle of a terrible civil war, one which is killing OUR soldiers and I look forward to his upcoming speech where he states he will have a new objective. Yes, this is after firing every General who disagreed with him this week and him replacing them with Generals who agreed with him.
Stay tuned for further discussion on this very important subject to all of us.
Now, my mother always told me, the best way to begin an arguement is to discuss politics or religion. I won't be writing about religion, but I, like every one of you, citizens of these United States have a great stake in current events and the future leaders of our country. Many go about their lives not realizing that every legislative bill, passed can build up to have a huge effect on every one of us.
I have never been one to be one of those that is extremely involved in politics. But as my worry over many recent concerns grew, the more I looked at exactly who is running our country. In fact, it was only this past election (I am embarrassed to admit) that I actually voted in quite a long time. But issues, most especially the Iraq war situation, brought me to the realization that the people of this country are not being served properly, and let's face it, if you look at it, Congress AND the President WORK FOR US. We hired (voted) them to do a job and if we fail to get involved in the hiring, it is then our fault if they fail to do the job we ask them to do. Failure to act by any citizen, or failure to voice dissent, can weaken our power to force those we hire to do the job we hired them to do, for it is we the people who truly should be demanding they serve US and not their own interests.
Now, I am brand new to "blogging" so am still figuring out all the aspects of what I can do with this blog, so if you find typos etc., it is my lack of knowledge of how to use the spell checker etc. I know that sounds silly, but believe it or not there are many who have always wanted to do a blog but are just now getting into it.
I hope to write about the many issues facing all of us in this country today, and my own personal opinions on the topics. I am open to discussion on these topics but let's keep it as civil as we can okay? Politics is a touchy subject with everyone and I do respect other opinions.
My next post which will be the true beginning of this blog will discuss "Bush's Folly" otherwise known as the Iraq war. Did you know Senator Barack Obama voted AGAINST going to war way back when it was first voted on in Congress, yet Hillary Clinton voted FOR the war and now voices "scripted sound bites" stating if she had known then what she knows now, she would have considered her vote more carefully. Well Senator Obama DID consider his vote carefully, and truly felt they should be attempting to get the surrounding countries diplomatically to get involved to resolve the issues and concentrate our military objectives where they WERE needed and that was in Afganistan where Bin Ladin was hiding. But Bush's "My way or the highway" attitude has put us in the middle of a terrible civil war, one which is killing OUR soldiers and I look forward to his upcoming speech where he states he will have a new objective. Yes, this is after firing every General who disagreed with him this week and him replacing them with Generals who agreed with him.
Stay tuned for further discussion on this very important subject to all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
