What a year it has been, this 2010.
We've seen a brutal election which brought Republicans back into control of the U.S. House of Representatives, we've seen North Korea fire at South Korea, heard outrageous statements like that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a UN meeting say that the United States was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a controversial Health Care Bill that was passed and an equally controversial immigration law in Arizona to tackle its growing illegal alien problem and we also said goodbye to a few people in entertainment from Dennis Hopper to Gary Coleman to Leslie Nielsen and Tony Curtis.
It seems like every year has something both exciting and disturbing, making them both memorable in the 365 days. Time goes fast. So with that, comes another year of more excitement and challenges as well as how it affects our lives. To some people, they're still struggling with the economic conditions right now and they lay waiting and praying that the next year will bring them hope to make it out of those particular hardships.
I hope things will turn around when 2011 arrives shortly.
Here's to a brighter and better New Year to everyone!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Iran testing nuclear bomb in North Korea?
The South Korean Foreign Ministry Institute submitted a report on December 24th, that North Korea was planning to test another nuclear weapon at the beginning of the year. Since the artillery attack last month between the two Korean nations, South Korea has also reported that North Korea is digging a tunnel for that specific purpose of carrying out nuclear testing.
But there is more fun nuclear news! The cozy relationship of the Kim Jong-Il dictatorial government and the equally insane Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become more closer than ever before. It has been no secret that Iran and North Korea have developed relations with one another to accomplish their nuclear ambitions, including selling Iran nuclear technology, which includes ways to build Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. In fact, several scientists from Iran have recently headed to North Korea to agree to a nuclear test and have apparently paid money to its government to do so.
What should make this situation even more important to the people in Washington? Well, Fox News had a rather alarming report today that WikiLeaks has released cables that indicate Iran has advanced missiles that could carry nuclear warheads, enough to target every single capital city in Western Europe.
Now, we have two of former President Bush's"axis of evil", which by the way that the United States chose not to deal with years ago, and now for the first time they've been working on nuclear collaboration and quite frankly, very public about it. The enriched uranium in North Korea and their more violent approaches as of late, should give everyone a very clear indication that something bad is going to most likely happen on the horizon. It is quite clear that North Korea's uranium will also help Iran in the long term, which explains why Iran is wanting to test its nuclear bombs in North Korea.
Iran as it continues to defy the United Nations over its nuclear project and it does not seem to be bothered at all over the sanctions the UN has imposed against it. Any country in the Middle East that has a nuclear weapon which they can turn around and sell to a terrorist group, should set off alarm bells everywhere, and this upcoming nuclear test that Iran wants to hold in North Korea should be the final wake up call.
But there is more fun nuclear news! The cozy relationship of the Kim Jong-Il dictatorial government and the equally insane Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become more closer than ever before. It has been no secret that Iran and North Korea have developed relations with one another to accomplish their nuclear ambitions, including selling Iran nuclear technology, which includes ways to build Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. In fact, several scientists from Iran have recently headed to North Korea to agree to a nuclear test and have apparently paid money to its government to do so.
What should make this situation even more important to the people in Washington? Well, Fox News had a rather alarming report today that WikiLeaks has released cables that indicate Iran has advanced missiles that could carry nuclear warheads, enough to target every single capital city in Western Europe.
Now, we have two of former President Bush's"axis of evil", which by the way that the United States chose not to deal with years ago, and now for the first time they've been working on nuclear collaboration and quite frankly, very public about it. The enriched uranium in North Korea and their more violent approaches as of late, should give everyone a very clear indication that something bad is going to most likely happen on the horizon. It is quite clear that North Korea's uranium will also help Iran in the long term, which explains why Iran is wanting to test its nuclear bombs in North Korea.
Iran as it continues to defy the United Nations over its nuclear project and it does not seem to be bothered at all over the sanctions the UN has imposed against it. Any country in the Middle East that has a nuclear weapon which they can turn around and sell to a terrorist group, should set off alarm bells everywhere, and this upcoming nuclear test that Iran wants to hold in North Korea should be the final wake up call.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Will baby boomers get Medicare?
As the baby boomer generation gets closer to the age where they can qualify for the Medicare program, it looks like there will not be enough life support to keep the program running.
According to an Associate Press GfK poll, the study found that 43% of baby boomers can't expect to depend on Medicare for the remainder of their lives, while 20% actually think Medicare is entirely satisfactory. The remaining 37% have mixed feelings about Medicare in their futures.
Congress has already discussed this notion of changing the retirement age as well as what age one should apply for Social Security, which like Medicare, is dwindling. The age to qualify for Medicare was fixed at 65 and now the Federal Government is thinking about raising that to 67 years of age.
Part of the reasoning and logic the Government is wanting to do this is because when this last portion of the baby boomer generation reaches the age of 65 which will be over the next two decades, Medicare at that point will be providing coverage to some 80 million people. However, only 3/5 of every worker will actually be paying taxes into the Medicare program at that point.
You would have thought by now that the Federal Government would have started to take close note on all of this a long time ago. Obviously, programs like Medicare and Social Security would not be around forever.
So now, Congress is thinking about phasing the Medicare program out, switching to supporting a new reform plan of helping retired people receive a fixed payment or even a voucher program to assist them in buying a medical insurance plan of their choice.
I thought the new Health Care Law required everyone to have a health insurance plan anyway? If that is the case, then what is the point of the voucher program?
The unfortunate scenario is that by the time I get to the age of 67, granted that the world is still around, I will not be able to qualify for Medicare, as it will be entirely whipped out by that time.
According to an Associate Press GfK poll, the study found that 43% of baby boomers can't expect to depend on Medicare for the remainder of their lives, while 20% actually think Medicare is entirely satisfactory. The remaining 37% have mixed feelings about Medicare in their futures.
Congress has already discussed this notion of changing the retirement age as well as what age one should apply for Social Security, which like Medicare, is dwindling. The age to qualify for Medicare was fixed at 65 and now the Federal Government is thinking about raising that to 67 years of age.
Part of the reasoning and logic the Government is wanting to do this is because when this last portion of the baby boomer generation reaches the age of 65 which will be over the next two decades, Medicare at that point will be providing coverage to some 80 million people. However, only 3/5 of every worker will actually be paying taxes into the Medicare program at that point.
You would have thought by now that the Federal Government would have started to take close note on all of this a long time ago. Obviously, programs like Medicare and Social Security would not be around forever.
So now, Congress is thinking about phasing the Medicare program out, switching to supporting a new reform plan of helping retired people receive a fixed payment or even a voucher program to assist them in buying a medical insurance plan of their choice.
I thought the new Health Care Law required everyone to have a health insurance plan anyway? If that is the case, then what is the point of the voucher program?
The unfortunate scenario is that by the time I get to the age of 67, granted that the world is still around, I will not be able to qualify for Medicare, as it will be entirely whipped out by that time.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
United Arab Emirates releases details on Hamas Assassination
The United Arab Emirates has decided to release information concerning the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh which happened in Dubai, a year ago. The release of the documents, courtesy of WikiLeaks, says that the small Arabian country cited the primary reason for wanting to release the diplomatic documents is because by keeping it quiet, this would seem like they were "siding with Israel."
Reuters reports that U.S. Ambassador Richard Olson wrote in the memo saying "two options discussed were to say nothing at all or to reveal more or less the full extent of the UAE's investigations... saying nothing would have been perceived as protecting the Israelis..."
UAE officials claim that the assassination was carried out by Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad. Israel however is denying any knowledge about this, nor of any proof of Mossad behind the assassination of al-Mabhouh, although they do acknowledge keeping a close watch on suspected Hamas leaders for trying to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip.
What is interesting about this particular document is that it paints another very clear and grim picture of another Middle Eastern country, harboring a deep resentment against Israel. Usually we always hear about countries such as Syria or Iran wanting to whip Israel off the face of the planet, but this time it is the United Arab Emirates, apparently appalled that Israel is suspected of assassinating a leader of a group like Hamas.
Well, so what!
Israel is doing whatever it can to protect itself from radical terrorist groups, even if it means taking out its leaders.
Keep doing the right thing Israel.
Reuters reports that U.S. Ambassador Richard Olson wrote in the memo saying "two options discussed were to say nothing at all or to reveal more or less the full extent of the UAE's investigations... saying nothing would have been perceived as protecting the Israelis..."
UAE officials claim that the assassination was carried out by Israel's intelligence agency, Mossad. Israel however is denying any knowledge about this, nor of any proof of Mossad behind the assassination of al-Mabhouh, although they do acknowledge keeping a close watch on suspected Hamas leaders for trying to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip.
What is interesting about this particular document is that it paints another very clear and grim picture of another Middle Eastern country, harboring a deep resentment against Israel. Usually we always hear about countries such as Syria or Iran wanting to whip Israel off the face of the planet, but this time it is the United Arab Emirates, apparently appalled that Israel is suspected of assassinating a leader of a group like Hamas.
Well, so what!
Israel is doing whatever it can to protect itself from radical terrorist groups, even if it means taking out its leaders.
Keep doing the right thing Israel.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Afghanistan situation worsening
Despite the Obama Administration's earlier claims this last year that sufficient improvements to make Afghanistan a solvent country again was working, recent UN maps seem to contradict those claims. These maps are used to help monitor areas of danger in the country and to help NATO address those areas which are dominated by the Taliban.
According to the United Nations, the two maps demonstrated a vast deterioration in certain parts of Afghanistan specifically in areas in battle grounds between NATO troops (which two thirds are from the United States) and the Taliban, as well as under developed parts of the country.
If only things could get worse.
Many will remember President Obama, during his campaign, saying he would pull troops out of Afghanistan in his first term. Well, he failed to live up to his promise to all of his liberal supporters. Instead, he announced to deploy 30,000 additional troops and to work with NATO on its new exit strategy, while continuously saying that the country is trying to stabilize itself and is working towards improvements. The Administration says that they will now pull out by 2014, turn it over to Afghan forces, who will begin to restructure Afghanistan in an effort to become a solvent country, for once.
Like that will ever happen.
Everybody knows by now that Afghanistan has failed considerably over the last three decades to become a stabilized democratic country. Does the President honestly believe that by the time the United States pulls out of Afghanistan, that there will be a newly installed democratic government? Apparently he does. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, as well as the Defense Department has mentioned this time and time again. Overthrow the bad government and form a free democratic government.
Wasn't that what we did with Iraq? How did that work out? Not so well, thus far.
Bottom line in my viewpoint is that this particular region of the world is inhabited by radical Islamic and terrorist groups, despicable individuals who cherish their barbarianism and mutant lifestyle.
If indeed the day does come in 2014 that a new government is put in place in Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, or mutants, whatever you wish to call them, can simply recruit new members and go back and take control of it all over again. It has happened many times before.
Same pattern, different era.
According to the United Nations, the two maps demonstrated a vast deterioration in certain parts of Afghanistan specifically in areas in battle grounds between NATO troops (which two thirds are from the United States) and the Taliban, as well as under developed parts of the country.
If only things could get worse.
Many will remember President Obama, during his campaign, saying he would pull troops out of Afghanistan in his first term. Well, he failed to live up to his promise to all of his liberal supporters. Instead, he announced to deploy 30,000 additional troops and to work with NATO on its new exit strategy, while continuously saying that the country is trying to stabilize itself and is working towards improvements. The Administration says that they will now pull out by 2014, turn it over to Afghan forces, who will begin to restructure Afghanistan in an effort to become a solvent country, for once.
Like that will ever happen.
Everybody knows by now that Afghanistan has failed considerably over the last three decades to become a stabilized democratic country. Does the President honestly believe that by the time the United States pulls out of Afghanistan, that there will be a newly installed democratic government? Apparently he does. Both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration, as well as the Defense Department has mentioned this time and time again. Overthrow the bad government and form a free democratic government.
Wasn't that what we did with Iraq? How did that work out? Not so well, thus far.
Bottom line in my viewpoint is that this particular region of the world is inhabited by radical Islamic and terrorist groups, despicable individuals who cherish their barbarianism and mutant lifestyle.
If indeed the day does come in 2014 that a new government is put in place in Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaeda, or mutants, whatever you wish to call them, can simply recruit new members and go back and take control of it all over again. It has happened many times before.
Same pattern, different era.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Last minute Christmas shopping
Today is Christmas Eve and it looks like all of those last minute shoppers will be piling into stores and malls just about everywhere.
And what a fiasco and headache it will probably be. There will be arguing and fighting among shoppers, I'm sure. Trying to fight your way into getting that last George Foreman grill for your father or buying that last framed poster of Taylor Lautner from the Twilight film series for your daughter.
Isn't Christmas shopping so much fun?
Some of these last minute holiday shoppers are just taking advantage of the special deals, others quite frankly don't even care, they just need to buy something so they don't feel resentment from particular family members on Christmas morning.
But retailers are loving it, because it means they will do phenomenal business the day before Christmas. Short of like a "second Black Friday". If you've got kids, Christmas would not be the same if you didn't buy them loads of toys, so Toys R Us has kept all of their stores open for the last 88 straight hours, up until 10 PM tonight!
The National Retail Federation is anticipating that holiday sales will reach $450 billion this year, which is a jump to 3.3% over last year, considering how bad the economy has been for people nationwide. Despite this, people are certainly in the holiday spirit. While others purchase the typical gift cards as a last minute effort or just a holiday card, people are trying to roll in the impact of the economy and conserve their money accordingly. When times are rough at Christmas, people still feel inclined to buy someone something to make them feel more at ease.
Just a recommendation though, if you do happen to get into a confrontation with someone over buying that last Mr. Coffee machine at Wal-Mart, just walk away and go some place else that will have a better price.
Wouldn't want to spend the holidays in jail for knocking someone out.
Merry Christmas!
And what a fiasco and headache it will probably be. There will be arguing and fighting among shoppers, I'm sure. Trying to fight your way into getting that last George Foreman grill for your father or buying that last framed poster of Taylor Lautner from the Twilight film series for your daughter.
Isn't Christmas shopping so much fun?
Some of these last minute holiday shoppers are just taking advantage of the special deals, others quite frankly don't even care, they just need to buy something so they don't feel resentment from particular family members on Christmas morning.
But retailers are loving it, because it means they will do phenomenal business the day before Christmas. Short of like a "second Black Friday". If you've got kids, Christmas would not be the same if you didn't buy them loads of toys, so Toys R Us has kept all of their stores open for the last 88 straight hours, up until 10 PM tonight!
The National Retail Federation is anticipating that holiday sales will reach $450 billion this year, which is a jump to 3.3% over last year, considering how bad the economy has been for people nationwide. Despite this, people are certainly in the holiday spirit. While others purchase the typical gift cards as a last minute effort or just a holiday card, people are trying to roll in the impact of the economy and conserve their money accordingly. When times are rough at Christmas, people still feel inclined to buy someone something to make them feel more at ease.
Just a recommendation though, if you do happen to get into a confrontation with someone over buying that last Mr. Coffee machine at Wal-Mart, just walk away and go some place else that will have a better price.
Wouldn't want to spend the holidays in jail for knocking someone out.
Merry Christmas!
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Rome embassy bomb blasts
Two people were injured as a result of mail bombs that were apparently taken to Swiss and Chilean embassies in Rome, Italy.
Italian investigators believe that the individuals behind this incident are anarchists, and are fearful that future attacks may be possible, not just within Italy, but in other countries including Spain and Greece, as many people are visiting Europe over the holidays. As you may recall, Sweden had a similar attack a few weeks ago.
Thankfully thus far, no innocent people have been killed as a result of the attacks, but it is spreading a wave of fear throughout Europe, and the notion of this apparent 'anarchist' movement, while not necessarily connected to any of the terrorist organizations, but still violent nonetheless, seems to be growing its roots based on Europe's current trends.
Italy also blamed this anarchist group for the clashes between the police and student protesters who were opposing university reform laws, which happened last week. Incidentally, similar actions have been carried out in rioting in Greece after their monetary collapse earlier this year, and just this month, students in the United Kingdom protested against fee increases at universities and even went so far during one of these protests to actually attack both Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Charles who were riding together in his own Rolls Royce, while the students began preaching "off with their heads".
You can obviously see the commonality of anarchy in Europe. The idea of anarchists possibly targeting embassies in Italy out of protests, does not seem to be any different than the events in the United Kingdom.
There is a growing problem in this world right now and people are starting to get angrier and revolting. I personally think it will continue to get more ugly, before it ever gets any better and would not be surprised if we start to encounter the same situations in the United States.
Italian investigators believe that the individuals behind this incident are anarchists, and are fearful that future attacks may be possible, not just within Italy, but in other countries including Spain and Greece, as many people are visiting Europe over the holidays. As you may recall, Sweden had a similar attack a few weeks ago.
Thankfully thus far, no innocent people have been killed as a result of the attacks, but it is spreading a wave of fear throughout Europe, and the notion of this apparent 'anarchist' movement, while not necessarily connected to any of the terrorist organizations, but still violent nonetheless, seems to be growing its roots based on Europe's current trends.
Italy also blamed this anarchist group for the clashes between the police and student protesters who were opposing university reform laws, which happened last week. Incidentally, similar actions have been carried out in rioting in Greece after their monetary collapse earlier this year, and just this month, students in the United Kingdom protested against fee increases at universities and even went so far during one of these protests to actually attack both Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Charles who were riding together in his own Rolls Royce, while the students began preaching "off with their heads".
You can obviously see the commonality of anarchy in Europe. The idea of anarchists possibly targeting embassies in Italy out of protests, does not seem to be any different than the events in the United Kingdom.
There is a growing problem in this world right now and people are starting to get angrier and revolting. I personally think it will continue to get more ugly, before it ever gets any better and would not be surprised if we start to encounter the same situations in the United States.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Teen suicides hit close to home
I'm not going to do my own personal political commentary today, as I felt inclined to share a very well done opinion piece written by George Stahl, who is a resident in my home town of Lake Isabella, California.
Lake Isabella, which is more commonly referred to as the Kern River Valley, has been for as long as I've lived here, been a very close knit rural community just thirty miles east of Bakersfield. Recently, the valley has been recovering from the suicides of two young teenage high school students, and has drawn out the apparent lack of respect and support from the local high school's principal, Jeanie Brachear. She was the Vice Principal of the high school when I was attending back in 2004 and many people have publicly complained about her tenure, thus far.
Mr. Stahl's editorial demonstrates this woman's inability to help the families of these two children who are riddled with grief into the holiday season and while I'll admit myself that I have suffered with depression and thoughts of suicide before, I never imagined that it would hit here at home, at a time when it seems many teenagers nationwide are suffering from this situation.
Mr. Stahl's editorial is from the Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 edition of the Kern Valley Sun:
"Like most of you, I’ve been reading about the tragic deaths of two students in our Valley. These two children somehow saw suicide as the answer to what, was to them, a life spiraling out of control. Still another young lady attempted the same with her precious life. It’s extremely sad to see that people so young and with so much promise, can be in such a dark place in their minds, that this drastic and desperate act seemingly is their only hope.
I’m not a psychologist, and I’m not even going to begin to go into the why’s, how’s, and could’s about these children and the deep heartache they must have felt. I sincerely hope and pray that somehow their parents and families will find comfort in each other and their friends.
I have to tell you though, the response to these horrific events from the authorities at the High School, and the District has been inexcusable at the best, and cannot be tolerated. I know that what I’ve read in the newspaper, and have seen in short blurbs on TV has only touched the surface. My wife and I do not have kids in the school, and we were not raised in the Valley, but we have the privilege of knowing more than a handful of students in our schools including the high school. In my conversations with them, I can see their frustration and grief over the situation. They are so wrapped up in this that it has consumed their lives.
The theme throughout the kids’ conversation is pretty simple and quite loud. “No one wants to hear what we have to say!” Why would they insist that this is the case? After all, from what I hear, counselors were called in by the District and spent two whole days talking to students and staff members. Then at the decision of the principal, they were thanked and told that they were no longer needed. A memorial for the first victim, 17-year-old Caitlyn MacKenzie Rhynes, was set up in front of the school and allowed to stay until, according to a staff member,the principal had it removed. When a memorial for the second victim, 15-year-old Steven Whisler, was being arranged, the school’s Fine Arts building was suggested and this all knowing, ever controlling principal said, ”No!” based on some logistic reasoning that the young man was not due to return to the school until January.
If you read the article in last week’s paper about the school’s employees speaking out about their boss you can get a pretty good understanding of how “Dr.” Brachear runs her school. Pretty much how Nurse Ratchet ran the ward in ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’; with an iron fist and a calculating stone heart.
What the heck is this all about? Who are the people we have allowed to teach, watch and safe-guard our kids? If you go to the Kern Valley High School web-site you can read their mission statement.
I’ll tell you what it says:
“The Mission of Kern Valley High School is to provide a well- rounded, academically challenging environment, which supports the development of productive, self-motivated and responsible citizens”
Since when does the ‘development of productive, self-motivated and responsible citizens’ include the stifling of their thoughts and feelings. Repressing their ideas and telling them that because we have acronyms, either before or after our names, we know best. “We know what you should be feeling right now, and we know how to fix it. You don’t have to tell us anything.”
Well, I’m sorry Dr. Brachear, but they do have to tell you how they feel, and better yet, you have to listen to them. You have to get off that high horse of yours and realize that from what I have read and from what the kids, in all of their glory are saying, is that you are not doing your job. I know, John Teves from the District has said, on television,that you are doing everything you can to help, and that the District has not, as of last Thursday evening, gotten any formal complaints against you. Well, it was on the TV, so it must be true. Right?
Actually, I guess we don’t know how you really feel about any of this. According to all the reports, neither you nor the District has phones that can make outgoing calls. Are we to take this refusal to answer the publics questions through the press, as a feeling of indifference or an admission of guilt?
Yeah, I sound sarcastic, maybe even a bit out of line. Well this is an opinion column, not a news report. It’s about observation and a response to what I see. Just for the record, in my observation, your response has been one of disrespect, and disregard for the lives of the children that you have been entrusted with and for their parents! The response to this is simple. You are in way over your head, and bowing out is an option.
Remember, we know how you are supposed to be feeling right now, and we are here to fix it. All you have to do is…….leave."
I give Mr. Stahl and the Kern Valley Sun a great deal of credit for publicly criticizing Jeanie Brachear, the Kern Valley High School and the Kern High School District's handling of these suicides. This is a very serious matter and it is not just in our small communities, but a nationwide concern.
Lake Isabella, which is more commonly referred to as the Kern River Valley, has been for as long as I've lived here, been a very close knit rural community just thirty miles east of Bakersfield. Recently, the valley has been recovering from the suicides of two young teenage high school students, and has drawn out the apparent lack of respect and support from the local high school's principal, Jeanie Brachear. She was the Vice Principal of the high school when I was attending back in 2004 and many people have publicly complained about her tenure, thus far.
Mr. Stahl's editorial demonstrates this woman's inability to help the families of these two children who are riddled with grief into the holiday season and while I'll admit myself that I have suffered with depression and thoughts of suicide before, I never imagined that it would hit here at home, at a time when it seems many teenagers nationwide are suffering from this situation.
Mr. Stahl's editorial is from the Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010 edition of the Kern Valley Sun:
"Like most of you, I’ve been reading about the tragic deaths of two students in our Valley. These two children somehow saw suicide as the answer to what, was to them, a life spiraling out of control. Still another young lady attempted the same with her precious life. It’s extremely sad to see that people so young and with so much promise, can be in such a dark place in their minds, that this drastic and desperate act seemingly is their only hope.
I’m not a psychologist, and I’m not even going to begin to go into the why’s, how’s, and could’s about these children and the deep heartache they must have felt. I sincerely hope and pray that somehow their parents and families will find comfort in each other and their friends.
I have to tell you though, the response to these horrific events from the authorities at the High School, and the District has been inexcusable at the best, and cannot be tolerated. I know that what I’ve read in the newspaper, and have seen in short blurbs on TV has only touched the surface. My wife and I do not have kids in the school, and we were not raised in the Valley, but we have the privilege of knowing more than a handful of students in our schools including the high school. In my conversations with them, I can see their frustration and grief over the situation. They are so wrapped up in this that it has consumed their lives.
The theme throughout the kids’ conversation is pretty simple and quite loud. “No one wants to hear what we have to say!” Why would they insist that this is the case? After all, from what I hear, counselors were called in by the District and spent two whole days talking to students and staff members. Then at the decision of the principal, they were thanked and told that they were no longer needed. A memorial for the first victim, 17-year-old Caitlyn MacKenzie Rhynes, was set up in front of the school and allowed to stay until, according to a staff member,the principal had it removed. When a memorial for the second victim, 15-year-old Steven Whisler, was being arranged, the school’s Fine Arts building was suggested and this all knowing, ever controlling principal said, ”No!” based on some logistic reasoning that the young man was not due to return to the school until January.
If you read the article in last week’s paper about the school’s employees speaking out about their boss you can get a pretty good understanding of how “Dr.” Brachear runs her school. Pretty much how Nurse Ratchet ran the ward in ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’; with an iron fist and a calculating stone heart.
What the heck is this all about? Who are the people we have allowed to teach, watch and safe-guard our kids? If you go to the Kern Valley High School web-site you can read their mission statement.
I’ll tell you what it says:
“The Mission of Kern Valley High School is to provide a well- rounded, academically challenging environment, which supports the development of productive, self-motivated and responsible citizens”
Since when does the ‘development of productive, self-motivated and responsible citizens’ include the stifling of their thoughts and feelings. Repressing their ideas and telling them that because we have acronyms, either before or after our names, we know best. “We know what you should be feeling right now, and we know how to fix it. You don’t have to tell us anything.”
Well, I’m sorry Dr. Brachear, but they do have to tell you how they feel, and better yet, you have to listen to them. You have to get off that high horse of yours and realize that from what I have read and from what the kids, in all of their glory are saying, is that you are not doing your job. I know, John Teves from the District has said, on television,that you are doing everything you can to help, and that the District has not, as of last Thursday evening, gotten any formal complaints against you. Well, it was on the TV, so it must be true. Right?
Actually, I guess we don’t know how you really feel about any of this. According to all the reports, neither you nor the District has phones that can make outgoing calls. Are we to take this refusal to answer the publics questions through the press, as a feeling of indifference or an admission of guilt?
Yeah, I sound sarcastic, maybe even a bit out of line. Well this is an opinion column, not a news report. It’s about observation and a response to what I see. Just for the record, in my observation, your response has been one of disrespect, and disregard for the lives of the children that you have been entrusted with and for their parents! The response to this is simple. You are in way over your head, and bowing out is an option.
Remember, we know how you are supposed to be feeling right now, and we are here to fix it. All you have to do is…….leave."
I give Mr. Stahl and the Kern Valley Sun a great deal of credit for publicly criticizing Jeanie Brachear, the Kern Valley High School and the Kern High School District's handling of these suicides. This is a very serious matter and it is not just in our small communities, but a nationwide concern.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Iranian filmmaker Jafar Panahi jailed
Jafar Panahi, an award winning filmmaker from Iran, has been sentenced to six years in jail for making movies about humanitarian issues in his home country. Just goes to show how a dictatorial government works.
Because he demonstrated such high opposition against the Iranian Government, the conviction effectively bars Panahi from making any films for the next twenty years and he will not be allowed to write any scripts, travel or do any interviews with any form of news media, nor was he allowed to attend the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year.
I knew that Iran had some harsh punishments for even the slightest opposition of the Government, but prohibiting a world renowned filmmaker just for demonstrating to audiences how horrible things in Iran have been from the human rights perspective, is incredible.
Panahi was initially arrested in June, 2009 after the re-election of president (and clown) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which sparked nationwide protests bringing about major opposition of Iran's people. The protests left many arrested and jailed; others wounded and killed. After Panahi's release in early 2010, he continued to show opposition against Iran's Government and was later arrested again.
His attorney is trying to appeal his conviction but it seems obvious that when it comes to appeals in Iran, there are very few. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also known for refusing to pardon or intervene in any court decisions within Iran.
Nevertheless, the world renowned and respected filmmaker is drawing support from Hollywood directors including Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola, who have publicly criticized his conviction.
It just goes to show how bad things are in other countries when it comes to free speech. Even when things in the United States are crumbling, sometimes you are still thankful to live here than in a country like Iran.
Because here, you can actually criticize the Government anytime you want and get away with it!
Because he demonstrated such high opposition against the Iranian Government, the conviction effectively bars Panahi from making any films for the next twenty years and he will not be allowed to write any scripts, travel or do any interviews with any form of news media, nor was he allowed to attend the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year.
I knew that Iran had some harsh punishments for even the slightest opposition of the Government, but prohibiting a world renowned filmmaker just for demonstrating to audiences how horrible things in Iran have been from the human rights perspective, is incredible.
Panahi was initially arrested in June, 2009 after the re-election of president (and clown) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which sparked nationwide protests bringing about major opposition of Iran's people. The protests left many arrested and jailed; others wounded and killed. After Panahi's release in early 2010, he continued to show opposition against Iran's Government and was later arrested again.
His attorney is trying to appeal his conviction but it seems obvious that when it comes to appeals in Iran, there are very few. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also known for refusing to pardon or intervene in any court decisions within Iran.
Nevertheless, the world renowned and respected filmmaker is drawing support from Hollywood directors including Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola, who have publicly criticized his conviction.
It just goes to show how bad things are in other countries when it comes to free speech. Even when things in the United States are crumbling, sometimes you are still thankful to live here than in a country like Iran.
Because here, you can actually criticize the Government anytime you want and get away with it!
Monday, December 20, 2010
North Korea backing off... for now
Despite constant warnings to cease South Korean military drills, North Korea has apparently demonstrated a sudden change of heart.
Last month, North Korea opened fire on the island of Yeonpyeong, which killed several South Korean civilians and military personnel, resulting in an intensified military response by the South. North Korea warned South Korea that if they continued their military drills, they would not hesitate in attacking.
But it seems all of that changed today when North Korea stated that they would not attack, instead going back to the negotiating table with the South, China and the U.S, after a visit from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is also a former envoy to North Korea and former Ambassador to the United Nations.
While Governor Richardson believes that there have been positive developments between North and South Korea, there is still some speculation as to whether this is just another farce from North Korea, by telling the world that they will not retaliate, letting the tensions cool for a while and then orchestrating a devastating attack on the South. The North is also in a regime change from its supreme leader Kim Jong-il, handing over the dictatorship to his son, Kim Jong-un.
The top concern of North Korea is of course their nuclear program. Enriched uranium was discovered in one of North Korea's plants last month after a shocking visit by an American scientist. The uranium is of course for their nuclear bombs, which are to be used against South Korea. The efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions has been met with failure over and over again, and UN sanctions are not doing anything either.
But in the interim, the good news is that North Korea will back down from retaliation against South Korea. But the real lingering question is any surprise future attack from the North?
Maybe this time, it will be a nuclear bomb.
Last month, North Korea opened fire on the island of Yeonpyeong, which killed several South Korean civilians and military personnel, resulting in an intensified military response by the South. North Korea warned South Korea that if they continued their military drills, they would not hesitate in attacking.
But it seems all of that changed today when North Korea stated that they would not attack, instead going back to the negotiating table with the South, China and the U.S, after a visit from New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is also a former envoy to North Korea and former Ambassador to the United Nations.
While Governor Richardson believes that there have been positive developments between North and South Korea, there is still some speculation as to whether this is just another farce from North Korea, by telling the world that they will not retaliate, letting the tensions cool for a while and then orchestrating a devastating attack on the South. The North is also in a regime change from its supreme leader Kim Jong-il, handing over the dictatorship to his son, Kim Jong-un.
The top concern of North Korea is of course their nuclear program. Enriched uranium was discovered in one of North Korea's plants last month after a shocking visit by an American scientist. The uranium is of course for their nuclear bombs, which are to be used against South Korea. The efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions has been met with failure over and over again, and UN sanctions are not doing anything either.
But in the interim, the good news is that North Korea will back down from retaliation against South Korea. But the real lingering question is any surprise future attack from the North?
Maybe this time, it will be a nuclear bomb.
Friday, December 17, 2010
President Obama ready to sign tax cuts
In what became a massive bipartisan effort, the House of Representatives approved on a vote of 277-148, to extend the Bush tax cuts, and will be signed into law by President Obama.
Congressman Anthony Weiner, who vigorously opposed the compromise, said "Republicans are better poker players than Obama"
Finally getting the hint Congressman Weiner? Its all a poker game.
You recall that just about every single Democrat on Capitol Hill were whining, moaning and complaining that President Obama was a traitor to side with the Republicans compromise on extending the tax cuts for all families, renew unemployment benefits and another year cut to Social Security taxes. Like Congressman Weiner, just about every other Democrat from the Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Barney Frank, wanted to see it fail, because they claimed it would only favor tax cuts to the most wealthy Americans.
But that wasn't the case, thankfully. The President and the majority of Congress saw that this would be the best interest in the American people.
Maybe the only smartest thing they've done all year.
Congressman Anthony Weiner, who vigorously opposed the compromise, said "Republicans are better poker players than Obama"
Finally getting the hint Congressman Weiner? Its all a poker game.
You recall that just about every single Democrat on Capitol Hill were whining, moaning and complaining that President Obama was a traitor to side with the Republicans compromise on extending the tax cuts for all families, renew unemployment benefits and another year cut to Social Security taxes. Like Congressman Weiner, just about every other Democrat from the Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Barney Frank, wanted to see it fail, because they claimed it would only favor tax cuts to the most wealthy Americans.
But that wasn't the case, thankfully. The President and the majority of Congress saw that this would be the best interest in the American people.
Maybe the only smartest thing they've done all year.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Congress sucks!
Don't take my word for it. Take a look at a recent Gallup poll. Only 13% of Americans actually approve of our U.S. Congress. Kind of makes you wonder what exactly is going on in the heads of that 13%.
This is the lowest approval rating in 30 years, according to the Gallup poll.
But just take a look at Congress' track record over the last several years, whether its the House or the Senate. When the Democrats took control of both houses in 2006, they complained about how pathetic and horrible President Bush was, yet the freeloading deer-trapped-in-headlights Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did nothing to enforce impeachment proceedings against him, even though she vowed to have "the most honest, most ethical and transparent Congress in our nation's history..."
How did that work out for you Madam Speaker? Virtually no transparency has existed.
This is the same Congress that did nothing in preventing the financial collapse of 2008. Many of the problems with financial and insurance institutions on Wall Street, the failure of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and government sponsored lending entities including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were sinking into bankruptcy, were all under the watch of Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd.
This is also the same Congress that has for the most part been entirely ignoring the American people for the better part of two years, for the fact that they've been playing rubber stamps of President Obama's radical agenda. Some of the critical issues this last year included Arizona's new immigration law. Congress publicly criticized it, favored Mexican President Felipe Calderon's opposition of our laws and allowed Attorney General Eric Holder to sue Arizona, even though many of the leading polls showed that between 60% and 70% of Americans were supporting Arizona's law. Another critical issue involved Americans largely opposing the Health Care Law, yet Congress went ahead with it and jammed it down everyone's throat, without even looking at all of the major provisions.
Just like what Congressman John Conyers admitted. "We don't read the bills, it would take up too much time and delay the process..."
In another point of drama this year, Senator Lindsay Graham says we should invade Iran and overthrow that country's entire government. Yet while he has a point with relation to the dangers Iran could pose to the U.S. and Israel in particular, is that something we need at this very moment? I'm not questioning Iran's nuclear ambitions that it has to whip Israel off the face of the Earth, or that it has developed a relationship with Venezuela and North Korea, but Senator Graham seems to be oblivious to the fact that China has nuclear weapons, so does Pakistan and India. Hell, we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world!
My point being, the U.S. has enough problems right at home. A $14 trillion national debt, about $115 trillion in unfunded federal financial obligations, unemployment just a point under 10%, jobs being outsourced, people loosing their homes and a Federal Reserve that prints money out of thin air. Congress sits up on Capitol Hill and twiddles their thumbs on the DREAM Act, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Bush Tax Cuts, yet its time to get to the core of our problems.
A clown like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can wait.
It just goes to show how incompetent and unrepresentable our Congress has been over the last several years. No wonder why its fallen to an all time low. Some have even argued that if the approval rating of Congress even matters?
Well it should if they're the ones we're paying to represent us. Oh, I forgot, they don't represent us, they're owned by the global elites, major corporations and special interest groups.
This is the lowest approval rating in 30 years, according to the Gallup poll.
But just take a look at Congress' track record over the last several years, whether its the House or the Senate. When the Democrats took control of both houses in 2006, they complained about how pathetic and horrible President Bush was, yet the freeloading deer-trapped-in-headlights Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did nothing to enforce impeachment proceedings against him, even though she vowed to have "the most honest, most ethical and transparent Congress in our nation's history..."
How did that work out for you Madam Speaker? Virtually no transparency has existed.
This is the same Congress that did nothing in preventing the financial collapse of 2008. Many of the problems with financial and insurance institutions on Wall Street, the failure of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate and government sponsored lending entities including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which were sinking into bankruptcy, were all under the watch of Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd.
This is also the same Congress that has for the most part been entirely ignoring the American people for the better part of two years, for the fact that they've been playing rubber stamps of President Obama's radical agenda. Some of the critical issues this last year included Arizona's new immigration law. Congress publicly criticized it, favored Mexican President Felipe Calderon's opposition of our laws and allowed Attorney General Eric Holder to sue Arizona, even though many of the leading polls showed that between 60% and 70% of Americans were supporting Arizona's law. Another critical issue involved Americans largely opposing the Health Care Law, yet Congress went ahead with it and jammed it down everyone's throat, without even looking at all of the major provisions.
Just like what Congressman John Conyers admitted. "We don't read the bills, it would take up too much time and delay the process..."
In another point of drama this year, Senator Lindsay Graham says we should invade Iran and overthrow that country's entire government. Yet while he has a point with relation to the dangers Iran could pose to the U.S. and Israel in particular, is that something we need at this very moment? I'm not questioning Iran's nuclear ambitions that it has to whip Israel off the face of the Earth, or that it has developed a relationship with Venezuela and North Korea, but Senator Graham seems to be oblivious to the fact that China has nuclear weapons, so does Pakistan and India. Hell, we have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world!
My point being, the U.S. has enough problems right at home. A $14 trillion national debt, about $115 trillion in unfunded federal financial obligations, unemployment just a point under 10%, jobs being outsourced, people loosing their homes and a Federal Reserve that prints money out of thin air. Congress sits up on Capitol Hill and twiddles their thumbs on the DREAM Act, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Bush Tax Cuts, yet its time to get to the core of our problems.
A clown like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can wait.
It just goes to show how incompetent and unrepresentable our Congress has been over the last several years. No wonder why its fallen to an all time low. Some have even argued that if the approval rating of Congress even matters?
Well it should if they're the ones we're paying to represent us. Oh, I forgot, they don't represent us, they're owned by the global elites, major corporations and special interest groups.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
California's budget crisis much worse... says Jerry Brown
Don't you love it when you run for public office and you campaign on "reforms" and manipulate everyone into thinking that's what you're going to do...? Well, Arnold Schwarzenegger did, and nothing was reformed...
What about re-running for the public office that you held some twenty five years before, and campaign on "living within our means"... well Jerry Brown did, and it looks like "living within our means" might become "live in total poverty" soon enough.
It turns out that California Governor-elect Jerry Brown came clean yesterday, adding: "We've been living in fantasy land, it is much worse than I thought. I'm shocked..."
Oh my, I'm so shocked too!
But don't worry Governor Brown, the California Legislative Analyst Office said that the State will not go bankrupt and the Government will not collapse.
Yeah right.
You would think that something like this would at least force people to wake up to the grim reality that California is in. In a more common comparison, California's deepening financial crisis is of the magnitude that Greece is currently going through.
Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger and the State Legislature made significant cutbacks to State programs, yet, it still faced a $20 billion budget gap, which in turn just last month, actually amounted to $25 billion because the Legislature under estimated some of those cuts. Of course that does not include the $200 billion California has in loans and other debts.
Business Insider had an interesting look at some of the other ridiculous spending in Sacramento that has gone on over the last several years:
- In the past 23 years, California has established 23 prisons (one per year) each costing roughly $100 million a year to operate; yet it only established one University, being UC Merced.
- To prove that we spend more money on illegal aliens, than we spend on improving our educational system, 23,000 teachers received pink slips in the last year, yet we spend $859 million a year on imprisoning illegal aliens.
- Seven of the most unemployed cities in the United States, are right in California.
- $500 million is spent each year on fire control
The situation is incredible. Now California is already having to rely on the Federal Government for some kind of bailout. Last month, Sacramento announced it would receive $40 million a day from Washington just to cover its unemployment benefits.
Already, Governor Brown says California's deficit could rise to $28 billion over the next year and a half, and face $20 billion in State deficits through fiscal year 2015-2016. He and the State Treasurer are looking into cutting spending by 25% across the board, and even potential problems in California raising over $3 billion in costs associated to meet the mandates in President Obama's Health Care Bill. At the same time, he is exploring the option of raising taxes into his first year, which is the last thing he should even think about. That would rise the unemployment levels in California and perhaps force people into the brink of poverty.
It is clear that the California State Legislature is the problem. They bow down to the unions and want spending for all their radical programs and other things that this State simply cannot afford any more. I'm sure that nearly 95% of them probably don't even read any of the bills they implement in Sacramento, and of course, they're supposed to be the ones that approve the budget each year, and probably that same 95% don't even have a clear conscious as to what they're doing.
The central spending problem in California is obvious: The cost of illegal immigration and funding to pension plans and benefits. Reform those two issues, and California's crisis can be reduced.
Whether or not Jerry Brown will actually see the writing on the wall and realize that this has to stop, is still unclear.
What about re-running for the public office that you held some twenty five years before, and campaign on "living within our means"... well Jerry Brown did, and it looks like "living within our means" might become "live in total poverty" soon enough.
It turns out that California Governor-elect Jerry Brown came clean yesterday, adding: "We've been living in fantasy land, it is much worse than I thought. I'm shocked..."
Oh my, I'm so shocked too!
But don't worry Governor Brown, the California Legislative Analyst Office said that the State will not go bankrupt and the Government will not collapse.
Yeah right.
You would think that something like this would at least force people to wake up to the grim reality that California is in. In a more common comparison, California's deepening financial crisis is of the magnitude that Greece is currently going through.
Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger and the State Legislature made significant cutbacks to State programs, yet, it still faced a $20 billion budget gap, which in turn just last month, actually amounted to $25 billion because the Legislature under estimated some of those cuts. Of course that does not include the $200 billion California has in loans and other debts.
Business Insider had an interesting look at some of the other ridiculous spending in Sacramento that has gone on over the last several years:
- In the past 23 years, California has established 23 prisons (one per year) each costing roughly $100 million a year to operate; yet it only established one University, being UC Merced.
- To prove that we spend more money on illegal aliens, than we spend on improving our educational system, 23,000 teachers received pink slips in the last year, yet we spend $859 million a year on imprisoning illegal aliens.
- Seven of the most unemployed cities in the United States, are right in California.
- $500 million is spent each year on fire control
The situation is incredible. Now California is already having to rely on the Federal Government for some kind of bailout. Last month, Sacramento announced it would receive $40 million a day from Washington just to cover its unemployment benefits.
Already, Governor Brown says California's deficit could rise to $28 billion over the next year and a half, and face $20 billion in State deficits through fiscal year 2015-2016. He and the State Treasurer are looking into cutting spending by 25% across the board, and even potential problems in California raising over $3 billion in costs associated to meet the mandates in President Obama's Health Care Bill. At the same time, he is exploring the option of raising taxes into his first year, which is the last thing he should even think about. That would rise the unemployment levels in California and perhaps force people into the brink of poverty.
It is clear that the California State Legislature is the problem. They bow down to the unions and want spending for all their radical programs and other things that this State simply cannot afford any more. I'm sure that nearly 95% of them probably don't even read any of the bills they implement in Sacramento, and of course, they're supposed to be the ones that approve the budget each year, and probably that same 95% don't even have a clear conscious as to what they're doing.
The central spending problem in California is obvious: The cost of illegal immigration and funding to pension plans and benefits. Reform those two issues, and California's crisis can be reduced.
Whether or not Jerry Brown will actually see the writing on the wall and realize that this has to stop, is still unclear.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Julian Assange: hero or villan?
Julian Assange, the mysterious founder of WikiLeaks has been granted bail for $315,000 by a British Court today. But, he'll be unable to go free on his own. He's required to wear an electronic bracelet, surrender his passport and report to police on a daily basis.
Assange has been developing major controversy, ever since his website managed to obtain hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. Department documents (known as cables), from the FBI and CIA. In November, WikiLeaks released many of these cable documents, including the United States relationship with Saudi Arabia and were given to major national newspapers, among them including the New York Times and were published.
And, new cables continue to be published.
The released cables, immediately triggered the search and arrest of Assange.
Since this all started coming down last month, Assange and WikiLeaks have been deemed both a hero and a villain by liberals and conservatives, and vice-versa. His arrest triggered protests from followers in Europe, and even resulted in hacking into MasterCard and Visa, after the credit card companies payment services, including people donating money to the WikiLeaks website.
But the major scrutiny that is going around is what people are thinking of Assange. Perhaps, oddly enough, his most prominent critic is Fox News Channel. While I'd typically classify myself as a viewer of Fox News, I've noticed somewhat of a flip flop at times on issues. This is the same news channel that a year before the Tea Parties had even begun, would not allow Congressman Ron Paul to offer his perspective on our country's problems when he was running for President.
After President Obama was elected, the Tea Parties began, yet this is the same thing that Ron Paul had been advocating the entire time for years... a revolution to take our country back.
But I digress, back to Assange.
My point is when it comes to that kind of flip flopping, I've heard on a number of occasions since early 2009 from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity that Americans were getting fed up with their government and they were tired of being lied to. Indeed, we all are. Well, when Assange released papers that exposed some of those lies from our government (again, OUR government that we pay for), all you hear from the left and the right is that Assange should be prosecuted and this is an act of terrorism and a threat to our national security. So people on the news that we tend to listen to, rant about the same thing, yet when it finally exposes the facts and a leap towards the truth, we instead are supposed to call it an act of terrorism.
I'd go further and say that I completely agree that diplomatic relations between the U.S. and other countries, if indeed it means for the protection of our country, it should be confidential. But I'd also take another Fox News commentator's perspective, Andrew Napolitano, who said yesterday on The Glenn Beck Program that he felt "the thief that steals the document, is the one who commits the crime... the person who disseminates them, as long as they are truthful documents, does not commit the crime..."
I actually agree with his notion. Now Glenn Beck did offer some good points, the fact that Assange has connections with far left liberal groups and individuals like George Soros. But the reasonable point he made was when it came to exposing the Global Warming lies, a liberal newspaper like the New York Times, refused to print those documents. Yet they all jumped on the story of WikiLeaks obtaining U.S. Diplomatic cables.
While those facts do bother me and it certainly shows the 'money trail' I think, it does not bother me enough to know that there are hidden secrets in our Government that the American people have wondered for years and were lied to. For that, I would say it was worth it.
Whatever the outcome may be with Julian Assange, he certainly has shown our Government's lack of honesty, and integrity. What else is new?
I don't think there really is a win or loose with this issue. It paints it all in black and white.
But one day, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this week or next year, we'll finally know the truth to many things that have been going on in our Government. This is still supposed to be a Government by the People and for the People. Not the other way around, as has been depicted in those cables.
Assange has been developing major controversy, ever since his website managed to obtain hundreds of thousands of classified U.S. Department documents (known as cables), from the FBI and CIA. In November, WikiLeaks released many of these cable documents, including the United States relationship with Saudi Arabia and were given to major national newspapers, among them including the New York Times and were published.
And, new cables continue to be published.
The released cables, immediately triggered the search and arrest of Assange.
Since this all started coming down last month, Assange and WikiLeaks have been deemed both a hero and a villain by liberals and conservatives, and vice-versa. His arrest triggered protests from followers in Europe, and even resulted in hacking into MasterCard and Visa, after the credit card companies payment services, including people donating money to the WikiLeaks website.
But the major scrutiny that is going around is what people are thinking of Assange. Perhaps, oddly enough, his most prominent critic is Fox News Channel. While I'd typically classify myself as a viewer of Fox News, I've noticed somewhat of a flip flop at times on issues. This is the same news channel that a year before the Tea Parties had even begun, would not allow Congressman Ron Paul to offer his perspective on our country's problems when he was running for President.
After President Obama was elected, the Tea Parties began, yet this is the same thing that Ron Paul had been advocating the entire time for years... a revolution to take our country back.
But I digress, back to Assange.
My point is when it comes to that kind of flip flopping, I've heard on a number of occasions since early 2009 from Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity that Americans were getting fed up with their government and they were tired of being lied to. Indeed, we all are. Well, when Assange released papers that exposed some of those lies from our government (again, OUR government that we pay for), all you hear from the left and the right is that Assange should be prosecuted and this is an act of terrorism and a threat to our national security. So people on the news that we tend to listen to, rant about the same thing, yet when it finally exposes the facts and a leap towards the truth, we instead are supposed to call it an act of terrorism.
I'd go further and say that I completely agree that diplomatic relations between the U.S. and other countries, if indeed it means for the protection of our country, it should be confidential. But I'd also take another Fox News commentator's perspective, Andrew Napolitano, who said yesterday on The Glenn Beck Program that he felt "the thief that steals the document, is the one who commits the crime... the person who disseminates them, as long as they are truthful documents, does not commit the crime..."
I actually agree with his notion. Now Glenn Beck did offer some good points, the fact that Assange has connections with far left liberal groups and individuals like George Soros. But the reasonable point he made was when it came to exposing the Global Warming lies, a liberal newspaper like the New York Times, refused to print those documents. Yet they all jumped on the story of WikiLeaks obtaining U.S. Diplomatic cables.
While those facts do bother me and it certainly shows the 'money trail' I think, it does not bother me enough to know that there are hidden secrets in our Government that the American people have wondered for years and were lied to. For that, I would say it was worth it.
Whatever the outcome may be with Julian Assange, he certainly has shown our Government's lack of honesty, and integrity. What else is new?
I don't think there really is a win or loose with this issue. It paints it all in black and white.
But one day, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not this week or next year, we'll finally know the truth to many things that have been going on in our Government. This is still supposed to be a Government by the People and for the People. Not the other way around, as has been depicted in those cables.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Obama healthcare bill faces "blood clot"
Today, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia became the first judge thus far to challenge President Obama's historical, yet controversial Health Care Bill that was signed into law earlier this year.
In his ruling, Judge Hudson concluded that the provision of mandating every single American to carry health insurance was unconstitutional, adding that "it is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause".
Yet of course, as always, President Obama remains optimistic, having two Federal Judges ruling that the Health Care Bill is constitutional. I think we can certainly see where this is already going. The Democratic Federal Judges will no doubt serve as rubber stamps of the Obama Administration and rule in favor of the bill, while most likely, the Republican Federal Judges will deem it otherwise.
While the bill is on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we're already seeing that one ruling is forming a 'blood clot' in preventing the Health Care Law from being fully implemented, especially when it comes to the mandate of health insurance, which begins in 2014.
It is a real shame that nobody in Congress nor this Administration even concentrated on the notion of developing the simple 'public option' when it comes to Health Care. What is the problem of developing a system that IF Americans want to pay into it, they have that choice; if they don't, then they shouldn't have too. If they want to keep their own Health Insurance Provider, they should have that choice, if they don't want Health Insurance, then they should have that choice. If they want to choose their own doctor or hospital, they have that right.
But apparently, this never really set into the mind of the President, instead, he found it necessary to go one step further by adding some ridiculous provision that says every single American MUST carry health insurance, and how the Bill would be funded is astounding, considering that the entire country continues to spend money rapidly, and is near bankrupt. Hell, why not try to stop the bleeding there?
I think people could agree on the notion that we believe Health Insurance Companies are indeed dishonest at times, and never fully provide coverage for all medical requirements, but I think the public option would have allowed people what ever choice they wanted when it came to Health Care.
Obviously, if you're a multi-millionaire and you happen to receive some kind of medical treatment, chances are, you do not necessarily need health insurance if you can afford it on your own terms.
But again, it should be entirely up to you... not the Government.
In his ruling, Judge Hudson concluded that the provision of mandating every single American to carry health insurance was unconstitutional, adding that "it is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause".
Yet of course, as always, President Obama remains optimistic, having two Federal Judges ruling that the Health Care Bill is constitutional. I think we can certainly see where this is already going. The Democratic Federal Judges will no doubt serve as rubber stamps of the Obama Administration and rule in favor of the bill, while most likely, the Republican Federal Judges will deem it otherwise.
While the bill is on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we're already seeing that one ruling is forming a 'blood clot' in preventing the Health Care Law from being fully implemented, especially when it comes to the mandate of health insurance, which begins in 2014.
It is a real shame that nobody in Congress nor this Administration even concentrated on the notion of developing the simple 'public option' when it comes to Health Care. What is the problem of developing a system that IF Americans want to pay into it, they have that choice; if they don't, then they shouldn't have too. If they want to keep their own Health Insurance Provider, they should have that choice, if they don't want Health Insurance, then they should have that choice. If they want to choose their own doctor or hospital, they have that right.
But apparently, this never really set into the mind of the President, instead, he found it necessary to go one step further by adding some ridiculous provision that says every single American MUST carry health insurance, and how the Bill would be funded is astounding, considering that the entire country continues to spend money rapidly, and is near bankrupt. Hell, why not try to stop the bleeding there?
I think people could agree on the notion that we believe Health Insurance Companies are indeed dishonest at times, and never fully provide coverage for all medical requirements, but I think the public option would have allowed people what ever choice they wanted when it came to Health Care.
Obviously, if you're a multi-millionaire and you happen to receive some kind of medical treatment, chances are, you do not necessarily need health insurance if you can afford it on your own terms.
But again, it should be entirely up to you... not the Government.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Ron Paul to Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee
Republican/Libertarian Texas Congressman and former Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, one of very (and I mean VERY) few people in our Federal Government that actually supports the Constitution and individual freedom, will become Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy when the new Congress takes control in January.
This means that he will have more power to issue subpoenas on the Federal Reserve, including an audit of the entire organization, which by the way is something that has never been done since it was established in 1913, nearly 100 years ago.
While the new Chairman Paul will need formal approval of both the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee and the newly elected Speaker of the House John Boehner to issue such subpoenas, once they are approved, the American people will finally know the truth as to what the hell has been going in the Federal Reserve System, their monetary and fiscal policies domestically and its relationships with central banks and bailouts to Wall Street firms.
Congressman Paul has been getting support on introducing the audit from even Democrats in the House, including Congressman Allan Greyson of Florida and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
Now Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Weasel Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner say any audit of the Fed would be a bad idea, yet they both have not offered any formal explanation as to why it would be a bad idea.
Are they protecting the globalists? Probably.
Do they not want the American people to know how our monetary and fiscal policies have been handled? Definitely.
Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve was forced to finally release documents involving the bailouts of some of the financial institutions, something that Congressman Paul has been pushing for quite some time. The information is breathtaking. Goldman Sachs took out $18 billion in credit from the Federal Reserve over the course of 84 times, Deutsche Bank of Germany sold the Fed over $290 billion in mortgage securities, while Credit Suisse of Switzerland sold $280 billion, and also provided assistance to firms including Bear Stearns and American International Group.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'd suspect that if the subpoenas are approved, and I hope and pray that they are, and an investigation is completed into the Federal Reserve's operations, there will be more of an uprising of many angry Americans.
This means that he will have more power to issue subpoenas on the Federal Reserve, including an audit of the entire organization, which by the way is something that has never been done since it was established in 1913, nearly 100 years ago.
While the new Chairman Paul will need formal approval of both the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee and the newly elected Speaker of the House John Boehner to issue such subpoenas, once they are approved, the American people will finally know the truth as to what the hell has been going in the Federal Reserve System, their monetary and fiscal policies domestically and its relationships with central banks and bailouts to Wall Street firms.
Congressman Paul has been getting support on introducing the audit from even Democrats in the House, including Congressman Allan Greyson of Florida and Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
Now Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Weasel Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner say any audit of the Fed would be a bad idea, yet they both have not offered any formal explanation as to why it would be a bad idea.
Are they protecting the globalists? Probably.
Do they not want the American people to know how our monetary and fiscal policies have been handled? Definitely.
Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve was forced to finally release documents involving the bailouts of some of the financial institutions, something that Congressman Paul has been pushing for quite some time. The information is breathtaking. Goldman Sachs took out $18 billion in credit from the Federal Reserve over the course of 84 times, Deutsche Bank of Germany sold the Fed over $290 billion in mortgage securities, while Credit Suisse of Switzerland sold $280 billion, and also provided assistance to firms including Bear Stearns and American International Group.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'd suspect that if the subpoenas are approved, and I hope and pray that they are, and an investigation is completed into the Federal Reserve's operations, there will be more of an uprising of many angry Americans.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
U.S. and Canada expanding NAFTA?
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is a trade deal between U.S., Canada and Mexico, is apparently being expanded... at least between us and our Northern brothers... can't say the same for our neighbors to the south. How's that drug cartel business working out for you?
According to Reuters, the new expansion of NAFTA is a trade deal called "The New Border Vision" and it will involve the U.S. and Canada in the process of developing a new trade deal and security that would allow both goods and people to flow more easily when both countries trade.
Isn't it interesting that free trade also allows people to come through the borders more easily, but when you're at an airport, you're hassled constantly by TSA agents?
For those not familiar with NAFTA, this agreement was signed in January, 1994 by President Clinton between all three North American countries and was expanded by President Bush in 2007 with the "Security and Prosperity Partnership", something that did not even receive input from Congress or American voters, nor input from the people of Canada and Mexico.
The basic premise of NAFTA has always been to eliminate virtually all tariffs on bilateral trade between Canada and the United States, and non-tariff trade barriers on goods originating within North America. Despite the fact that it generates a GDP of about $13 trillion, the agreement has more "liberal" rules regarding government procedures, open borders, granting subsidies and imposition of countervailing duties.
The idea of reducing border security just for the simple notion of allowing "free-trade" in North America is pretty frightening, and something that has not been enforced under President Obama's administration.
There have been critics on both sides of the issue indicating for a long time that the expansion of NAFTA is one step further in establishing a North American Union, much like the European Union and the African Union. Stanley Fischer, a former deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund at one time stated "As trade relations between Mexico and the U.S. strengthen and as the economies open up to each other, I think having two currencies won't make a great deal of sense."
If only that were true for Mexico. While the U.S. and Canada work together on its relationship involving free trade expansion, it is also in the process of implementing Mexico into that plan, but addressing more serious issues simply because Mexico basically HAS NO economy due to the drug cartel violence. With the new relationship the U.S. is hoping to work out with Mexico, it vows to help "fight crime and develop efficient flow of legal commerce and travel".
On Monday, December 13th, the foreign ministers of all three countries will meet in Canada to discuss the so called "New Border Vision Deal" and further expansion of NAFTA.
We'll see how that works out.
According to Reuters, the new expansion of NAFTA is a trade deal called "The New Border Vision" and it will involve the U.S. and Canada in the process of developing a new trade deal and security that would allow both goods and people to flow more easily when both countries trade.
Isn't it interesting that free trade also allows people to come through the borders more easily, but when you're at an airport, you're hassled constantly by TSA agents?
For those not familiar with NAFTA, this agreement was signed in January, 1994 by President Clinton between all three North American countries and was expanded by President Bush in 2007 with the "Security and Prosperity Partnership", something that did not even receive input from Congress or American voters, nor input from the people of Canada and Mexico.
The basic premise of NAFTA has always been to eliminate virtually all tariffs on bilateral trade between Canada and the United States, and non-tariff trade barriers on goods originating within North America. Despite the fact that it generates a GDP of about $13 trillion, the agreement has more "liberal" rules regarding government procedures, open borders, granting subsidies and imposition of countervailing duties.
The idea of reducing border security just for the simple notion of allowing "free-trade" in North America is pretty frightening, and something that has not been enforced under President Obama's administration.
There have been critics on both sides of the issue indicating for a long time that the expansion of NAFTA is one step further in establishing a North American Union, much like the European Union and the African Union. Stanley Fischer, a former deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund at one time stated "As trade relations between Mexico and the U.S. strengthen and as the economies open up to each other, I think having two currencies won't make a great deal of sense."
If only that were true for Mexico. While the U.S. and Canada work together on its relationship involving free trade expansion, it is also in the process of implementing Mexico into that plan, but addressing more serious issues simply because Mexico basically HAS NO economy due to the drug cartel violence. With the new relationship the U.S. is hoping to work out with Mexico, it vows to help "fight crime and develop efficient flow of legal commerce and travel".
On Monday, December 13th, the foreign ministers of all three countries will meet in Canada to discuss the so called "New Border Vision Deal" and further expansion of NAFTA.
We'll see how that works out.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
H.R. Bill 645, FEMA camps
While the interest in conspiracy theories is fascinating, this is one particular subject that goes beyond 'conspiracy' and is rather an 'agenda' that is currently in the process of being implemented.
President Obama's open borders policy and the Federal Government's constant ignorance on our immigration laws is perhaps a larger part of such an agenda than what we might think. There is a House Bill current in a subcommittee of Congress that could ultimately end the United States and our sovereignty altogether, and has had no input from American voters.
House of Representatives Bill 645, which was formally introduced on January 22nd, 2009, is to give entire authority to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, to establish National Emergency Centers (or FEMA camps) on military installations. The basic premise of the bill is to enforce Martial Law from the Military and Police Force, if needed, upon the American people in the event of a major event or disaster, and that emergency centers will be set up to provide necessities to people, affected by such events. Under Section 2, Provision 4 of the bill, it will "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security".
Under Section 5 of the Bill, it authorizes $180,000,000 for each fiscal years from 2009 and 2010 to carry out such act. Despite the fact that the Bill is under consideration, how interesting it is to know that this is how our tax money would be allocated, and yet we have no say in it, and we are not allowed to obtain answers about it either.
In the last several years, there have been minor reports about FEMA camps, which look much like any state or federal prison, but they are supposedly administered by FEMA in the event of a disaster. The camps themselves are mentioned in H.R. 645 as being such "National Emergency Centers" and FEMA will have six of these camps in ten regional zones. This means, according to the bill, the United States will be divided up into ten different regions.
On January 11th, 2010, President Obama, by Executive Order Section 1 called for a "Council of Governors" which will effectively oversee each of those ten regions.
In a recent episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura which airs on TruTV, the former actor/wrestler and former Minnesota Governor Ventura, confronted Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee who is a co-sponsor of H.R. 645. Governor Ventura straightforwardly asked Congressman Cohen about the FEMA camps. Congressman Cohen refused to answer any questions about the details and replied simply "they don't exist".
When confronted with the Bill itself, the Congressman then stated:"well I think I recall now something about this, and if I am correct I think those are locations for if there's a disaster like Katrina I think that's what it is, not a concentration camp, or anything to round up citizens..."
One would think that the Congressman, who actually co-sponsored such a bill, would at least know what was described in the bill from the beginning.
Shortly after this episode aired on TruTV, the Government reportedly demanded that the network pull it from television, which they did. Another attempt to silence people from finding the truth, and yet nobody in the mainstream media is talking about it.
However, the Congressman's notion that the FEMA camps specified in H.R. 645 are designed only in emergency situations like another Hurricane Katrina or a major epidemic, it does leave some questions involving immigration. It is not a mystery that this country is harboring tens of millions of illegal aliens, and the President's reluctance to do anything with the Mexican border has left some disturbing implications. While the drug cartel violence continues to increase in Mexico, with an open border, one has to ask the question as to how long can the United States will continue to be able to sustain itself with millions of illegal aliens, before we ultimately collapse.
Could these camps simply be set up for population control, as was the disturbing case of concentration camps in Nazi Germany?
Are the American people truly going to stand around and put up with this, from a group of elites enforcing intervention of our Constitution and our laws?
I hope this is not the case.
President Obama's open borders policy and the Federal Government's constant ignorance on our immigration laws is perhaps a larger part of such an agenda than what we might think. There is a House Bill current in a subcommittee of Congress that could ultimately end the United States and our sovereignty altogether, and has had no input from American voters.
House of Representatives Bill 645, which was formally introduced on January 22nd, 2009, is to give entire authority to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, to establish National Emergency Centers (or FEMA camps) on military installations. The basic premise of the bill is to enforce Martial Law from the Military and Police Force, if needed, upon the American people in the event of a major event or disaster, and that emergency centers will be set up to provide necessities to people, affected by such events. Under Section 2, Provision 4 of the bill, it will "meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security".
Under Section 5 of the Bill, it authorizes $180,000,000 for each fiscal years from 2009 and 2010 to carry out such act. Despite the fact that the Bill is under consideration, how interesting it is to know that this is how our tax money would be allocated, and yet we have no say in it, and we are not allowed to obtain answers about it either.
In the last several years, there have been minor reports about FEMA camps, which look much like any state or federal prison, but they are supposedly administered by FEMA in the event of a disaster. The camps themselves are mentioned in H.R. 645 as being such "National Emergency Centers" and FEMA will have six of these camps in ten regional zones. This means, according to the bill, the United States will be divided up into ten different regions.
On January 11th, 2010, President Obama, by Executive Order Section 1 called for a "Council of Governors" which will effectively oversee each of those ten regions.
In a recent episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura which airs on TruTV, the former actor/wrestler and former Minnesota Governor Ventura, confronted Congressman Steve Cohen of Tennessee who is a co-sponsor of H.R. 645. Governor Ventura straightforwardly asked Congressman Cohen about the FEMA camps. Congressman Cohen refused to answer any questions about the details and replied simply "they don't exist".
When confronted with the Bill itself, the Congressman then stated:"well I think I recall now something about this, and if I am correct I think those are locations for if there's a disaster like Katrina I think that's what it is, not a concentration camp, or anything to round up citizens..."
One would think that the Congressman, who actually co-sponsored such a bill, would at least know what was described in the bill from the beginning.
Shortly after this episode aired on TruTV, the Government reportedly demanded that the network pull it from television, which they did. Another attempt to silence people from finding the truth, and yet nobody in the mainstream media is talking about it.
However, the Congressman's notion that the FEMA camps specified in H.R. 645 are designed only in emergency situations like another Hurricane Katrina or a major epidemic, it does leave some questions involving immigration. It is not a mystery that this country is harboring tens of millions of illegal aliens, and the President's reluctance to do anything with the Mexican border has left some disturbing implications. While the drug cartel violence continues to increase in Mexico, with an open border, one has to ask the question as to how long can the United States will continue to be able to sustain itself with millions of illegal aliens, before we ultimately collapse.
Could these camps simply be set up for population control, as was the disturbing case of concentration camps in Nazi Germany?
Are the American people truly going to stand around and put up with this, from a group of elites enforcing intervention of our Constitution and our laws?
I hope this is not the case.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
FCC trying to regulate News Media
As much as I can't stand MSNBC or the bickering Fox News has with that network, the idea of the Federal Communications Commission attempting to regulate the news media, including freedom of the press is a simple violation of Constitutional rights. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, Bloomberg, they all have freedom to exercise their right to report news to the American people and to those all over the world. Not to mention, they're all owned by major corporations... it's called capitalism.
But apparently, the current people in our Federal Government have been lacking knowledge in that department for the better half of the two years thus far. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, maybe fed up with the bickering between Fox and MSNBC, decided to sit down for an interview with Katty Kay of BBC Washington and stated:
"It's a pretty serious situation that we are in... we're not producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue, we're not producing as much news as we did five ten, fifteen years ago and we have to reverse that trend or I think we are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need in order to make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country..."
Who in the hell cares about what Commissioner Copps thinks? The news media has First Amendment rights just like everyone else in this country, granted all news organizations should uphold ethical journalist practices, and have facts, not falsifying those facts. There is also a greater difference between traditional news and the commentators on the networks. I think Mr. Copps beef is primarily with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and maybe Jack Cafferty on CNN.
But why is he so committed to regulating or possibly silencing the news media? The only real rational answer to this question is that perhaps Mr. Copps does not want the American public to know about what is really going on in their country.
In fact, probably more Americans are happy with the news that they get today. Not only does the traditional cable news network provide sources of information, but the internet is the principal place to get breaking news stories. Is Mr. Copps going to start regulating the internet? Quite frankly, the American people can get they're news from wherever they choose, and it is not Mr. Copps interest nor should it be up to his decision to tell people what kind of news and/or news commentators we should listen to.
Most of this comes into place ever since Senator Jay Rockefeller publicly criticized both Fox News and MSNBC wishing that both of those news network be shut down simply to improve political discourse. Senator Rockefeller wanted the FCC to handle this, but failed to do his homework since the FCC only handles broadcast airways, and not cable airways.
But now, Mr. Copps seems to want to expand the FCC's role in the regulation of ALL airways, not just broadcast.
More Government control...? I think so.
But apparently, the current people in our Federal Government have been lacking knowledge in that department for the better half of the two years thus far. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, maybe fed up with the bickering between Fox and MSNBC, decided to sit down for an interview with Katty Kay of BBC Washington and stated:
"It's a pretty serious situation that we are in... we're not producing the body of news and information that democracy needs to conduct its civic dialogue, we're not producing as much news as we did five ten, fifteen years ago and we have to reverse that trend or I think we are going to be pretty close to denying our citizens the essential news and information that they need in order to make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country..."
Who in the hell cares about what Commissioner Copps thinks? The news media has First Amendment rights just like everyone else in this country, granted all news organizations should uphold ethical journalist practices, and have facts, not falsifying those facts. There is also a greater difference between traditional news and the commentators on the networks. I think Mr. Copps beef is primarily with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and maybe Jack Cafferty on CNN.
But why is he so committed to regulating or possibly silencing the news media? The only real rational answer to this question is that perhaps Mr. Copps does not want the American public to know about what is really going on in their country.
In fact, probably more Americans are happy with the news that they get today. Not only does the traditional cable news network provide sources of information, but the internet is the principal place to get breaking news stories. Is Mr. Copps going to start regulating the internet? Quite frankly, the American people can get they're news from wherever they choose, and it is not Mr. Copps interest nor should it be up to his decision to tell people what kind of news and/or news commentators we should listen to.
Most of this comes into place ever since Senator Jay Rockefeller publicly criticized both Fox News and MSNBC wishing that both of those news network be shut down simply to improve political discourse. Senator Rockefeller wanted the FCC to handle this, but failed to do his homework since the FCC only handles broadcast airways, and not cable airways.
But now, Mr. Copps seems to want to expand the FCC's role in the regulation of ALL airways, not just broadcast.
More Government control...? I think so.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Worse than Watergate, Saudis financing Terrorism
What has to be worse than Watergate and the secrets uncovered during the Bush Administration over the War in Iraq, another released U.S. diplomatic cable from WikiLeaks indicates that Saudi Arabia is the world's largest financier of radical Islamic terrorism groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Incredible.
In one of the memos from December 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that "more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Hamas which probably raises millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources... Saudi Arabia constitutes the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide..."
This is a country that is supposed to be the United States' ally in the Middle East. I'm curious as to how long Mrs. Clinton was going to fool the American people by going on propagating this charade of pretending to be friendly to Saudi Arabia, even though she had direct knowledge in these secret cables that the country was financing terrorism this entire time.
Here's just a side of advice for the Madam Secretary... resign!
The cable does indicate that Saudi Arabia has been attempting to block financing to terrorist networks in the Middle East, and also went to cite Arabia's bordering country, tiny little Qatar, another ally, as being the "worst in the region" concerning its counter-terrorism relationship with the United States.
Perhaps Qatar, even though as small of a country as it is with the billions of dollars it has in resources as a kingdom, has the capabilities to deal with terrorist threats. But perhaps it is resistant to do so, because of Saudi Arabia's now leaked relationship in financing millions of dollars to these terrorist organizations that are committed to destroying Israel and the United States.
I'd suspect and would not be entirely surprised that the Middle Eastern region is nearly on the verge of breaking out into a massive war. Iraq is a disaster area, U.S. troops have been unsuccessful in their attempts to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Iran has a nuclear program bent on whipping Israel off the face of the Earth and now Saudi Arabia one of few Middle East allies of the U.S. is financing terrorism throughout the entire region, while Secretary Clinton feels it was necessary to keep all of this completely secret from the American people.
It is just disgraceful.
Incredible.
In one of the memos from December 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that "more needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Hamas which probably raises millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources... Saudi Arabia constitutes the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide..."
This is a country that is supposed to be the United States' ally in the Middle East. I'm curious as to how long Mrs. Clinton was going to fool the American people by going on propagating this charade of pretending to be friendly to Saudi Arabia, even though she had direct knowledge in these secret cables that the country was financing terrorism this entire time.
Here's just a side of advice for the Madam Secretary... resign!
The cable does indicate that Saudi Arabia has been attempting to block financing to terrorist networks in the Middle East, and also went to cite Arabia's bordering country, tiny little Qatar, another ally, as being the "worst in the region" concerning its counter-terrorism relationship with the United States.
Perhaps Qatar, even though as small of a country as it is with the billions of dollars it has in resources as a kingdom, has the capabilities to deal with terrorist threats. But perhaps it is resistant to do so, because of Saudi Arabia's now leaked relationship in financing millions of dollars to these terrorist organizations that are committed to destroying Israel and the United States.
I'd suspect and would not be entirely surprised that the Middle Eastern region is nearly on the verge of breaking out into a massive war. Iraq is a disaster area, U.S. troops have been unsuccessful in their attempts to capture Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Iran has a nuclear program bent on whipping Israel off the face of the Earth and now Saudi Arabia one of few Middle East allies of the U.S. is financing terrorism throughout the entire region, while Secretary Clinton feels it was necessary to keep all of this completely secret from the American people.
It is just disgraceful.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Unemployment rises to 9.8%
The unemployment rate in the United States rose to 9.8% from 9.6% this month, and it is starting to send warning signs throughout Washington. Whether or not they will actually pay any attention to the warning signs remains unclear since they've been ignorant on virtually everything else.
Economists were hoping to be more optimistic as they were predicting 150,000 new jobs, while only 39,000 jobs were actually created in the month of November alone. According to the Labor Department, for the month of November, 17% of the labor force is "underemployed", 1.3 million people are simply given up looking for work because jobs are not available as retail firms slashed 28,000 positions, factories eliminated 13,000 and the public sector 11,000. The businesses that were hiring are re-employing either retired individuals or those over the age of 50 because they have the experience and not utilizing college graduates.
The total people unemployed for the month of November is 15.1 million.
Despite the fact that economists believe the economy grew, but way "too slowly", they believe it is imperative that the economy needs to continue to rebound. The only problem is when you have a completely incompetent and ineffective Deficit Commission that cannot agree to they're own plan about extending the Bush tax cuts, or letting them expire, how in the world can one even think about growing the economy?
What is really shocking is that despite the millions of Americans suffering in this country from unemployment, many of the President's far-left liberal supporters say the Bush tax cuts should just expire, and allow the largest tax increase in our nation's history to be paid by those earning more than the average person. Again, this comes back to the President's plan of the redistribution of wealth, and far-left America wants this simply because as things continue to get worse, they will look for the Government to support them.
I don't believe that was the initial intention when our Government was formed some 234 years ago.
As if the rise in joblessness in this country was not enough, the benefits to the unemployed expired because Congress failed to extend them, and more than 2 million Americans will loose their unemployment benefits by the end of this month.
What are all of these people suppose to do when they have nothing left?
I'll choose a quote from Gerald Celente, an expert trends forecaster, who has commonly said: "when people have nothing left to loose, they loose it".
I'm inclined to agree with him, if things don't start shaping up this nation.
Economists were hoping to be more optimistic as they were predicting 150,000 new jobs, while only 39,000 jobs were actually created in the month of November alone. According to the Labor Department, for the month of November, 17% of the labor force is "underemployed", 1.3 million people are simply given up looking for work because jobs are not available as retail firms slashed 28,000 positions, factories eliminated 13,000 and the public sector 11,000. The businesses that were hiring are re-employing either retired individuals or those over the age of 50 because they have the experience and not utilizing college graduates.
The total people unemployed for the month of November is 15.1 million.
Despite the fact that economists believe the economy grew, but way "too slowly", they believe it is imperative that the economy needs to continue to rebound. The only problem is when you have a completely incompetent and ineffective Deficit Commission that cannot agree to they're own plan about extending the Bush tax cuts, or letting them expire, how in the world can one even think about growing the economy?
What is really shocking is that despite the millions of Americans suffering in this country from unemployment, many of the President's far-left liberal supporters say the Bush tax cuts should just expire, and allow the largest tax increase in our nation's history to be paid by those earning more than the average person. Again, this comes back to the President's plan of the redistribution of wealth, and far-left America wants this simply because as things continue to get worse, they will look for the Government to support them.
I don't believe that was the initial intention when our Government was formed some 234 years ago.
As if the rise in joblessness in this country was not enough, the benefits to the unemployed expired because Congress failed to extend them, and more than 2 million Americans will loose their unemployment benefits by the end of this month.
What are all of these people suppose to do when they have nothing left?
I'll choose a quote from Gerald Celente, an expert trends forecaster, who has commonly said: "when people have nothing left to loose, they loose it".
I'm inclined to agree with him, if things don't start shaping up this nation.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Hugo Chavez is an "axis of mischief"
In the hundreds of thousands of classified State Department documents that WikiLeaks released earlier this week, one of those memos dating as far back as 2006, indicates that the United States views Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as an "Axis of Mischief", instead of what former President Bush named on his "Axis of Evil" list.
This particular released memo (or cable) discusses Venezuela's close relationship with Iran, hatred against Israel, Cuba assisting Chavez in anti-US intelligence services and to eventually establish nuclear plans which Russia agreed to support earlier this year in supplying a nuclear reactor plant.
Yet in the last few years while President Bush called Chavez nothing more than a 'clown' and President Obama not giving much concern either, the United States has sat in denial mode about Venezuela's plans and the relationships it has developed with some of our not-to-friendly enemies.
I suppose if you're only paying little attention to this country's agenda, one could see the U.S. calling it as "simple mischief".
Really?
The leaked document went on to further say that Chavez actually relies heavily on Cuban intelligence, than his own country's intelligence force. You may recall how much hatred Cuba had against the United States in the 1960's during incidents like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd suspect that hatred is still around today.
But perhaps the most intriguing of all is Venezuela's continued relationship with Iran. What is an almost sickening "me and you" moments are the pictures of Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hugging each other and getting comfortable with their friendship. Well, this friendship is apparently sending shock-waves among Venezuela's Jewish community, seeing Iran's resentment against Israel and now from Venezuela.
Chavez of course claims that his words against Israel are not anti-Semitic, after he broke relations in 2009.
Quite disturbing I have to say. But the U.S. is still barely expressing even a minor concern.
Does anyone remember Adolph Hitler's plan with Jewish communities in Nazi Germany?
This particular released memo (or cable) discusses Venezuela's close relationship with Iran, hatred against Israel, Cuba assisting Chavez in anti-US intelligence services and to eventually establish nuclear plans which Russia agreed to support earlier this year in supplying a nuclear reactor plant.
Yet in the last few years while President Bush called Chavez nothing more than a 'clown' and President Obama not giving much concern either, the United States has sat in denial mode about Venezuela's plans and the relationships it has developed with some of our not-to-friendly enemies.
I suppose if you're only paying little attention to this country's agenda, one could see the U.S. calling it as "simple mischief".
Really?
The leaked document went on to further say that Chavez actually relies heavily on Cuban intelligence, than his own country's intelligence force. You may recall how much hatred Cuba had against the United States in the 1960's during incidents like the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd suspect that hatred is still around today.
But perhaps the most intriguing of all is Venezuela's continued relationship with Iran. What is an almost sickening "me and you" moments are the pictures of Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hugging each other and getting comfortable with their friendship. Well, this friendship is apparently sending shock-waves among Venezuela's Jewish community, seeing Iran's resentment against Israel and now from Venezuela.
Chavez of course claims that his words against Israel are not anti-Semitic, after he broke relations in 2009.
Quite disturbing I have to say. But the U.S. is still barely expressing even a minor concern.
Does anyone remember Adolph Hitler's plan with Jewish communities in Nazi Germany?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Republicans to block bill, until tax cuts extended
Considered bold by some, Republican Senate leaders have all come together (yes, all 42 of them) to block all current and future legislation until the tax cuts are extended and they can agree on a bill that will properly fund the Federal Government.
While President Obama is in a crisis mode, trying to figure out how to address the situation, Republican Senators remain firm on the matter wanting to only concentrate their efforts on the tax and spending bills before the end of the year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says all Democratic Senators are doing is simply "ignoring" what the voters decided on in the Midterm elections.
Democratic Senators lead by Majority Leader Harry Reid, say the pack is threatening their attempts to lift controversial legislation such as allowing openly gay members to serve in the military, and the DREAM Act, a Congressional measure to allow illegal aliens under the age of 16 a path to citizenship, and to go to college.
Republicans overwhelmingly do not support the DREAM Act because they say it is simply a form of amnesty. The measure seems more or less, targeted at a majority of Latinos and Hispanics who support the measure, yet even special interest groups have begun to criticize Senator Reid and President Obama for simply not doing enough to support the DREAM Act, and to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, which Republicans want as remaining legislation.
Its nothing that we have not seen before in partisan politics, but we can definitively see why it is called the 'Lame Duck Congress'... You'll have one party saying no, and the other party saying yes, and with no compromise.
But probably the most important issue is the tax cuts themselves. Too many people are struggling and cannot deal with being taxed to death any longer. That should be the top priority among the Senate, not the DREAM Act and not the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.
While President Obama is in a crisis mode, trying to figure out how to address the situation, Republican Senators remain firm on the matter wanting to only concentrate their efforts on the tax and spending bills before the end of the year. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says all Democratic Senators are doing is simply "ignoring" what the voters decided on in the Midterm elections.
Democratic Senators lead by Majority Leader Harry Reid, say the pack is threatening their attempts to lift controversial legislation such as allowing openly gay members to serve in the military, and the DREAM Act, a Congressional measure to allow illegal aliens under the age of 16 a path to citizenship, and to go to college.
Republicans overwhelmingly do not support the DREAM Act because they say it is simply a form of amnesty. The measure seems more or less, targeted at a majority of Latinos and Hispanics who support the measure, yet even special interest groups have begun to criticize Senator Reid and President Obama for simply not doing enough to support the DREAM Act, and to repeal the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy, which Republicans want as remaining legislation.
Its nothing that we have not seen before in partisan politics, but we can definitively see why it is called the 'Lame Duck Congress'... You'll have one party saying no, and the other party saying yes, and with no compromise.
But probably the most important issue is the tax cuts themselves. Too many people are struggling and cannot deal with being taxed to death any longer. That should be the top priority among the Senate, not the DREAM Act and not the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)